+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 98
Like Tree31Likes

Thread: Elder Scrolls Online Keep Assault

  1. #61
    Soulwalker Cultzure's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    6

    Default Valid Points On Both Sides, imo, RE: W.A.R.

    Played from 2008-2009; quit when the WARBuddy hack became the norm. Came back intermittently in 2010 jumping from W.o.W to CO: FFA [now CO: Reloaded] and W.A.R. W.o.W. was first MMO that I ever played or even heard of, for that matter, not having purchased my first comp 'til I was in my 30's (I arrived on this planet learning to use rotary phones, dialing only 5 of the 7-now-required numbers for local calls, first microwave oven at age 10 [Amana RadaRange], first 'calculator' in high school, [Neal Armstrong moon-walked when I was 3 months old], etc...) starting play at launch and being able to PvE/PvP with people half-way around the world (Aussies are, bar none, the nicest, most helpful, friendliest people I've ever MMO'd with; citizens of Trinidad a very close second; Americans, the worst [West Coast, USA here; I too, am a jerk ]) was simply miraculous to me. Then something called "The Battle.net Kiddies" infected the landscape; much grief ensued for the next 3-ish years. W.A.R. was to be it's killer and my savior.

    The sales pitch was expert. The gritty look and 'clunky' mechanics appealed because of collision detection (remember Mark smashing his fists into each other to demonstrate the 'feel' of RvR?) I remember everything "good" about W.A.R. eventually becoming "bad"; the community degrading into clique-ish mobs and getting killed, sloooowly, without recompense from some level 2 dwarf, untargetable while slicing away at me from under world geometry. Then I remember the Carrie Gouskous Incident (we do not speak openly about that plague ["New hair styles!!!11@@..."]).

    Then I was gifted with a girl friend who actually LIKED playing video games. I spent the first year of our now 3-year relationship convincing her W.A.R. actually WAS her type of game; I spent two of those years trying to catch up to her natural ability to level like a mad-dog (eye-twitching-three-rockstar-nights) and lead warbands gracefully enough to be feared/hated by Order (and some whiny Destro). We chose emo/goth/downright-evil-Destruction side "...cos sometimes bein' bad is just so good..." and I had never seen anything like a Marauder in any game I'd ever played; Order (even after getting a white lion to 16 deciding what to level) was just not an option after that.

    However, after all the ups and downs, in W.A.R. (which had too darn many) and all other MMO's I played, I've never since experienced the solid feeling of family she and I felt (and I mean genuine affection and friendship for those we were privelaged to be in Vent with 7 nights a week [what's T.V.??]) for our guildies. We were in 3 guilds in those last two years of W.A.R.'s life; leaving those first two were terribly upsetting for us, even though it was best for everyone. Our last guild, Inquisito (long will it live in our hearts), was the best group of friends I've had in my 40-odd years on Earth. We miss them and our times together, both in RvR life and death, so much that she still cannot discuss them without extended weeping; for me, well... my fingers aren't effected by giant lump in my throat, but it's darn hard to read what I'm typing atm through the deluge. W.A.R.'s demise shook all of us to our foundations. We followed some to Rift, many went in various directions, some outright quit gaming. We were all so upset that emotions stayed raw, feelings got hurt over petty grievances and she quit playing MMOs for a while. I like Rift, a lot actually, but trust slowly, ignore quickly and float from here to C.O. to X-Box keeping a good distance. Loosing those people, good people we were proud to "friends" with, ruined us.

    W.A.R. was, imo, the greatest success of any MMO to date in that it's original intent is still trying to be perfected; PvE and PvP alike. It was, imo, the grandest, fattest failure of any MMO to date: ability changes, stat re-tooling, new 'crew' every 18 months, new direction every patch.

    And it all ended way too soon. I don't have faith that any MMO to come will ever touch the camaraderie birthed in W.A.R., imo. At least not any time soon. Pretty sure never for again for me or her.

    TL;DR: W.A.R. was/is the best/worst/most inspirational MMO, imo, in my limited knowledge of MMO history. And we truly miss our long-lost friends.

    -Cultzure Szaahk and "Queen" Cueleen, Badlands Server, Destruction, (long live) Inquisito

  2. #62
    Ascendant Baramos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    4,595

    Default

    Elder Scrolls Online Epic Keep Assault & Capture

  3. #63
    Ascendant Indasoth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,476

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Laeris View Post
    I live in the real world. Warhammer lost tens of millions of dollars. Negative profits in business is not a hallmark of a successful business.
    So, can you share the resource where you gathered this information from? The one where "Warhammer lost tens of millions of dollars"? I'm curious where you got this fact from.

    Anyway, I had a chance to play in the Imperial beta. My first impression is that the UI is one of the worst I've ever seen. There's nothing even remotely useful on the UI, UNLESS you employ the use of mods. I'm assuming there will be someone that says that "Pros" don't need an informative UI since you should "know" what's happening, so I guess I'm not "Pro".

    Either way, this nearly absent UI and the fact that even the simplest thing like a unit frame or an XP bar wasn't present made the game play extremely frustrating. The quest log was terrible as well. No scrolling combat text (in the game without the use of a mod) was just poor design.

    I uninstalled it. Went back to GW2.

    I'm sure I won't be the only one that has an issue with this utter lack of UI, but maybe I am. Either way, I won't be playing this game.

  4. #64
    Ascendant Laeris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,873

    Default

    If I were to keep digging, I'd get your answer but here's the tagline quote that can be found on several dozen major websites:
    "Warhammer Online is likely facing the same issue, as the subscription count has continuously dropped since shortly after the game's September 2008 launch. Subscription numbers reportedly peaked at 750K just three weeks after the doors opened, then dropped down to 300K in February 2009. A month later, Mythic pulled 63 servers offline."
    ~Taken from Tom's Hardware but the same quote is found on Gamespot, Kotaku, Wikipedia, and several other major websites.
    In under 6 months they lost over half of their revenue and went profit negative at that time. At no point during the rest of its live history did it ever go revenue positive. They were losing a little over 1.5 million per quarter on Warhammer in 2010 (they were losing more before they scaled back their infrastructure).

    So for a great PvP title that was given high marks across the board by reviewers, by December after launch it had already tanked. 1.2 million in box sales with under 300,000 subscribers. 400,000 of those box sales never converted (AKA, played their free month and did not sub).

    Now, I will say this: I have said it many times that PvPers do not actually like PvP. WAR was a great PvP game but this generation of PvP do0dz doesn't like PvP games. Old hats like myself enjoy them for the competition and difficulty... but today's PvP do0dZ won't play games if someone can kill them or make them lose. Warhammer was one of the first MMOs to learn this fact and why so many MMOs since have resorted to candyland design principles that turns PvP into a mini game that has no consequences or real competition.

    I am not saying Warhammer was a bad game. I think it was a great game... but it, as it has been for several years, is a problem with the playerbase. Developers know what makes a great PvP game... but the playerbase doesn't appreciate competitive systems that drive them. They don't hold subscribers and are poor for revenue creation.
    Last edited by Laeris; 03-17-2014 at 09:38 AM.

  5. #65
    Ascendant Indasoth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,476

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Laeris View Post
    If I were to keep digging, I'd get your answer but here's the tagline quote that can be found on several dozen major websites:
    "Warhammer Online is likely facing the same issue, as the subscription count has continuously dropped since shortly after the game's September 2008 launch. Subscription numbers reportedly peaked at 750K just three weeks after the doors opened, then dropped down to 300K in February 2009. A month later, Mythic pulled 63 servers offline."
    ~Taken from Tom's Hardware but the same quote is found on Gamespot, Kotaku, Wikipedia, and several other major websites.
    In under 6 months they lost over half of their revenue and went profit negative at that time. At no point during the rest of its live history did it ever go revenue positive. They were losing a little over 1.5 million per quarter on Warhammer in 2010 (they were losing more before they scaled back their infrastructure).

    So for a great PvP title that was given high marks across the board by reviewers, by December after launch it had already tanked. 1.2 million in box sales with under 300,000 subscribers. 400,000 of those box sales never converted (AKA, played their free month and did not sub).

    Now, I will say this: I have said it many times that PvPers do not actually like PvP. WAR was a great PvP game but this generation of PvP do0dz doesn't like PvP games. Old hats like myself enjoy them for the competition and difficulty... but today's PvP do0dZ won't play games if someone can kill them or make them lose. Warhammer was one of the first MMOs to learn this fact and why so many MMOs since have resorted to candyland design principles that turns PvP into a mini game that has no consequences or real competition.

    I am not saying Warhammer was a bad game. I think it was a great game... but it, as it has been for several years, is a problem with the playerbase. Developers know what makes a great PvP game... but the playerbase doesn't appreciate competitive systems that drive them. They don't hold subscribers and are poor for revenue creation.
    Ok, fair enough. I was just curious.

    The other problem they had was their free PvP in the starter zone. I'm assuming LOTs of players played there and never subbed. That PvP was some of the best pvp in the game, so I don't really blame them for not subbing.

    But, regardless, I loved my WE. Most fun character I've ever played in any game. Before that was my ranger in DAoC.
    Last edited by Indasoth; 03-17-2014 at 10:32 AM.

  6. #66
    Rift Master
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    643

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Laeris View Post
    If I were to keep digging, I'd get your answer but here's the tagline quote that can be found on several dozen major websites:
    "Warhammer Online is likely facing the same issue, as the subscription count has continuously dropped since shortly after the game's September 2008 launch. Subscription numbers reportedly peaked at 750K just three weeks after the doors opened, then dropped down to 300K in February 2009. A month later, Mythic pulled 63 servers offline."
    ~Taken from Tom's Hardware but the same quote is found on Gamespot, Kotaku, Wikipedia, and several other major websites.
    In under 6 months they lost over half of their revenue and went profit negative at that time. At no point during the rest of its live history did it ever go revenue positive. They were losing a little over 1.5 million per quarter on Warhammer in 2010 (they were losing more before they scaled back their infrastructure).

    So for a great PvP title that was given high marks across the board by reviewers, by December after launch it had already tanked. 1.2 million in box sales with under 300,000 subscribers. 400,000 of those box sales never converted (AKA, played their free month and did not sub).

    Now, I will say this: I have said it many times that PvPers do not actually like PvP. WAR was a great PvP game but this generation of PvP do0dz doesn't like PvP games. Old hats like myself enjoy them for the competition and difficulty... but today's PvP do0dZ won't play games if someone can kill them or make them lose. Warhammer was one of the first MMOs to learn this fact and why so many MMOs since have resorted to candyland design principles that turns PvP into a mini game that has no consequences or real competition.

    I am not saying Warhammer was a bad game. I think it was a great game... but it, as it has been for several years, is a problem with the playerbase. Developers know what makes a great PvP game... but the playerbase doesn't appreciate competitive systems that drive them. They don't hold subscribers and are poor for revenue creation.

    It's not that pvp players dont like pvp.. It's that not all PvPers like the same kind of pvp.

    I for one dislike instanced pvp. Its bland, boring, and repetitive imo. Even though 8v8 was BY FAR, my favorite playstyle in DAoC, I did not want instanced 8v8. There is just something much more exciting when you don't know what might be lurking around the corner, or up a hill. While sometimes it can get annoying, if you are jammed by another gorup... It's even more fun if you are able to handle both.

    Some PvPers think that it's not competetive or not fun unless its instant action and strictly group vs group. Where I completely disagree.

    Having both options usually splits the playerbase, leading open world to suffer as its typically slower to get a group and find combat, leading to lesser rewards.

  7. #67
    Rift Chaser Chadak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    320

    Default

    Open world pvp has a very limited appeal in general MMO society. Its just not marketable. Too many players aren't playing for PVP in general, let alone because they find their questing or gathering or anything-else-ever to be more thrilling when they can be randomly killed with little to no warning.

    Its just tedious at best and infuriating at worst to a significant enough majority for dev studios to segregate open world pvp to its own servers with great frequency, or limit it to specific non-essential locations in a given gameworld. Its never a particular priority 'cause it just doesn't bring or sustain revenue.

    And that's the bottom line. That which brings the green gets the love.

    Its a failing of MMO's, imo, for them to try to be so many things anyway. Look at SWTOR as an example. Imagine how awesome SWTOR would be for Star Wars fans if Bioware'd actually given a rat's patoot about anything that'd have actually interested Star Wars and gaming fans rather than just clone WoW in so many ways? Their storylines are excellent done. Immersive questing and general storytelling is at some of its MMO-finest right there.

    And its almost all for naught. It dries up to tedious spacebarring at endgame, 'cause they frankensteined a 20 year old gear treadmill in. PVP? Open world pvp was supposed to be Ilum, but they went bargain-basement stupid when choosing an engine and Ilum will never be doable. Open world PVP on Tat? Pffhahahaha. Yeah, nobody cares, and if the few that do vanished without a trace, nearly nobody'd even notice.

    Instanced pvp? Same gimmicks as everywhere else, including here. Instanced maps with generic objectives, blahblahblah.

    GW2's WvWvW is the closest thing to massive open world pvp going on in an even halfway 'traditional' MMO, and their engine was actually built to support the intention (rather than most MMO's that implement PVP in roughly as graceful a fashion as gluing wings onto a conversion van and wondering why it neither drives well anymore nor flies at all)

    GW2 does pvp pretty well, if you can stomach its (imo) craptacular class designs and bland lore.

    ESO? I've been in a couple of the betas and I, at least, can't stand ESO so far. Its a mediocre MMO with Elder Scrolls painted onto it and combat feels just plain odd in not good ways. I don't like it. I will not eat it, Sam I Am, I will not eat ESO's ham.

    And that brings me ramblingly back to PVP in general. The truly pvp-dedicated aren't looking to MMO's to provide them with pvp experiences anymore. They're playing Call of Duty, they're playing Battlefield 3, they're playing League of Legends, they're playing DOTA 2, they're playing StarCraft 2, they're playing multiplayer Age of Empires 3, they're playing Team Fortress 2, they're playing Left For Dead 2.

    The list goes on and on and on. If you want to find where the vast majority of PVP-lovers' money's going, don't look to traditional MMO's. In fact, if you want a PVP experience that has a good chance of not winding up neglected and forgotten (even if it was great) due to general lack of fiscally-validating interest, don't look at MMO's at all.

    And I, personally, think MMO developers should hack that head off the hydra altogether. I look again at a game like SWTOR. If they'd have made SWTOR with the same sort of focus League of Legends has on what its trying to be, and made it a Star Wars game meant to suck you into boundless new Star Wars stories, they could've done amazing things with that IP targeting the already-existent Star Wars fanbase market.

    I sincerely doubt most Star Wars fans are also pvp enthusiasts in the classical sense...but TIE vs X-wing open space combat would've been a huge hit. Epic, cinematic pvp in crazy terrains interspersed with dynamic events could've been a huge thing.

    Imagine how big a thing 1v1 dueling could be if some dev house really focused on making it utterly exciting, cinematic and amazing to do?

    In a game like Rift? I think they should delete warfronts entirely and borrow a page from LotrO's inspiration; make conquest maps where one side's planar monster characters, one side's Defiants and the third side is Guardians. Cobble it up to be a long, drawn-out affair with long-term objectives spanning oh, say, two week cycles. Hardcore pvpers could easily find their niches in frontline and shocktroop sorties, as holding borders and guarding key holdings would be a vital and recurringly violent task.

    Don't like PvP so much? Bring your crafting skills to bear like GW2's somewhat inspired but altogether neglected to truly exploit in depth; make crafters necessary for building structures and siege equipment. Prefer PvE to PvP, or want some of that out there too? Big name NPC worldbosses might join the fray, or could be summoned/called forth by collaborative efforts on a given side.

    Imagine, in such a scenario, that Planar Invaders vs Defiants vs Guardians Is a thing, and imagine that the Planar Invaders have managed to hold four sourcestone mines over five days of recurringly violent clashing to summon Crucia.

    Hoooo'crap, the Guardians and Defiants might have to team up to deal with the Planars AND a super raidboss Crucia they've managed to summon.

    What could the Defiants do? Not summon; create giant super-robot mechs. Guardians? Summon Avatars of the gods.

    Can you imagine a three-way conflict in which such a three-sided affair managed to get all their big things out at the same time? You might see the Avatar of Thedeor and Regulos and some kind of Volan-inspired Omega-1 Titan supermech fighting eachother with three small armies trying to tear them and eachother apart and keep their superboss healthy.

    It could all fit thematically, it could all be done with a (more persistent) conquest-like system and it'd probably encourage a much broader ream of the playerbase to hop in and do something useful, with every sort of playstyle having useful things to do out there.

    What do we get instead? The usual hum-drum garbage.

    The sad thing is, all of what I've dreamed up here would probably be doable with the same amount of work they've invested and will likely continue to invest in the forgettable garbage we're getting instead.

    And that is why MMO pvp fails, in my never humble opinion. Its generic, boring garbage that doesn't dare to actually be a core part of the game itself.

    Games like WAR didn't fail because they were garbage. They failed because of idiot management. A great game can't prevent foolish administrative-level decisions. Neither can the best administrative decisions make a forgettable and crappy game profitable.

    /Novel over

  8. #68
    Rift Chaser Chadak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    320

    Default

    Oh, and for consequences in such a system?

    Faction-wide debuffs for losing. Guardians summon and lose the Avatar of Thedeor? Thedeor's presence is gone from Telara for, oh, three days. He cannot be summoned again in that time (and lets say he's the melee DPS avatar that's the best counter to, oh, lets say an Akylios support-type summon and a Dynamis-MakeThingsUppicus giant flying shieldbot. Tactically disadvantageous to lose things! Could be super important to your entire faction to not lose too many things)

    Defiant side? Making supermechs would be a huge depletion of resources faction-wide, and costly to lose. Change it up some.

    Maybe Guardians get debuffs to various things when they lose avatars, and in a game-wide fashion. Lost Thedeor in the war? Three days of -5% DPS output applicable to every skill. Lost Maurial-Taun? -5% healing output. All debuffs last for as long as the Avatar is out of commission.

    Defiants lost their Omega-1 Titan Tank supermech? -5% defense loss for every defiant due to the blow it was to morale in general. Lost their MX-Doomhammer DPS airship? -5% dps output faction wide.

    The planar faction obviously isn't represented in core gameplay, and should ever necessarily be, but hey...LotR did some fun things with monster play. Take the idea and run with it.

    Planars losing dragons might lose access to a given plane for three days, and that dragon's type of rifts wouldn't pop in the battlefields for three days on top of similar debuffs applied to all the planars, accumulating for every dragon they lose in a given match cycle.

    These are just ideas, but if it was done with some earnest intention to make it shine...something like this would be the kind of thing I, at least, would throw money at Trion to let me play.

    A whole world to PvE explore, with the usual raids and dungeons and all that AS WELL AS these ongoing wars that went on too long not to reward long-term, large-scale tactical planning, multi-guild collaboration and have a place for serious, dedicated leadership, hardcore pvpers, pve'ers , RPers , dedicated crafters and even casual paunces dabbling in whatever seemed fun at the time?

    I'd want to play something like that just to PLAY it. If it didn't have a reward system of terrible significance, I'd still play something like that because (I think) it'd be FUN.

    Y'know, like a game is supposed to be.

    That detail got lost somewhere along the way for MMO developers though. Everything's about carrots on sticks and basically bribing players to repeatedly do cheap, generic garbage.

    Stop making cheap, generic garbage and the all-consuming, neuroses-inducing fixations on things like Radiant Infinity Cores might not happen, or at least probably wouldn't happen on such a scale. Why's it happen? There's nothing else good to look forward to except the rewards, and when the rewards are garbage, you're left feeling like you did a lot of tedious crap for nothing.

    Mostly because that's exactly what happened.

    Simple as that.

  9. #69
    Ascendant Laeris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,873

    Default

    Buuuut the only successful MMOs that have integral, heavy PvP content have been of the "hardcore" variety. Some games like DAoC had early success but the only way to get a solid product is to embrace their niche and own it. EVE does that very well as does Mortal Online.

    EQ'1s most populous servers were the PvP servers. Then, came rule changes which watered down the ruleset and the beginning of the end began.

    When you compare investment to its return on investment, EVE is and likely will continue to be the most successful MMO in terms of ROI. Yes, WOW makes more money but in simple terms, the average EVE dev makes almost double the paycheck. They have a smaller team, less overhead and they have around 400,000 subscribers paying 20 bucks a month (probably double Rift at this point).

    EQ did well under the old full pvp ruleset. EQ2 adopted the WoW model and it bombed hard. EQ: Next is not making that same mistake. Over in the EU, Mortal is made by 7 guys and they have around 50k-100k subscribers. Its a blip on the radar in terms of AAA MMOs but their company is more stable than Trion at this point. Again, it's all about the ROI.

    Posting big revenues is nice but most companies err like Mythic and Trion did. Instead of investing revenue into future-proofing their business model, they instead balloon out and buy new offices, more employees.... and a ton of needless hardware. The smaller companies like CCP keep their overhead way down and focus all of their revenues on content and player satisfaction. No silly launch APPs, no monetized content fit for a F2P audience. No satellite offices in third world countries.

    PvP centric games will always be niche games. When they're developed as such and cater to a specific niche in the overall demographic, it isn't hard to corner that niche. The problem with MMOs today is one-size-fits-all syndrome. You can please some of the people all the time but most you can't (which is why almost all MMOs have a double or triple attrition rate). Now when you look at EVE, the average account age there is 3 years. In the entire demographic, the average account age for a Western MMO is just under 60 days.

    So! When you make a product for a very narrow intended customer type, you get a game people like. That's why EVE will outlast every MMO on the market. Future MMOs coming down the pipe are becoming hyper-focused as well. In the next few years, you'll see PvE only MMOs and PvP focused MMOs... but I think ESO will be the very last themepark MMO as younger gamers know it. Every one of them has bombed since WoW and it's a dead-end market. Games used to be focused (and they were soooooo much better!). They're going back to that 1990-1999 era standard.

  10. #70
    Rift Chaser Chadak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    320

    Default

    I agree very much with that point, Laerys.

    MMO's lost their way when they became hydras, I think. A game like Rift here, made with a certain style of pve in mind, has to bee gimmicked through special pvp stats for its mechanics to not be a total broken wash.

    Not made for its own pvp. Neither is wow, Swtor, and so on.

    EVE is masses exactly for all of its systems, including its pvp. On to of having good administration, they made good design decisions that targeted a unified market, not ten pieces of ten different markets.

    Its why LoL does so well. Good administration plus targeting a unified market. Is not a hydra trying to go in ten directions at once and winding up mostly going nowhere except in grandiose circles.
    Last edited by Chadak; 03-17-2014 at 09:34 PM.

  11. #71
    Ascendant Baramos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    4,595

    Default

    Elder Scrolls Online PvP - Cyrodiil AvA - All your Keep are belong to us

    Zerging, I think most of us saw this coming


  12. #72
    Champion Kaiser Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Laeris View Post
    Considering the point that I did list facts in my reply that he edited out intentionally? Ok You're right I'm wrong and all that.

    Unless of course you too think Warhammer Online was a quote, "massively successful PvP game" that in no way bankrupted their company and had to be closed down because of their "massive success."



    I live in the real world. Warhammer lost tens of millions of dollars. Negative profits in business is not a hallmark of a successful business.

    If so, then yes! Warhammer was successful and I am in fact terribly wrong here.

    you didn't get their point.

    a game can have an excellent aspect, but still fail overall. This does not mean that the excellent part of them game was lacking, because it was the fault of the other parts.

    what people who cry for sandbox and 1999 glory do not understand is, that they themselves do not want these games anymore.

    those games suffered from immense grinds, bad graphics, wooden animations, major bugs and imbalance, weaker storytelling possibilities, bad ui and usability, killstealing on bosses, bad character controls and bad overall character feeling and movement, bad combat with no impact etc. etc.

    (of course the had good sides as well, but you guys mostly forget about the downsides when talking about the past.)

    what you guys want is a sandbox game with a AAA themeparks budget, graphics, animations, usability,awesome combat, quality of life features and rapid content support that also caters to the extreme small hardcore audience and has forced grouping and no pvp instances because you just want open world pvp and no dungeons either because you dont recognise it as skilled gameplay, because those tank and spank world bosses from the past were so much more hardcore....


    newer sandboxes like age of wushu do exist, but because it is not "sandbox wow or sandbox rift" you guys do not play it, because what you want is a sandpark not a sandbox.
    Last edited by Kaiser Phoenix; 03-20-2014 at 02:48 AM.

  13. #73
    Ascendant Laeris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,873

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaiser Phoenix View Post
    you didn't get their point.

    a game can have an excellent aspect, but still fail overall. This does not mean that the excellent part of them game was lacking, because it was the fault of the other parts.

    what people who cry for sandbox and 1999 glory do not understand is, that they themselves do not want these games anymore.

    those games suffered from immense grinds, bad graphics, wooden animations, major bugs and imbalance, weaker storytelling possibilities, bad ui and usability, killstealing on bosses, bad character controls and bad overall character feeling and movement, bad combat with no impact etc. etc.

    (of course the had good sides as well, but you guys mostly forget about the downsides when talking about the past.)

    what you guys want is a sandbox game with a AAA themeparks budget, graphics, animations, usability,awesome combat, quality of life features and rapid content support that also caters to the extreme small hardcore audience and has forced grouping and no pvp instances because you just want open world pvp and no dungeons either because you dont recognise it as skilled gameplay, because those tank and spank world bosses from the past were so much more hardcore....


    newer sandboxes like age of wushu do exist, but because it is not "sandbox wow or sandbox rift" you guys do not play it, because what you want is a sandpark not a sandbox.
    If you're comparing 1997 games to present... by calling them bad graphics, UI, etc... then sure. But back then UO for example was pretty much it outside of AOL before EQ came around. It was pretty darn awesome because outside of Super Mario Bros., UO was simply the most amazing game ever.

    Mind you, it is still active. EVE is a sandbox and has been active for 10 years. Mortal is still active. In fact, not a single major release sandbox MMO in the West has closed shop.

    Now, I can rattle off a quite a few theme parks that have bit the dust. RF Online, Shadowbane, DCUO, WAR, SWG, CoH, Pirates of the Caribbean, AO, Earth and Beyond...

    Another interesting tidbit. The Sandbox games are doing this with a sub model. It's the themepark MMOs that are flip flopping all over their pay models trying to hoodwink gamers in with F2P nonsense. Some sandbox games have free trials and such but no F2P mechanics.

    If you haven't figured it out yet, themepark MMOs are not about player enjoyment... they're about short term cash grabs. They typically make over 75% of their revenue in the first 180 days after release then go on permanent decline (WoW being the one and only exception). Once the cash grab is over, they change their pay system in order to draw blood from your onions. The ultimate end result is a stagnant game that trickles revenue at barely above overhead costs (AoC, SWTOR, WoW, Rift, LotRO, DDO, Aion, GW2, included).

    Now, you have ESO launching and industry analysts expect a 60 day lifespan on that title. Meaning: It will make hard revenue for 60 days before entering its decline prior to the end of its 1st quarter of life. Internal shareholder reports have them expecting this with a F2P offering ALREADY PLANNED to be announced shortly after GA (general availability).

    So, the cycle continues. Where that cycle is changing is with EQ: Next. It's launching with a hybrid pay model that is officially F2P, but unlike other gaming companies, they make no qualms about the fact that if you aren't subbed, you will in fact miss out on content. It's a F2P trial... try as long as you want and buy when you're ready. As with anything, EQ: Next could bomb but the industry is ripe for a new thing... and that new thing is a hardcore return to the brutal ruleset of 1999 and the free-will mechanics that made games like WoW possible.

    WoW may have been the success story of the early 2000s, but it was only possible because legions of gamers got hooked on MMOs by games like UO and EQ in the first place. MMO players don't need story (in fact, it is the single most under-used content system in MMOs... most dialogues are canceled or skipped). EQ may have been a gated, "themepark" style game but it didn't feed players content. You had to find it yourself (it didn't even give you a map!). That is exactly how Next will work. It's a hybrid mesh of new tech with old school flavor.

    It will be a niche game like almost every major software product in the industry right now. The time has come for games like ESO and Wildstar... those are the last throes of a broken model before the return to "proper" way of game design.

  14. #74
    Ascendant Baramos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    4,595

    Default

    Elder Scrolls Online - Epic Zerg Capturing a Resource & Keep


  15. #75
    Rift Chaser Chadak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    320

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Laeris View Post
    If you're comparing 1997 games to present... by calling them bad graphics, UI, etc... then sure. But back then UO for example was pretty much it outside of AOL before EQ came around. It was pretty darn awesome because outside of Super Mario Bros., UO was simply the most amazing game ever.

    Mind you, it is still active. EVE is a sandbox and has been active for 10 years. Mortal is still active. In fact, not a single major release sandbox MMO in the West has closed shop.

    Now, I can rattle off a quite a few theme parks that have bit the dust. RF Online, Shadowbane, DCUO, WAR, SWG, CoH, Pirates of the Caribbean, AO, Earth and Beyond...

    Another interesting tidbit. The Sandbox games are doing this with a sub model. It's the themepark MMOs that are flip flopping all over their pay models trying to hoodwink gamers in with F2P nonsense. Some sandbox games have free trials and such but no F2P mechanics.

    If you haven't figured it out yet, themepark MMOs are not about player enjoyment... they're about short term cash grabs. They typically make over 75% of their revenue in the first 180 days after release then go on permanent decline (WoW being the one and only exception). Once the cash grab is over, they change their pay system in order to draw blood from your onions. The ultimate end result is a stagnant game that trickles revenue at barely above overhead costs (AoC, SWTOR, WoW, Rift, LotRO, DDO, Aion, GW2, included).

    Now, you have ESO launching and industry analysts expect a 60 day lifespan on that title. Meaning: It will make hard revenue for 60 days before entering its decline prior to the end of its 1st quarter of life. Internal shareholder reports have them expecting this with a F2P offering ALREADY PLANNED to be announced shortly after GA (general availability).

    So, the cycle continues. Where that cycle is changing is with EQ: Next. It's launching with a hybrid pay model that is officially F2P, but unlike other gaming companies, they make no qualms about the fact that if you aren't subbed, you will in fact miss out on content. It's a F2P trial... try as long as you want and buy when you're ready. As with anything, EQ: Next could bomb but the industry is ripe for a new thing... and that new thing is a hardcore return to the brutal ruleset of 1999 and the free-will mechanics that made games like WoW possible.

    WoW may have been the success story of the early 2000s, but it was only possible because legions of gamers got hooked on MMOs by games like UO and EQ in the first place. MMO players don't need story (in fact, it is the single most under-used content system in MMOs... most dialogues are canceled or skipped). EQ may have been a gated, "themepark" style game but it didn't feed players content. You had to find it yourself (it didn't even give you a map!). That is exactly how Next will work. It's a hybrid mesh of new tech with old school flavor.

    It will be a niche game like almost every major software product in the industry right now. The time has come for games like ESO and Wildstar... those are the last throes of a broken model before the return to "proper" way of game design.
    I don't think brutal rulesets hold the appeal many seem to mistake them for being directly relative to. Of course, if I were wrong to that point, Wizardry would've perhaps done well.

    Observable fact is though, harsh death penalties and the like don't appeal to a sustainable niche, and as much as some gaming geezers might pine for the sense of wonder they felt playing UO or EQ1, the wonder won't come back if you don't have a map and dying costs you two weeks' worth of advancement plus leaving a fully lootable corpse.

    That 'sense of risk' is thrilling to very few. The data backing design decisions to move away from that content type isn't based on a handful of peoples nostalgia trips and misattributions of association therein.

    When i casually think back on my childhood, I fondly remember many things through the rose-hued lenses of selective memory. And then I see my own kid growing up and remember the rest.

    It wasn't ambrosia and magic in the old mmo days. Ubiquitous-you might think harsh rulesets are the proper thing, but the facts don't support that at all. Sustainability of revenue goddess the pen that writes the rules, and as much as I sometimes miss how much fun I had being perma-red in uo, running around in nothing but a death robe with a gm jataka and maybe ten bandages and pk'ing people to take their stuff, those days are pretty much gone, and there are good reasons for why.

    EQ1? Break out the rocking chair, gramps its gonna rant about how e used to have to level in groups and when we saw a max level person, we were in awe, unable to even imagine someday being that too.

    Those days are gone, and they're not coming back.

    There's a saying about love. Everything will always be compared unfavorably to your first great love. This is pretty frequently true, no matter the subject material.

    Its a very bad judgment model to make design decisions from. Its myopic, its occlusive of any conflicting data that doesn't agree with the foregone conclusion and is ultimately toxic to its own intentions on top of being, typically, almost entirely wrong in every way discernible.

    Punitive systems should stay dead, I think. Don't punish people for dying in your game; reward staying alive. A lot of systems in many mmo's have been trying to find the magic sweet spot for how that is best done, not if. 'If' is no longer a relevant question, just like studies to discern whether the earth is round or not aren't a thing anymore and for the exact same reasons; its exhaustively and repeatedly proven fact, at least amongst those concerned with such data.

    MMO's don't intrinsically require story as a driving feature either...but if you're going to try to make an mmoRPG with any appeal to RPG fans, this had better be an important factor on your list of things to prioritize. World of Tanks? Not requiring or likely to benefit from SWTOR-like airlines. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that story emphasis could be a huge detriment to done game types.

    And that's where mmo's have become hydras with to many heads to ever realistically feed. Most every mmo going will inundate you in quite possibly many things you don't case about our even want to do...in order to duo the things you do.

    You can't just feed the had you like and want to play with in hardly any of them. You want advancement past the leveling experience? You raid or pvp. Raiding is nothing like the rest of most such games, and story teens to get in its way when its distracting from the appeal of raiding, being the coordinative and technical skill-oriented focus.

    Pvp its its own animal entirely, with huge appeal for some, violent avoidance for others and too little middle ground to regard it as anything but a very polarized matter.

    None of these are the same game, even if they occur within the same game. The style and mentality for their appeal have no necessary correlations what so ever.

    So, a fair number of people wind up having to play several different ways to play the typically one our two they actually wanted.

    Why is that s problem?

    Every day, you need to eat. Imagine that, in order to get the food item you want, you have to also get several others you do not want and maybe outright hate.

    You don't have to eat everything, but you have to take it and deal with it, even if out disgusts you, and if you complain that you don't want A or B but with only C, there's not nearly enough, you're often told you're just entitled our to such it up and stop whining.

    Now, food its Necessity whereas mmo'ing is not, but my point remains: mmo's have, for too long, forgotten a monumental truth.

    You can't please everybody all the time. Try and you'll just re-prove the lesson.

    There's not too much to do in most mmo's; there's often too little that has significant appeal to any one person. If the Preston that would most enjoy you're game is, by necessity, a hardcore raider/top pvp'er/craft grinder/story aficionado/rp'er/completionist/jumping puzzle lover...

    You're basically marketing you're entire game to almost nobody, and guaranteeing that some of your game will absolutely be irrelevant at best to most if your playerbase at all times.

    You'd think, looming at out on paper at least, that this shouldn't be a problem. And truth its, it didn't have to be...until devs start thinking its smart to try to, even gently, force players to diversify.

    Make raiders do some pvp! Yeah!!

    Except...the ones that wanted to pvp already were. The ones that didn't aren't going to love you for making them pvp if they want the BiS pve carrot you've put on a pvp string.

    Here's a mistake mmo's keep making: let's make hardcore raiders slog repeatedly through or million and two hours of exploring how many ways we can have you kill ten rats!

    And my personal favorite...let's take a player through this possibly amazing story adventure, teach them nothing of how to excel at playing along the way (and, in fact, typically reward only repetition and not skill so that learning skill had no real purpose past a merely functional point), and then utterly ditch them at your social circus of an endgame where, suddenly, they have to play an entirely different game to see more of your dungeon and raid gated story.

    And then, AND THEN, be collectively confused as to why those that loved the journey often hate the endgame. They weren't even hardly the same game its fricken why!

    PVP? Very few mmo's do it any justice at all, and as long as they keep trying to do primary pve focus with pvp under the same roof, they really never will.

    There's potential markets for all of these fundamentally different games on their own. Imagine a raid game with a focus on raiding alike to LoL's focus on team-need moba pvp?

    I'd say most raiders at least like there to be some story to it all, do maybe bake some in non-intrusively, but otherwise? Don't hang it on the end of a long-*** largely solo story driven leveling game, or you're just asking your players to HAVE to do both if they want to raid, and have to do both if they want to see the rest of the story.

    Again, pvp? Yeah, because people mainly wanting to pvp really also wanted to be a useless scrub until they level and gear grind. Minimizing the importance of skill while maximizing the importance of grind is mmo pvp's most common format. Its usually schizophrenically glued onto pve mechanics with awkward special stats just for pvp and pve to maximize nothing but more grind if you want to do both.


    /slowclap

    We expect you to try both, so well punish you by making you have to grind way more to do both.

    It doesn't actually work: mmo's don't work: because of these things. They work despite them sometimes, and fail because of them pretty often.

    EVE online has some pretty potentially harsh death penalties...that you can largely avoid through skill, planning and always being prepared. Their entire game rewards skill, planning and preparation in mutually energizing directions. EVE is not a hydra of a game trying to go in ten directions at once. It had story and lore, but its quite unintrusive, and you really don't even need to care that it exists to get the most out of the real game itself.

    WoW had been the biggest hydra going in western relevance for quite some time, by contrast. Look at what its had to do internally to try to adapt. Port a vanilla player from '05 to now and they won't even hardly recognize the game. Blizzard has done a legendary job of adapting in ways most won't even try.

    Its chiefly accomplished this by minimizing how forced an ever increasing number of its players have to feel in order to do what they want. Some don't like that and decry wow as going ez-mods and blah blah blah, welfare epics, blah blah blah.

    We're social animals. A lot of us, as demonstrated by the proliferation of social media platforms, like to feel connected, whether we're smoking story content or raiding or pvping or crafting our whatever.

    We don't like, very many of us, having to do things we don't like to get what we want. Toxicity in mmo communities, animosity between types of players, these are fostered by hydra-headed games, because everyone wants their favorite game within the game to be well supported and polished.

    Reality is, they all wind up starved and neglected because dev resources are invariably insufficient to feed content and innovation to the monsters they've created.


    This is how you try to please everyone all if the time and wind up simply annoying most people most if the time.

    And that truism won't be changing anytime soon, no matter how many times some publisher tries to replicate wow's phenomenon and, instead, proves the old adage instead.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts