Originally posted by Banaghran

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Banaghran

Just look at wow you mention, did lfr help the game in terms of subs, or are just you personally more happy?

Well, MOP gained back 1M subs .. so did LFR help? May be doing LFR prevent faster slide of subs. We will never know. But we do know that LFD is a popular feature. We do know that there are lots of requests for TOR to add LFD in the beginning.

 

 

Expansions do that, how the trend will be half a year from realease is important.

As for the rest, i was not attacking lfr as a lobby concept, but as another difficulty, even if you will again post your usual percentages, my point was that the difficulty is not the main issue.

Flame on!

:)

Difficulty certainly was an issue back in the days of sunwell when only 2% can see the dungeon (too difficult for many). And at the same time, people on this forum is claiming EQ is 100x harder and they want that.

Originally posted by fenistil

What would be great is diffrent difficulty servers having whole world and it's instances on other level of difficulty than other servers. 

"it's instances on other level of difficulty than other servers. " .. there is no difference between this and set your difficulty level before you enter the instance. In fact, it has the added advantage that you can change difficulty when you want to.

Why do it for a whole server when you can do it at the individual level?

Originally posted by fenistil

 

What would be great is diffrent difficulty servers having whole world and it's instances on other level of difficulty than other servers. 

 

Now this is a great idea that I have wished they would do for quite some time. We have pvp server, rp server, why not difficulty servers. If your going to make me level I need challange to enjoy it not what we have today where the only challange is to guess how  many mouse clicks it takes to get to max level.

I will give GW2 some credit they have a decent challange for their game as you level depending on what class you play.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Difficulty certainly was an issue back in the days of sunwell when only 2% can see the dungeon (too difficult for many). And at the same time, people on this forum is claiming EQ is 100x harder and they want that.

 

Such a big issue that 2 mil more played (and we are back to that old argument).

The "how many people see the dungeon" is a non-argument, nearly noone ever saw old naxx back in vanilla, too , which did not stop them from playing the game and later visiting naxx in TBC (and still wiping constantly :) ).

The game was simply different back then, you had to be really nolife to not get "lost in the content" for a year, which was certainly no longer true in wotlk, dunno about now, but i doubt past content is as relevant and interesting for new players as it  was back in tbc.

As for EQ, well, people like different types of difficuly, we argued before so i am under the impression that you like tough scripted encounters and pvping for a world boss or gathering resist gear or consumables as a bore, chore and not difficult. There are people who think the opposite, take scripted encounters as a chore and like the difficulty of getting 150 potions for the raid group or pvping for the boss. (Or i am completely missing the point :) )

Flame on!

:)

Originally posted by Banaghran

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Difficulty certainly was an issue back in the days of sunwell when only 2% can see the dungeon (too difficult for many). And at the same time, people on this forum is claiming EQ is 100x harder and they want that.

 

Such a big issue that 2 mil more played (and we are back to that old argument).

The "how many people see the dungeon" is a non-argument, nearly noone ever saw old naxx back in vanilla, too , which did not stop them from playing the game and later visiting naxx in TBC (and still wiping constantly :) ).

Non-argument? Don't you think it is wasteful to put major resources on  content most players never see? I went back to WOW after LFR just beacuse i don't have to keep a raid schedule while seeing the raids.

The game was simply different back then, you had to be really nolife to not get "lost in the content" for a year, which was certainly no longer true in wotlk, dunno about now, but i doubt past content is as relevant and interesting for new players as it  was back in tbc.

Past content may not be relevant. But future content is. And Blizz is not going to repeat the mistake of Sunwell again.

As for EQ, well, people like different types of difficuly, we argued before so i am under the impression that you like tough scripted encounters and pvping for a world boss or gathering resist gear or consumables as a bore, chore and not difficult. There are people who think the opposite, take scripted encounters as a chore and like the difficulty of getting 150 potions for the raid group or pvping for the boss. (Or i am completely missing the point :) )

Precisely my point. Having a difficulty setting accomodate more. Those who like the touch scripted encounters can have the tough ones with more reward. Those who don't, can play the "easy" version.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Many here complains MMOs are too easy. Many on official MMO forums complains MMOs are too hard  (good example: lots of complains about CATA H dungeons being too difficult and Blizz has to nerf them).

Obviously you can't please everyone.

No longer. D3 is going to get a "monster level" system that you can choose a level of difficulty (1-10 monster power level in D3, but obviously can have as many levels as needed in a game) with more rewards at higher difficulty. The highest level is probably impossible for 99.99% of the players.

It works both in leveling, and end game. This will once and for all, solve the issue. No one can claim the game is too easy, or too hard.

May be this can be used in MMOs, particularly the leveling part, which a lot here think is too easy.

Diablo II had /player 1-8 command you know? Or you didnt played it obviously...

If you didnt, i highly advise you to do so. It is actuall blasphemy to skip first 2 parts and play third straight away

I never really liked having difficulty settings for a dungeon/instance. It seems the devs can skimp on content that way.

People progress through the game, and when they get to a couple of raids at the end, they go from easy, gear up, then normal, gear up again, then hard etc. The problem is, we're running the same thing, just a little harder each time. I rather have a couple different raids to do of the same difficulty, then that opens up a few more, then a few more after that.

Increasing the number of difficulty levels just seems to scream less content to me. People say players are lazy and will take the fastest route in leveling, well devs are lazy too and will do the least amount of work they can these days.

Devs these days are like "Add in all those little extras that were standard years ago? nah, too much work. We'll convince people they don't need it. Oh, need to make 6 new raids for the expansion? hey lets make 2 and have 4 different settings on each, thats like 8 raids, more content!"

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Banaghran

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Difficulty certainly was an issue back in the days of sunwell when only 2% can see the dungeon (too difficult for many). And at the same time, people on this forum is claiming EQ is 100x harder and they want that.

 

Such a big issue that 2 mil more played (and we are back to that old argument).

The "how many people see the dungeon" is a non-argument, nearly noone ever saw old naxx back in vanilla, too , which did not stop them from playing the game and later visiting naxx in TBC (and still wiping constantly :) ).

Non-argument? Don't you think it is wasteful to put major resources on  content most players never see? I went back to WOW after LFR just beacuse i don't have to keep a raid schedule while seeing the raids.

The game was simply different back then, you had to be really nolife to not get "lost in the content" for a year, which was certainly no longer true in wotlk, dunno about now, but i doubt past content is as relevant and interesting for new players as it  was back in tbc.

Past content may not be relevant. But future content is. And Blizz is not going to repeat the mistake of Sunwell again.

As for EQ, well, people like different types of difficuly, we argued before so i am under the impression that you like tough scripted encounters and pvping for a world boss or gathering resist gear or consumables as a bore, chore and not difficult. There are people who think the opposite, take scripted encounters as a chore and like the difficulty of getting 150 potions for the raid group or pvping for the boss. (Or i am completely missing the point :) )

Precisely my point. Having a difficulty setting accomodate more. Those who like the touch scripted encounters can have the tough ones with more reward. Those who don't, can play the "easy" version.

 

 

Where is it written they will never see it? And wasteful compared to what? Attempts of too strict balance? Coping with the fallout of random system changes? Atleast if you make a dungeon or raid, two years from now a newbie will look at it and say "whoa, cool", but noone will go "whoa, cool, if i had a completely different skillset i would be now within 5% dps of Joe over there".

As for "raid shedule", most "normal" people can happily organize their time around a weekly poker/bowling/<insert something here> night and a saturday cable movie premiere, why is it so hard to have two raid nights?

As for Sunwell, you would have to prove that it was a mistake first.

As for EQ, it is precisely NOT your point, your point is to sell people who like apple pies cherry pies for half the price instead of apple pies.

Flame on!

:)

Originally posted by dzoni87

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Many here complains MMOs are too easy. Many on official MMO forums complains MMOs are too hard  (good example: lots of complains about CATA H dungeons being too difficult and Blizz has to nerf them).

Obviously you can't please everyone.

No longer. D3 is going to get a "monster level" system that you can choose a level of difficulty (1-10 monster power level in D3, but obviously can have as many levels as needed in a game) with more rewards at higher difficulty. The highest level is probably impossible for 99.99% of the players.

It works both in leveling, and end game. This will once and for all, solve the issue. No one can claim the game is too easy, or too hard.

May be this can be used in MMOs, particularly the leveling part, which a lot here think is too easy.

Diablo II had /player 1-8 command you know? Or you didnt played it obviously...

If you didnt, i highly advise you to do so. It is actuall blasphemy to skip first 2 parts and play third straight away

Yes i know that. But the /player 1-8 command is not a "formal" feature. And even the blues admits that monster level is inspired by the /player command.

And my points are the same whether you are talking about /player 1-8 or MP 1-10 ... a feature that MMOs can adopt.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by fenistil

What would be great is diffrent difficulty servers having whole world and it's instances on other level of difficulty than other servers. 

"it's instances on other level of difficulty than other servers. " .. there is no difference between this and set your difficulty level before you enter the instance. In fact, it has the added advantage that you can change difficulty when you want to.

Why do it for a whole server when you can do it at the individual level?

 

Because I prefer mmorpg's as virtual worlds and changing difficluty in instances on the fly break it.  There is also impact on playerbase and how game is played but that's other matter I don't want to dig deeper into. 

Basically I personally consider immersion, community, interdependability and cohesion as much more important than conveniance.

Of course I don't advocate my solutions as dominant in genre or ones that would fit every single mmorpg because they would not considering how difftent conceptually those games are.  

Every single of your proposal on this forums and every mine proposal can be back-tracked to basic reasons how we play mmorpg's and what is our 'fun' in them. Whole decision tree starts to being difftent there at very bottom.

MMO stands for Massvie Multiplayer Online (Game). So I dont really think D3 a MMO game. D3 can be quite boring due to the lack of game content. 

For a "real" MMO, some difficulty options can be good, just dont make them too many.

Originally posted by sekuharadaioo

MMO stands for Massvie Multiplayer Online (Game). So I dont really think D3 a MMO game. D3 can be quite boring due to the lack of game content. 

For a "real" MMO, some difficulty options can be good, just dont make them too many.

No where did i say D3 is a MMO. However, the difficulty option idea can be used in a MMO. That is the point.

Originally posted by Betaguy

Originally posted by nariusseldonNo longer. D3 is going to get a "monster level" system that you can choose a level of difficulty (1-10 monster power level in D3, but obviously can have as many levels as needed in a game) with more rewards at higher difficulty. The highest level is probably impossible for 99.99% of the players.

Intresting to say the least. I will keep my eye on this.

Welcome back to 2004; it's been done.

Unfortunately, games need to be designed for scaling from day one.  The games that need it most desperately are hard-coded messes, commited to "normal" and "hardmode" instances as a poor compromise, no adjustments available for just normal open world quest mobs..

That doesn't really work in an MMO.

For an MMO to be a cohesive world, it has to be consistent for everyone.

Games like D3 and WoW feel more like arcadey time wasters than virtual worlds.

A world cannot be scary if everyone can just turn the scary off.

People in WoW complain when things are hard because its a casual game. People in core MMOs complain things are too easy because they like challenge and depth.

Just make an MMO for a specific audience and keep to it. Bam.

When DAoC switched from focusing on hardcore PvP and PvE, it lost ALL of its audience and didn't gain a new one.

Originally posted by DavisFlight

That doesn't really work in an MMO.

^ never played CoX.

One of the things WoW (and other games of that era) does poorly that prevents scaling as a funcitonal idea is fixed loot tables.

Yes, you can't have scaling risk without scaling rewards.  But if/when both scale, no one has much of a valid complaint.

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by DavisFlight

That doesn't really work in an MMO.

^ never played CoX.

One of the things WoW does poorly that prevents scaling as a funcitonal idea is fixed loot tables. 

I played it for 2-3 years and the arcadey non virtual world style is why I didn't stay longer. It felt more of a game than a world, considering almost all its content were in randomly generated instances.

Originally posted by BadSpock

They either need to

A. completely remove the idea of "content for everyone!" and make certain areas/zones/instances etc. more challenging - and of course NOT require anyone to do them - make it a true choice - but some (probably many) players get jaded and cry elitism and/or favoritism and it doesn't make much business sense to spend hours/days/weeks (lots of $$) on content only a portion of your player base will ever see.

shame because I'm all for this idea.

Maybe the answer is to balance it a bit. Not make the entire world like this but have have areas that can be your "swamp of fire" and allow the more intrepid individuals a chance at playing in a more challenging area.

Originally posted by DavisFlight

I played it for 2-3 years and the arcadey non virtual world style is why I didn't stay longer. It felt more of a game than a world, considering almost all its content were in randomly generated instances.

Oh, so you know that it does, in fact, work then. 

"Not to my taste"--a much more accurate statement.

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by DavisFlight

I played it for 2-3 years and the arcadey non virtual world style is why I didn't stay longer. It felt more of a game than a world, considering almost all its content were in randomly generated instances.

Oh, so you know that it does, in fact, work then. 

"Not to my taste"--a much more accurate statement.

It doesn't work in a virtual world MMO.

Originally posted by DavisFlight

It doesn't work in a virtual world MMO.

"Not to my taste".  You said that already.