Crowfall

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!

shabushabu

Molten Core Raider
1,408
185
I totally disagree. I think the people who prefer an old school game like eq are the minority here now a days. Forced grouping has gotten a bad rep. Just my opinion tho. Lots of people want to play a solo game in a mmo universe.
Its been so long since grouping was fun for me in MMOs, I just don't play MMos anymore. If i wanted to play alone, i would play solo RPGs like i do (currently playing wasteland2 which is fantastic). I have no hope left that we will see a real group based game again... its all about the solo experience but I for one will never get it.
 

Convo

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
8,766
617
Its been so long since grouping was fun for me in MMOs, I just don't play MMos anymore. If i wanted to play alone, i would play solo RPGs like i do (currently playing wasteland2 which is fantastic). I have no hope left that we will see a real group based game again... its all about the solo experience but I for one will never get it.
Actually, and UT has said this a lot over the years, things go full circle and I think they have started to. There are a lot of small studios going old school. It's only a matter of time before someone does it right. The tools to make games are becoming increasingly easier for your avg person to use. It could possibly be happening right now with a small dev team. I know there a few interesting indie pve games in early development. It's just a wait and see.

Also. Just make Eql like unity and move out of the way already. Eql seems to be taking a long ass turn around what should be a narrow path. I'd rather just get the engine and all the tools that come with it to make my own game.
 

Draegan_sl

2 Minutes Hate
10,034
3
I didn't like grouping in GW2 because it wasn't really cohesive grouping due to not reliance on other characters. The trinity isn't the only way to have a cohesive group but it really does make sense.
I wasn't talking about group dynamics but the way it allowed fo people to get together more fluidly.

GW2 had shitty group mechanics I agree but you can adapt that methodology to alot of things.
 

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
47,300
80,505
I wasn't talking about group dynamics but the way it allowed fo people to get together more fluidly.

GW2 had shitty group mechanics I agree but you can adapt that methodology to alot of things.
Yeah it was fluid, but only fluid because the group mechanics weren't cohesive. Everyone was a mix of DPS, heals, CC and mitigation. So you could pair 5 people together and they'd function well.

The downside of this was that you weren't really grouping or interacting with each other at a gameplay or social level. You were just occupying the same space for a short period of time. In order for a community to develop from these grouping experiences, people have to be forced to socialize, depend on each other, work with each other at a gameplay level, trust each other and have their trust betrayed.

It's like the difference between being on a bowling team and being on a volleyball team.
 

Mr Creed

Too old for this shit
2,385
277
Well maybe I'm wrong. Who here likes forced grouping? and by forced grouping I mean that after the newbie or intermediate zones the PVE is difficult enough to require 2-3 people to progress at a good pace.
I wouldnt answer that with a definitive yes, but I very much want grouping to matter. A game has to feature solo content these days, and I wouldnt play one that ionly offers the choice between grouping or dick-in-hand at the dungeon entrance. Seeing that other player while doing outdoor content should encourage you to team up because it's worth it, even if just a short time. I do like how GW2 rarely makes you regret that another player is doing stuff near you, and usually other people are a boon and not baggage. Although that game has other flaws with regards to grouping and generally the outdoor content is faceroll or zerg with little in between those extremes. Ideally, players should be able to solo some content meant for that, but make it challenging or slightly inefficient. It shouldnt feel pointless but very much encourage you to seek out that other guy doing the same content you do, instead of avoiding/ignoring him whenever you can.
 

Caliane

Avatar of War Slayer
15,312
11,586
Its been so long since grouping was fun for me in MMOs, I just don't play MMos anymore. If i wanted to play alone, i would play solo RPGs like i do (currently playing wasteland2 which is fantastic). I have no hope left that we will see a real group based game again... its all about the solo experience but I for one will never get it.
I tend to play alone. My play times just do not work well with others. And when I do play, being forced to play with idiots can be annoying. everyone in your party might have a different agenda. you want a leisurely dungeon crawl, they want to farm gold, skip bosses they don't care about, etc.

the main issue I see, is not even that all these games focus on making MMO's solo, which you are not wrong about. but worse, they go about it in totally the wrong way.
gw2 did some decent work with its DE events and automatically sharing of exp. everyone is essentially automatically partied. joining up to do things happens super casually in that. like my story in the gw2 thread about the people that helped me with the jumping puzzle last week. the game naturally encourages everyone to join together.

But the real issue I wanted to point out, is the difference between playing together and community.
Like, being forced to play WITH someone literally in a 5man, 10man, etc is playing together. And is that really what everyone needs?
You say you can get solo play in solo rpgs. But again, the community aspect is the core. and the thing really few games have nailed recently.

Like, I as a solo player have little to no influence on the community, game world, etc. THAT is the problem many games fail at.
Way back when in UO. I could mine, and sell my iron, etc to guilds, high end crafters, who all needed it far then even my solo blacksmith/miner did. In most games now the closet you come to interaction is just the AH. and even that is just the UI essentially..

Gw2 almost had something like that, with the Jumping puzzles chests and "donating" to the guild that did the mesmer portals for you. As a solo player, the fuck do I need an omega golem pattern for? THAT kind of shit, should be the norm. gw2 has guild banners, which again, lets guilds give buffs to everyone... but what value does "everyone" have for the guild? Imagine every jumping puzzle in gw2 gave seige weapon patterns. Tuco, would PRX have not been running them, and escorting new players, etc through them as well? which is where pvp games fuck up.

Solo players should be a commodity for guilds, etc. Maybe the fealty system here will be this. As a solo player, I should provide something valuable to guilds, so that even if I am not in their guild, they actively want to protect me, and benefit from my existence. And other guilds may potentially try to recruit me away from their protection.
I as a solo player should harvest/generate/collect far more materials then I can use in solo play. some maybe even outright have no use for at all. While guilds should have a need for those materials in excess of what they can personally harvest/generate/collect. And it needs to be key that these are exchanged via trade, and not hunting the solo players.


I should note, GW2 while encouraging everyone to join in its pve, does fail at one of the opposite aspects for the same reason.
As, I've also said, fighting over resources is by FAR the best pvp experience in WoW. Fighting over thorium, herb nodes, etc. gw2 kills that totally by having all nodes unique to you. even the ones in WvW.
 

Byr

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
3,797
5,416
Well maybe I'm wrong. Who here likes forced grouping? and by forced grouping I mean that after the newbie or intermediate zones the PVE is difficult enough to require 2-3 people to progress at a good pace.
ill +1 the grouping but ive long since abandoned hope for it.
 

Muligan

Trakanon Raider
3,231
901
In regards to PvP, I just want it to be meaningful. No beating around the bush about it...

I would like to see PvP be for control. If you control maybe Capital City A then this gives you access to certain raids, merchants, rested experience (taverns), etc. If you don't have this capital and associated lands then you must reside in a lesser kingdom with maybe 1 raid, scaled back dungeons/rewards, lands where resources are less plentiful, no marketplace, etc. Essentially you fight for the greatest glory. Otherwise you live in the shadow to feed on the scraps.

Maybe that's a bit extreme but I would want PvP, if an integral part of the game, to be the motivating factor and provide the greatest reward. Imagine in this system if Qeynos was the greatest city and by own that all the adjacent lands became your guards making all other factions KoS, thus making it difficult to get to certain dungeons and/or areas that are efficient for leveling and gearing. Expansions could add other continents/kingdoms that everyone would fight over so they get dungeon and raid opportunities where the losing factions gets much less.

For those not wanting such a harsh ruleset, just make your two kingdoms equal or make the opposing side AI somehow where all factions try to maintain their kingdom so they can grow and develop.
 

Vitality

HUSTLE
5,808
30
The devs said no raid mobs in this game. Also I'd rather not have Warhammer online version 2.
 
Like, I as a solo player have little to no influence on the community, game world, etc. THAT is the problem many games fail at. Way back when in UO. I could mine, and sell my iron, etc to guilds, high end crafters, who all needed it far then even my solo blacksmith/miner did. In most games now the closest you come to interaction is just the AH. and even that is just the UI essentially..

Solo players should be a commodity for guilds, etc. Maybe the fealty system here will be this. As a solo player, I should provide something valuable to guilds, so that even if I am not in their guild, they actively want to protect me, and benefit from my existence. And other guilds may potentially try to recruit me away from their protection.

I as a solo player should harvest/generate/collect far more materials then I can use in solo play. some maybe even outright have no use for at all. While guilds should have a need for those materials in excess of what they can personally harvest/generate/collect. And it needs to be key that these are exchanged via trade, and not hunting the solo players.
They've said that assuming you control a mining area and you are always winning battles, the amount of resources it provides will be turned down. The idea is that if you are are at an advantage, it would be balanced so that you couldn't permanently have that advantage.

I don't see how solo play wouldn't be viable. You join a decent guild, gather your stuff solo or with the protection of a guild, and do your own thing. Provided you give back to the guild for a little bit of your time.
 

Grumpus

Molten Core Raider
1,927
223
In old school runescape the best resources were situated in a full loot pvp area around high level npcs. I remember the highest skill smith in the game having teams of pvp bodyguards protecting him so he could mine efficiently. And then they had to journey to safety together.

This created tense situations where teams of people would hunt these groups. And it all happened organically. It caused notierity and lasting friends as a result.

Pvp for me needs harsh consequence high rewards. Unfortunatly with that you cant have fast travel and other things that people are accustomed to.
 

Kirun

Buzzfeed Editor
19,233
15,623
If this works out I'm on board so far. My only worry with full loot games is the amount of farming shit to keep stocked. IE, if 'dying' is as easy as it is in other games but you are like 'oh shit there go my bracers again' and it's more logistics than gameplay it will be tiring after awhile.
This is exactly why EVE is referred to as the "spreadsheet" MMO. It actually has some decent gameplay elements, but they all take a backseat to the logistics of the game. And once logistics become the most important aspect, the gameplay is ignored and it all just devolves into spreadsheets as the "game".

I'm afraid this game is either going to turn into that, or just be a giant pile of empty promises by devs looking to recreate the "glory days" using a lot of oldschool buzzwords.

Believe it or not a box price is a hurdle for trying a game out and honestly has no bearing on how the game really is.
This. Ever since devs have almost entirely done away with demos (or started charging for them, as is the case with many early access games), F2P has been a godsend to gamers like myself who refuse to "pay before I try". Even EQ - a friend let me borrow his account for a week before I decided it was something I wanted to purchase. F2P allows you to experience the core systems a game has to offer before you start shelling out cash. Many people would call that cheap, but I consider it being a smart consumer. Just look at all the people regretting their Landmark or many of their early access purchases for examples of not being a smart consumer..
 

Bondurant

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
3,845
4,792
I'm afraid this game is either going to turn into that, or just be a giant pile of empty promises by devs looking to recreate the "glory days" using a lot of oldschool buzzwords.
I understand the nostalgia bullet point but nowadays alot of those "old school hardcore vidya" game designers aren't doing nothing else that saying "hey industrialized farmers, remember when horses were cool ? We're bringing them back with more oil !"
 

Byr

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
3,797
5,416
As a solo player, I should provide something valuable to guilds, so that even if I am not in their guild, they actively want to protect me, and benefit from my existence. And other guilds may potentially try to recruit me away from their protection.
I as a solo player should harvest/generate/collect far more materials then I can use in solo play. some maybe even outright have no use for at all. While guilds should have a need for those materials in excess of what they can personally harvest/generate/collect. And it needs to be key that these are exchanged via trade, and not hunting the solo players.
The thought behind this is just flawed. As a guild leader, why would I ever focus on a solo player whos not tagged when I could just recruit someone to do it and have a more secure supply line that isnt reliant on the whims of some pug. A solo player will never be better for a guild than one if its members.
 

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
47,300
80,505
I understand the nostalgia bullet point but nowadays alot of those "old school hardcore vidya" game designers aren't doing nothing else that saying "hey industrialized farmers, remember when horses were cool ? We're bringing them back with more oil !"
I totally disagree with this. The MMO market in the last ten years has made advances to every facet of gameplay, but it's missing a lot of what made the core of MMOs so enjoyable: A persistent world you need to be in a community to beat. Almost all the top memories I have, and I wager everyone else has, in MMOs were made possible because of the integration I had with a community whether it was with someone or against someone.

Modern MMOs have stripped this out somewhat and made both inter-reliance and direct competition optional or even sub-optimal. This is less about replacing a horse with a car, and more like replacing a steak with Soylent because steaks are hard to chew.
 

Bondurant

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
3,845
4,792
I totally disagree with this. The MMO market in the last ten years has made advances to every facet of gameplay, but it's missing a lot of what made the core of MMOs so enjoyable: A persistent world you need to be in a community to beat. Almost all the top memories I have, and I wager everyone else has, in MMOs were made possible because of the integration I had with a community whether it was with someone or against someone.

Modern MMOs have stripped this out somewhat and made both inter-reliance and direct competition optional or even sub-optimal. This is less about replacing a horse with a car, and more like replacing a steak with Soylent because steaks are hard to chew.
I think my point still stands wherever you got a saddle with your name on it or not.
 

Muligan

Trakanon Raider
3,231
901
I think a mistake we make is the idea just because it may become "hardcore" doesn't mean we have to devote the time. Maybe its good that for once we can't, as my students say, "no life it" for a week or two and max out. I know that it won't change anyone but personally I think it would be nice to be in a level for an extended amount of time. The current generation is all about instant gratification. I think about my early gaming years with Quest for Glory and Final Fantasy, even if they had levels it was all about playing each day to progress through the story and furthering my character down a path. However, in turn, this provides a challenge to the game maker. They have to make the game worthwhile along the way. I don't necessarily blame gamers because the "end game" is the most valuable part and everything in between is just really in the way. I think this is what Everquest had going for it, even if it was accidental. The journey was the fun. We didn't know what an "end game" was really and we were all just surviving and doing it every way we knew how. In the process we made fiends, enemies, and opened all kinds of doors along the way.

I say all this to say, the old style way is possible. It is just more challenging as the journey and a time of new experience has already occurred through UO and EQ. So they have to find a way to make a slow progressing game enjoyable and the people have to willing to endure the journey.