Well, now what?

  • 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!

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor
25,946
113,036
I think it sometimes seems pretty unfair when people compare stuff to EQ because it's a small budget game from 13 years ago that was never intended to be a big hit. For example when you talk about the boss fights being easier in EQ, the bosses were just nameds in dungeons that didn't really do anything special. They were just different classes with different loots. For example the Ghoul Lord was an SK so he had a harm touch and often carried a Ykesha sword so that's what made him hard to handle. The Arch Mage was a nuker so he could nuke people down pretty effectively. And the Frenzy was a monk or something and had a haste belt and tore people to shreds with fast hits. But there was no clever mechanics to any of this. There was no pools of lava coming out the ground that you had to dodge, or spikes in the walls that travelled in a circle or whatever. There was no spell reflecting, no raging, cleaves, flurry, etc. That stuff came later with raids but the bulk of EQ didn't have any of that stuff.

And that's not really any fault of EQ, it was just because it was one of the first MMO's and they were doing the basics. It's easy for modern games like WoW to come along and just copy everything EQ did and then jazz it all up.
I'm not razzing on EQ. Actually I think that a lot of the magic in EQ has been lost with the advent of new tools that focus difficulty too much in one area. I don't think we should go back to EQ style simple bosses BUT I think there is a balance there where WoW's bosses can be made more simplistic and some of the difficulty that's been lost can be transferred to a social constraint. Like say, having deadly mechanics BUT having them be controllable in terms of who has to handle them--rather than true random. Just as a quick example.

In other words--it should be easier to focus the difficulty of the encounter on a small, core group of strong players--so they can carry a wider group of weaker ones. Having truly random mechanics (And TONS of them) creates a situation where you can't have weaker people in your guild, everyone needs to be as good as your best. And that's just shitty in terms of actually keeping around people you LIKE to play with.
 

Caliane

Avatar of War Slayer
15,320
11,612
And yet this was the system that saw the highest number of WoW players, and strongest growth. Read Durkheim about rituals in society--the lure of building networks in order to complete tasks is actually more c arthritic for most people than the completion of those tasks. Measuring actual content completion as a measure of content success isn't necessarily a good metric at all. I'd say the NFL is a very successful organization, yes? How many people who participate and spend money there will complete a game on their own? Rituals don't require everyone to be center stage, they only require inclusiveness. You get that if you balance this approach properly.

And that's the key word--balance. I'm in no way advocating going back to nightmare scenarios of organizing 72 raid members. But there is a whole swath of social difficulty Blizzard burned up on it's way to making the game "more accessible". I think somewhere in the middle there, was a sweet spot that was missed.

For example, I think they'd go a long way in improving the game by taking a lot of random selection out of abilities and making so an adept raid leader can select who gets hit with what. Very simple change that emphasizes the difficulty for the Raid Leader and a core group, but doesn't ACTUALLY detract from theperceiveddifficulty of the raid--because all the steps stillneedto be completed. This is why more simplistic scripting often times lead to heavier social difficulty or an emphasis on a smaller group within a larger group, without anyone actually designing it that way--because less scripting opened more flaws with which the core group could exploit the encounter to make it easier on the less skilled within the guild, without actually changing a lot of factors in the encounter.

Like I said, subtle--and there is a balance. We don't need massive social networks. But we do need to put more difficulty on that end of the spectrum and take some off the other end (And not simply make a "mouth breathing raid mode"--which makes the world feel very, very sterile and the "ritual" feel like a pointless exercise meant to deliver our daily carrot.)
That is a very interesting point.
And something that I think needs to apply to WvW in those games. I'm not sure how we could make being a spectator/fan in a raid environment. But being a spectator/fan in a WvW, absolutely.
In gw2 we can even see it occurring, when we would do those jumping puzzle runs for siege, and have donations.
Rallying on commanders in general, is a similar idea. that is something that can be expounded on greatly. If you start treating it more like a franchise like that. Some games have the tax/ownership idea.

Blizzards super isolated guilds was definitely a huge mistake. A guild was an island, and had no use for the server it was on. you had little reason to ever even talk to someone not in your guild.
 

Caliane

Avatar of War Slayer
15,320
11,612
It might be interesting if someone decided to try a design experiment. Design a game where one of the core design principles was to strip as many items out of the UI as possible and place them back into the game world. What would a game like this look like, sound like and handle like? What demands would it place on the player?

As an example of what I mean. Take a typical UI, you have chat boxes, combat logs, party tab, inventory windows, character sheet, a map, current target, player point pools (hp and mana), ect, ect.

Now, start removing or replacing these elements with in game, in world indicators. So instead of seeing a target's current hp level is low, you instead notice that the target is slowing down, bleeding profusely, retreating or just wavering on it's feet. It wouldn't be as precise as a health %, but it would force a player to look at the in game model of their target and notice cues from that. You could still target a player or enemy so you could maneuver around them, and they will have an indicator floating over their head or under their feet, but that's all the info you get.

Take the mini map, and remove it. Instead the player gets a map screen that rolls out in front of them in a first person view. They can still look up from the map and look around to see if anyone is coming, but the map is something that they have to concentrate on to use. Allow them to make marks and notes on their map. And give the player the ability to make marks and notes on other players maps if given permission. Allow npc's to make marks when telling the player about certain things. Have some of the Npc's make mistakes or not remember clearly. Have the map be finite. It only shows a small area of the world. Other areas will need to have their maps purchased and many areas will have no maps immediately available and will have to be created by the players and traded to each other.

Inventory screen. The inventory is no longer a personal pocket plane the player carries around with them. Instead, the inventory is determined by what they are wearing. If they are naked, their inventory consists of their equipment slots and that's it. If they are wearing a belt, they can attach pouches and containers that are limited in the types of items they can hold. If they are wearing clothes with pockets they can have a few small items tucked away in each. If they are wearing a backpack, before they can place or remove items from it, they must take it off and place it on the ground. Wearing a backpack will also affect your ability to perform certain actions like rolling or swimming.

Chat windows, this might be the most controversial item on the list. But limiting chat to only local chat when not in certain buildings or structures. You can only hear what is going on directly around you unless you are inside a specialized structure. If you are in an auction house you can hear a global trade chat. If you are in a tavern or Inn you can hear a local general chat, in a market place you can hear a local trade chat for that town. If you are in a Tower, keep, castle, and are of the proper affiliation and rank, you can hear a defense chat. The only chat's that would persist anywhere would be guild chat and whispers from friends. Even party chat would be limited to a local area, much larger than /say but still limited.

I think another interesting thing would be to put hard restrictions on a players ability to see the game. Draw the camera in closer to the player. Do not let people zoom out to 300 yards behind their head. Keep the third person in fairly tight, almost like resident Evil 4 close. This allows for a third person view and some situational awareness, but also allows for the player to be ambushed from behind. Maybe if an in game skill like "tactical awareness" or "eyes in the back of your head" was increased the player could gain the ability to zoom out more or reverse their view without turning around but do not make these the default.

Also, make dark areas that the player can not see in without aid. Essentially any cave anywhere. Require the use of light sources to navigate these areas. This allows players to take advantage of the shadows and limited field of view from behind and ambush other players.

Place limits on a players movements. Make it very dependent on what they are wearing and what their proficiency in acrobatics is. Doing a combat roll in full plate should require a huge amount of strength and agility, otherwise the player should probably wind up pinned to the ground and struggle to right themselves.

Anyways, the whole idea behind this is to offer up a brand new experience, something that almost feels like a simulation rather than a straight up arcade game. It will put greater constraints on a player, it will withhold lots of information most players are used to seeing floating right in front of them, it will greatly limit a players ability to do several things simultaneously, and I believe it will draw players into the game world more than most other experiences. They will have to be cautious about when they decide to do certain things. They will have to setup effective information and trade networks. They will be paying much closer attention to what they can see and not a bunch of bars and graphs. They will be listening for the sounds of the enemy.

It would be interesting and different to say the least. How fun it would be is a different matter.
I've mentioned before, when I talk mmo design, I kindof imagine 2-3 very distinct mmos.
We often talk past each other, as if there is only 1 mmo that should be made. when really there should be several, radically different designed ones.
Its bit weird we never talk about the browers ones at all. the card game based, the tile based, etc..


1 is a hybrid of diablo, lol, realm of the mad god.
Char levels are 1-10. you can unlock up to 100 different kinds. swap chars any time. Procedurally gen dungeons on a random world map probably. this game would fit into your suggestions very well.
limited loadout and item slots. you have 6 item slots. you'd need to choose wisely what you carry. Fog of war, light, etc, would all work well.
Mad god gives you a map and you can see everyone in the world, and TP to them. although, as that is a bullet hell. thats your reason for that. if we make our game more like diablo/torchlight, the need for world chat is less needed.
This game is topdown iso. already limits view.

Standard wow/gw2 type.

Sim-world
The ultima online/dnd game. player built cities, crafting, trading. world pvp, etc. I feel like no game has explored this well. We get bits and pieces.
 

Nirgon

Log Wizard
13,769
21,660
Okay so make a WoW-y server, then make a server with real xp loss on death, corpse runs etc.

I agree the millions out there wouldn't make it too far in a game with xp loss on death and long, naked corpse runs. But it doesn't mean you can't please the niche that wants it by adding this on another server.

PvP servers are going to be a given for this, which is good. I hope there are no battlegrounds or arena that involve queueing up.
 

xzi

Mouthbreather
7,526
6,763
An extra server seems the most idea. I don't feel like very many people are going to like huge death penalties. You could do something similar to Diablo where you can choose at the start screen if you want to play hardcore or not, and it would only effect that person but they could still play on a server with other people not playing 'hardcore'

TBH I really wish though that more games will start picking up on cross-realm playability. I'd love to have a character on a server with xp loss/death (probably not my main) but be able to still play with friends if they're somewhere else.
 

Caliane

Avatar of War Slayer
15,320
11,612
Okay so make a WoW-y server, then make a server with real xp loss on death, corpse runs etc.

I agree the millions out there wouldn't make it too far in a game with xp loss on death and long, naked corpse runs. But it doesn't mean you can't please the niche that wants it by adding this on another server.

PvP servers are going to be a given for this, which is good. I hope there are no battlegrounds or arena that involve queueing up.
game simply has to be designed with the death penalty in mind from the get go. it impacts every single gameplay and social mechanic possible.

You can't possibly shoehorn perma death into wow. or exp loss, or item.
Think about how those systems work in WoW.
Exp loss. ok. But then you hit level 60 in vanilla. Sudden the exp loss issue vanishes, as it is not a soft cap like diablo, etc. games like Lineage, had soft caps.
Items. wow also has perma items on super low RNG. Imagine if you dropped items in wow, or they broke on death. It wont work with soulbond. The entire economy changes. Loot tables and how they work need to change to accommodate this change.

Look at diablo hardcore vs softcore trading economy. look at the impact that change makes.

Permadeath and pvp. Game is now suddenly a survival horror.. Everyone is your enemy. Balance and no exploits is now super important. you actively encourage your players to be much more cautious or roam in gangs. Entire social structure of your game is now changed.

Alot of this is a "why d3 is retarded". The effects of the rmah on both soft and hardcore. A max level in a permadeath game. (they talked about not having hardcore mode at one point didn't they? that kindof makes sense when you think about the level 60 thing. Perma death and "the game starts at 60" are not very synergistic game concepts. )
 

Nirgon

Log Wizard
13,769
21,660
They shoe horned item loot pvp into EQ (and it was great). Pretty sure it'd be just fine to make the easier server where deaths don't take xp.

Rather they all just had xp loss on death and rezzes gave it back.
 

Gecko_sl

shitlord
1,482
0
I think Shadowbane had an excellent design document and covered a lot of the bases nicely. It's a shame the code was so ghastly so we have no clue if it was really a viable MMO.

I think there should be 'loss' and players should have skin in the game, but the problem becomes the same as early UO. How do you protect the mainstay of your population from the griefers?
 
349
1
Guize what shud i call my toon? Ok tx
Wot class shd i pick? ok tx
Wot is teh best race for this class u chose 4 me? ok thx
Hey guize wot shd i spend my attribute points on? Ok
Where 2 hunt at level 3?
And diplomacy is? tx
shd i uze sord and sheeld or 2 handid wepon?
gyz is my class teh best soloing class? darn fk this game i waisted 5 hole lvls
how do i get a mount? "There is a mount vendor in Tursh"
were is truch? "you are in tursh already"
i cant get the mount becos im only lvl 8 and u haf to be 10
guize were 2 hunt at level 8? "riftseekers"
wots teh password for riftseekers?
guise im in riftseekers were do i go?
u guyz how do i get my mails? "Mailbox in most towns"
were is nerst mailbox 2 me?
doez this gaem haf an auction hourse? "yes, there is a ..."
were is teh nearist orction hourse 2 mE?
how 2 find mounts on aurction horse?
guyz wot mount is best 4 a rouge?
gise i dyed and now i haf to wait 4 minutes wtf?
gys were is my toom stone? "It's marked in the Locations tab"
wer is teh locatns tab? "Press J and then look at the tabs for locations"
i dont c it. "It's along the top"
how 2 recover toom? "Click it..."
it wont werk? "Right click"
oh
gayz how 2 ad moar hotkeyz? "interface options"
were is tat? "Escape -> settings -> interface"
ok i am in there but i dont c it. "Scroll down"
guyz how do u quit this game? "Press escape then log out"

Then 5 minutes later some other fucktard logs in and asks all the same questions.
damn thats more convo you get in most mmos now adays. at least they are being social :/
 

supertouch_sl

shitlord
1,858
3
1. eq raids were "simpler" because you had 70 people and the coordination needed for a heavily choreographed encounter just wasn't possible. many wow raids were fun but they just didn't feel like raids.

2. death penalties are good if you care about pacing at all
 

Pancreas

Vyemm Raider
1,132
3,819
Lithose, the quote I was reffering to in my original response was this:

There is a way to make WoW easier, without seeming like it's easier--change the difficulties from a purely pattern response one, to a social/abstract one, like EQ had.
And all I was pointing out is that from the point of view of the casual, average, fat part of the bell curve, player. This would in fact make the game harder to access. I wasn't saying anything about if it was a good idea or not. I for one am all for the removal of "daily guided tours of the world's deadliest dungeons".

Simply put, if the LFR and LFD mechanics were to be removed, right now, content completion as a % of the player base would plummet. These mechanics completely bypass the logistical and social difficulties you were referencing. So to take away such convenience from casual players, would ensure fewer of them even see the fights. And the hardest boss to kill is the one you never see.

As for difficulty versus design. Design influences every aspect of a game, absolutely. But good designs or bad designs are not tied to difficulty. You can have very thought out and rewarding experiences that require not much more interaction than keeping your eyes open, such as a really well put together narrative. Despite this extreme ease of access it would still fall under "good design".

Difficulty relies on design but it can come from the whole spectrum of design, from abso-fuckin-lutely amazing to abso-fucking-lutely horrendous. One difficult encounter will leave you with the feeling that you just accomplished something, the other difficult encounter will leave you feeling like the ghost of a rabid buffalo just raped your soul.

Therefore the two do rely on each other but are in no way so connected that you can assume one equates the other. Because THAT is when crap mechanics like the stuff we see in wow come out. WoW thinks "easy = good".
 

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor
25,946
113,036
And all I was pointing out is that from the point of view of the casual, average, fat part of the bell curve, player. This would in fact make the game harder to access. I wasn't saying anything about if it was a good idea or not. I for one am all for the removal of "daily guided tours of the world's deadliest dungeons".
Well, the concept of it was from a raiding point of view (I know I was overly ambiguous, my fault..I explained later but it was still muddled), and I couldn't disagree with you more about it making the game more difficult. I think, for the average player, the "normal" difficulty raid encounter has become far more difficult since Vanilla. Again, this goes back to the raid team being able to control where the brunt of the difficulty lies. For example, a bunch of the bosses in MC/BWL were "simplistic" in terms of mechanics (Mostly a carry over from EQ)--so they used simple line of sight and range to dictate who can be hit with bad effects. This left a lot of abilities in the raid leaders hand to dole out to the raid. Have weaker players? Don't make them targets for bad curses/effects, for example.

Simply put, if the LFR and LFD mechanics were to be removed, right now, content completion as a % of the player base would plummet. These mechanics completely bypass the logistical and social difficulties you were referencing. So to take away such convenience from casual players, would ensure fewer of them even see the fights. And the hardest boss to kill is the one you never see.
This isn't really the social difficulty I was discussing. It's more about making the game work between different tiers of skill, and finding ways to balance difficulty in different ways--rather than just making things harder. Though I do have problems with the LFD system, it's not on a philosophical level. I think the LFD is fine, I just think elements of it need to be changed (Auto-transport for new dungeons, grouping off server--I know there are reasons for these, but I think those reasons are the biggest hurdles MMO's have right now. And I have more issues, just tossing out examples. )

As for difficulty versus design. Design influences every aspect of a game, absolutely. But good designs or bad designs are not tied to difficulty. You can have very thought out and rewarding experiences that require not much more interaction than keeping your eyes open, such as a really well put together narrative. Despite this extreme ease of access it would still fall under "good design".

Difficulty relies on design but it can come from the whole spectrum of design, from abso-fuckin-lutely amazing to abso-fucking-lutely horrendous. One difficult encounter will leave you with the feeling that you just accomplished something, the other difficult encounter will leave you feeling like the ghost of a rabid buffalo just raped your soul.

Therefore the two do rely on each other but are in no way so connected that you can assume one equates the other. Because THAT is when crap mechanics like the stuff we see in wow come out. WoW thinks "easy = good".
Yes, but what I'm saying is that difficulty should come THROUGH design, in as much as it comes through increasing numbers in boss encounters. A lot of developers seem to have separated these two things, and believe that a more difficult boss encounter simply means, he does more things....However, EQ's bosses wereverydifficult (Like I said, most of WoW's uber guilds wouldn't have cut it in EQ), BUT those bosses often did no more than hit the tank hard. There are ways to differentiate difficulty that don't all exist with the boss--I don't really want to arm chair develop here, but if you don't want to have non-instanced content, then make it so one instance (Of the many you release) has a lot of trash and simple bosses, but there is a timer on it. The instance becomes about your efficiency at clearing trash, and then collecting loot--you're then testing a guild's organization and focus, as well as their ability to memorize, rather than just the ability to memorize like a hard boss encounter forces.

That's just an example...Like I said, difficulty can come from many, many sources--it shouldn't be distilled down to a switch that doesn't even exist within the raid. That just makes the world feel fake and sterile. Its' really no different than hitting "easy" mode on Civilization--and that's fine for Civ, because civ is agame. The MMO developers though should want to create a world. It's a subtle difference, but from your posts, I can tell you understand it.

And I think that's when you'll see "crap" mechanics, when the developer starts designing elements, like difficulty, separately and stops trying to design a cohesive world, where they all add up. Difficulty should be part of design, it should not be something you flip a switch on and have things be harder. And really, the biggest goal, is to allow your players as much possible room to subvert difficulty with the widest variety of options possible. And that kind of freedom only comes from when a designer looks at the world as a whole, rather than a boss as a separate game you flip on from the world-chat-lobby.
 
922
3
I think the problem here is modern games place all of the difficulty of an encounter in game mechanics.

It would be nice if there was a challenge beyond just wait random time frame (or instanced encounter), kill monster with powerful weapons you have farmed up, set clock and repeat.

I'm not sure how they would accomplish that, but I'd imagine it would have to involve some sort of story element or global character / npc political elements that aren't easily manipulated.

The challenge of memorizing button combinations to push and testing your APM can be a fun gaming experience. I don't think it should be the only type of "challenge" in a game though.

Also, something can be difficult to accomplish with game mechanics, but that doesn't necessarily make it intelligent, thought provoking, or captivating.
 

cabbitcabbit

NeoGaf Donator
2,666
8,224
I think my main gripe with GW2 (besides the the game ends 3 days after you hit 80) is that I didn't feel like they build me up as this mythic hero. Half way through leveling some random 25 year old Plant shows up and He's the chosen one with the world-sword leading the army against the dragon god and I'm his lackey?eat dick, shrub. That's my job.
 

Beef Supreme_sl

shitlord
1,207
0
As has been stated many times, but merits restating, trying to take the EQ/Vanilla WoW model and creating a "cash cow" is not the recipe for success.

We all want a meaningful social experience, challenging content, solid game play and serviceable graphics. The first two are subjective to the player him or herself and cannot be made one-size-fits-all. The WoW+1 mentality of post-WoW games just don't resonate anymore. However, what is the industry's impetus to produce what we want? Why should they even care? We keep paying them for doing what we DON'T WANT.

Given the state of the industry, outside of something KickStarter-ed, I don't have any modicum of faith that they will make what we want. Too many easy to please fucks will gobble up their table scraps and come back begging for more. We need something like DayZ or DICE (desert combat mod) to come out to garner enough attention for major investment.

Personally, I really want something with the legendary weapons of LoTRO. Loot shouldn't be Diablo-esque. It should be meaningful to acquire gear. To upgrade it, or imbue it with magical properties worthy of song. The way GRRM handles Valyrian weapons and runed armour. Motherfuckers should be floored when someone breaks out their panoply of murders from underneath cloak. The +gooderer mentality is just so tired.
 

Ukerric

Bearded Ape
<Silver Donator>
8,309
10,283
That's my job.
Yes. You and the other 10,000 on the server, including the 40 people around you in front of that bone dragon.

This is where the whole storyline-you're-our-only-hope model breaks down in most moderns MMO. Most moderns MMO aren't MMO, they're slightly stretched single player RPGs who just happen to have 10k people playing on the same field as you (or, often, just 5 once you've stepped out of the capital-game lobby). They try to make you the world-saving hero, and then they have to contrive mechanics to tell you "oh, by the way, forget that the guy next to you is also our only hope, and that other guy there as well". That's why some random schlub raided Naxxaramas instead of you in all the books you can read. And it's never more apparent than in WoW when the mayor of some random village yells to everyone in the zone that the village is saved thanks to Soandso. Every 2mn.

So, no. In a MMO, you are not the world-class hero. You can't be, if there are 10k other world-class heroes around you. The LOTRO solution, like GW2, is to make you the unsung hero. The guy whose name is forgotten in all the stories, but who knows, because he was there, that it was he who made it possible. The guy who scouts ahead of the Company of the Ring and cleans up the mess after they departed Weatertop in haste without even checking if there's any goblin left around. The band of brothers who teams up with the Hero to cleanse the dungeon once and for all (until instance reset).

The sooner the MMO designers realize that you can't prop the player as The Ultimate Hero in a world where 10k ultimate heroes run around, and you raid along 24 other ultimate heroes, the sooner they'll make better worlds.

(of course that does mean changing a lot of the whole storyied questline levelling mechanic almost all recent games push on you, forgetting the point above)
 

TrollfaceDeux

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Bronze Donator>
19,577
3,743
Personally, I really want something with the legendary weapons of LoTRO. Loot shouldn't be Diablo-esque. It should be meaningful to acquire gear. To upgrade it, or imbue it with magical properties worthy of song. The way GRRM handles Valyrian weapons and runed armour. Motherfuckers should be floored when someone breaks out their panoply of murders from underneath cloak. The +gooderer mentality is just so tired.
this sounds fucking awesome. I'd be a plebian but fuck yes. FEAR, ADORATION, etc. Fucking RPG experience.
 

xzi

Mouthbreather
7,526
6,763
I don't care for that hero you've described, but in MMO's the game is mostly about epeen, really. Let's be honest.

I'd be fine with doing away with it unless for some crazy huge long quest chain (AQ Gates is a good example), but even then.. just replace everyone making the single raider out to be the hero, and make the guild out to be the heroes. Bring back guild names meaning something on servers, IMO.