All Posts by heerobya

"Lets keep this clean, no name calling, no putting eachother down, lets talk like adults with an IQ over 90. ( you can handle that right? )"

You already failed at having a no name calling, no putting each other down "adult" conversation.

Originally posted by Aragon100

 Yup some people have to read up on the game before they have too many assumptions concerning Darkfall.

 And the ones that never played a similar game, like UO, be a bit humble regarding alignment, how it will work and so on. Get some own experience, then dump it or cheerish it.

UO worked like a clock with their type of alignment system.

 

See I played UO and I don't the alignment system worked well at all.

Players who were PKs, who went red, had no real consequences. Yeah, you couldn't go into the towns and cities without being attacked... Oh well, you could still go to Skara Brae and bank, you could still have your house as a safe spot / bank.... There were Red healers to rez you (at least on Siege Perilous)

Going red and being a PK was a choice, a choice with very little real consequence. At least, this was my experience.

Originally posted by Isane

Please go read up on the Darkfall site / you are making far too many assumptions about the game and taking things out of context. I could pick through youre responses and correct you but whats the point I am not sure you are interested. As far as digging holes youre responses are ammusing, but out of context.

The game is about player skill, If you dont have the skill to adapt and want to macro and AFK then you will be in trouble no way around it.

If you know Orcs are marauding why do you have the right to walk by like God, and why on earth have you got yourself in that situation.

Mute argument again, I think you will like Darkfall because it will give to a greater extend what you want but in return you will have to abide by the rules of the game. If you put your head into the cats mouth don't be surprised that it gets bitten off( And that was mean't to read big cat).

 

 

I've read nearly every line of text on the Darkfall website and been heavily involved in the discussions about Darkfall here on the MMORPG.com forums.

The alignment / justice system is the key to creating an environment that isn't full of *sshat ganker/griefer d-bags.

Does the alignment system work? I don't know, I haven't played, the devs aren't saying much, and the only 1st person account of playing the game was from that Asp guy, and I doubt the credibility.

I am very interesting in this game, and will try it out for sure if it's ever released, and if I like it I'll play it. 

I love FFA PvP etc. but only when it is done right. I have serious doubts about a small indy developer with questionable reliability and honesty to "do it right."

That is all.

I think both WoW and SWG met my expectations after all the hype surrounding them, at least at first.

After a few weeks that "omg this is amazing" feeling wore off, but as WoW only got better and better as time went on (before I maxed out and the game got stagnant) on the other hand SWG seemed to get worse and worse. Yeah, they released new content like mounts and vehicles and housing etc. But the more I played the more the game seemed fundamentally broken.

In NON-MMO gaming, a few games have met and then exceeded my expectations.

Halo 3 lived up to the hype, and surpassed it. Call of Duty 4 lived up to the hype... Mass Effect...

Warcraft 3, Oblivion...

There have been a few, but it's rare. Especailly in MMO gaming.

After reading a few more posts from other people, I just gotta keep writing.

We had a fine house in UO on Great Lakes, full of all kinds of treasures. We'd get together and hop over to Felucca and do some Factions PvP. We'd run through some dungeons to make cash and hopefully get some rare stuff.

I'd log onto Siege Perilous and join my murderous brethren in our war against humanity. We'd defend our home from their constant attacks, we'd gather resources to build our weapons of war. We'd fight monsters around our home to build our skills. We'd sit and chat, dueling and killing each other for fun, we'd train Red healers into our camp and box them in to resurrect us when we'd die.

I know sandbox. I know we made our own stories, are own lives.

SWG was not a good Sandbox for me. Too much grinding. The beauty of UO was that there was no grinding. You can macro your skills up to almost max in no time, after that it was just about doing... whatever you wanted to.

Progression + sandbox kills the sandbox, in my opinion. The sandbox becomes a boring grind-fest of a progression because there is no content.

No progression + sandbox = a truly open world, where you make your own adventure and fun.

In a progression based game, you need something to do in order to progress. Quests and developer created story give you that something to do. Progressing your character is merely the bi-product of a successful questing game.

WoW did a great job with this, but they could have done a lot more. You only read and appreciate the quests the first time through. The quests are very static, very vanilla.

Sandbox vs. linear is really like a book. Some like to read a well crafting story, immerse themselves in the world the book creates, and go along for the ride. Others like to choose their own path, write their own story.

Some like both. So why can't we get a game with both?

Ohh I like this thread. Thanks eric_w66.

I've often thought about what people call "sandbox" vs. what they call "linear" game play in a MMORPG.

As a long time Ultima Online Veteran, Star Wars Galaxies player from day one, and avid World of Warcraft player (off and on) for three years... I think I've seen both ends of the spectrum.

The main difference is that so-called "linear" games guide you to content that is appropriate for the relative strength of your character. This is done mostly through quests. Even if the so-called "linear" questing game was skill based, having all of your skill at about 1/3 of the maximum is exactly the same in a class base game as being around level 20 out of 60.

People do not realize that even in a so-called "linear" quest based game, you don't have to do the quests. You can wander around, collecting resources to use in crafting, socialize with other players in towns and inns/taverns, find monsters around your level to combat and advance your power... But you may say "yes but I won't level as fast!" well then you are playing for the wrong reason.

It's just that in so-called "sandbox" games, you usually don't have the option for guidance, unless it's from other players. You have to figure it out on your own, make mistakes and move on. Some like that more, some like a little guidance. Anyone who says stuff like "hand-holding" etc. is just wrong.

Some of the things that the so-called "sandbox" games had that are lacking in more so-called "linear" questing games is some of the social content. Building homes and cities, more robust crafting and economies, even things like music, dancing, mini-games and other such activities.

So far, in more so-called "linear" questing games, you pretty much have to fight stuff in order to advance your character's level. In more traditional so-called "sandbox" games, you could pursue other courses of advancement, though most end up fighting anyway.

This trend is changing. More questing type games are offering more advanced crafting, housing, and social options. Lord of the Rings Online: Shadows of Angmar comes to mind with their excellent music system, neighborhood housing, etc.

Many of us do perceive a lack of story (i.e. questing) as a lack of content, and thus would be bored with a game that didn't have interesting questing. I know this is true personally because trying to make alts, I get so bored of the questing content because I've already been there, I know the outcomes, and it feels more like grinding.

It's really all the same. Either you kill 100 rats to level your skills / xp for no reason other then to advance your toon, or you kill 10 rats for Bob and 20 more for Jimmy for various quests and end up killing 100 rats anyway, but the story of quests gives you the illusion of doing something more then simply killing 100 rats.

So it's true, sandbox = no story beyond what you (the player) creates. linear questing = dev provided story to mask the same grind as the sandbox game.

My ideal system?

One with skill based advancement, I create my own unique(ish) class. One with a very strong and well developed story line (questing) however with tons of non-quest related content. Dungeons and temples and castles etc. to explore and battle in, with reward for going off the beaten path the quests provide. Excellent yet not tedius make X 30 times to make Y crafting, housing and city building that doesn't create urban sprawl and use up all the available free space... a robust economy with developer created limitations to prevent rampant inflation and predatory auctioning practices.

Advancement system where a hour of questing = hour of grinding = hour of PvP = hour of crafting = etc. Many choices for PvP that are fair and balanced and fun, rewarding my skill as a gamer in a gank/grief free world.

That kind of thing... I could go into more detail, but I already made a couple blog posts way back when about it...

Originally posted by Narian89

Originally posted by heerobya

 No, this assumes that the game in question has any sort of progression, as I stated. And so far, every single MMO has had some kind of progression system. One could even say that the RPG aspect of MMORPG demands that the game have some sort of progression.

 Perma-death requires you to repeat the progression. And for what reason? It's "realistic?"

Well, you can't really have an MMO without progression.

Exactly my point.

Permadeath + progression = wasted progression, repeated content, burned out/bored faster

Originally posted by ext1

Actually, the majority of the time, those that like permadeath tend to be the complete opposite of that. They tend to be more on the RP side than the OMFG EYE GANKED j00!! side of things. The sort you describe dwell far more in the pvp realm than anywhere else (yes I know, not ALL pvp people are like that).

The sort you describe would despise hardcore permadeath and the first time they lost their supa-L337 choon, they would quit hardcore and find their bullying fix elsewhere....

Permadeath for the Role Playing side would indeed make sense.

But as someone talked about a DDO guild, permadeath is REALLY easy to Role Play...

Just delete your toon if you die. You don't need special servers or rule sets or anything.

If it's NOT about PvP then you aren't in competition with others, only the game itself. I imagine if you told a PvP Permadeath fan to delete their toon if they die in PvP, they'll say "but the other people on my server won't do that, so I'll never get ahead! Not unless everyone else deletes their toons too!"

Which boils down to the main point, they want to perma-PK others and force them to restart so they can get ahead, stroking their e-pen15. But ask them to permadeath themselves and they scream and cry NO!

Originally posted by Anofalye

 

 

I would never play on a Permadeath server...or any PvP server for that matter.  But, in a game as WoW...wouldn't it be nice that all these players play on the same server instead of yours?  :P

 

And if there are 10k such players and they all play on the same server, who care what happen there?  :P  Not me.  Not you.  And you are happy on your server with peoples that think like you.  I am happy on mine with peoples which think like me. :)

 

See, the guy you describe, I want him to play on ANOTHER server.  Not mine.  Even if he can't PK me, PvP me or grief me in anyway...he will tries to find such a way...but now...he has a server for him...he goes there...and see his brothers and sisters and they kill each other in that gankfest!   :P

 

And the MMO devs are happy cashing all-in all our money even if they see that they need to hire 10 more programmers due to population increase and that soo many servers need rules adjustements. :P

You misunderstand me, I agree with you that offering more choice in server types is the way to go.

The more choices the better, let the sociopath pathetic ganker/griefer loses have their own server, but I'll be the one laughing when the server population is at 100 and they shut it down / switch it from perma-death to a standard server type.

Point is, in a game like WoW, with 10+million people you might be able to get enough population to have ONE perma-death server. Go ahead, I won't touch it.

Permadeath seems like a good idea until that one guy/gal who spend their entire gaming time playing at odd hours, always tackling content way below their skill/level slowly leveling/gaining skills to maximum, then they start slaughtering every one and everything around them, no one ever get's to the level they are and permadeath becomes a super griefing tool.

Those who want Permadeath also always seem to want FFA PvP.

Why?

Becuase they will be the ones who find a "safe" way to rise to the maximum skill/level cap and then grief the living sh*t out of every one and everything they see to inflate their e-pen15.

They want to gank you, steal your stuff (even though it's worthless noob gear) and instead of continuing to beat you down (griefing) once you respawn, they just want to permanently kill you.

Shows that NOOB for not being L337 enough to "make the cut" in such a "hardcore" game.

LOL

Pathetic.

Originally posted by HYPERI0N

Originally posted by mdolsen

Originally posted by heerobya

I don't know about ya'll, but I play MMOs for fun.

I wouldn't find it fun to have to re-do months (or years) of content because I made one small mistake that got my character killed.

In any game that is progression based, where you do something, complete that something, then move on to something else (i.e. 99% of games) you can't have perma-death. Most people get very, very tired of repeating the same content over and over and over.

In the glory days of the Arcade, you had permadeath. You got as far as you could on your quarter then when you got the game over, that was it. You'd have to start back at the beginning.

Then they added the "Continue?" option, put another quarter in, keep playing from where you left off!

And you know what happened? People started playing a lot more, and they started paying a lot more.

The removal of perma-death happened decades ago, and it's never coming back in a marketable product.

Exactly.

This of course assumes that the game in question will be the same as a standard MMO like WoW.

Perma-death requires you to repeat the progression. And for what reason? It's "realistic?"

Originally posted by Anofalye

Having; at launch:

- 1 permadeath server would be a good idea.

- 1 lives per month server  with no other death penalty*, also a good idea.

- 1 FFA PvP server, also a good idea.

- 1 PvE-grouping server (all loot placed on 1 merchant for now, later more adjustements if popular enought), also a good idea.

- 1 casual server (can't play more than 3 hours per week) where everything is earned FAST (log in, your level 20...gain 1 level per kill up to 40...then still fast, should be hard to be max level in 3 weeks, but not impossible (9 hours LOL)), also a good idea.

- Many other specific servers with their own systems...

 

See, the keys point here are:  AT LAUNCH, AS MANY DIFFERENTS SETTING AS POSIIBLE (even if not working, advertise as such and then a note say that it is not working as intended for now, patching will solve it eventually)

 

See, PvE variations should be the most common, not the least.  Most peoples play in PvE.  Give players the choices.  When new expansions are launched, try a few twists of existing setting...or new stuff althogeter.

 

Giving the choices to the players and then supporting these is what matters, maybe show the population on servers setting that are about to be squashed into oblivion if not more successfull...instead of light load, put a 214 players online and give a warning ahead of time that at this current course, this server would be closed in a month...or whatever...and if there is a character transfer option to some server, or not (obviously, a character on the casual server cannot be transferred anywhere short of the test server)

 

*: Would need to explain the death system in great lenght...can check my blog if you really want some info.

The reason they don't have so many different server types:

Each server required maintenance, power, administrative costs, etc.

They will not keep a server up an running if they don't have enough players on that server to justify the cost of keeping it running.

This is why we see games with lower populations consilidate and then remove low population servers.

Point is, NO MMO Developer has seen enough potential in keeping a perma-death server up and running to add one to their server scheme. They believe it wouldn't have enough players to make it financially viable to keep the server running.

And I agree.

Originally posted by Recant

MMORPG.com posters are a minority of a minority of a minority... etc.  The silent masses dictate how well a game is received.  This is why nothing you read here is indicative of anything outside of this clique of jaded gamers.  It's why games like WoW are rated below un-heard of games, despite being critically acclaimed pretty much everywhere else, and of course being the choice of many PC gamers who are nerdy enough to know what a good game is and isn't.

Basically what I'm saying is that opinions on here are generally worthless.

And I'm aware that includes mine as well :p

Truthiness...

Honestly, every post after Recant's post doesn't matter, Recant summed it up perfectly.

It's the basic WoW argument:

"10 million players don't lie!"

and then someone on MMORPG.com says:

"Just because a lot of people play it doesn't mean it's any good! It's like McDonalds..." etc.

When in TRUTH, what really should be said is:

"10 million players don't lie!"

and then someone on MMORPG.com says:

"I'm bitter and jaded!"

I don't know about ya'll, but I play MMOs for fun.

I wouldn't find it fun to have to re-do months (or years) of content because I made one small mistake that got my character killed.

In any game that is progression based, where you do something, complete that something, then move on to something else (i.e. 99% of games) you can't have perma-death. Most people get very, very tired of repeating the same content over and over and over.

In the glory days of the Arcade, you had permadeath. You got as far as you could on your quarter then when you got the game over, that was it. You'd have to start back at the beginning.

Then they added the "Continue?" option, put another quarter in, keep playing from where you left off!

And you know what happened? People started playing a lot more, and they started paying a lot more.

The removal of perma-death happened decades ago, and it's never coming back in a marketable product.

Originally posted by gestalt11 If you don't like it, don't read it.  I was responding to Pappy.

 

 If you expect a concise explanation of complex topics when I have limited time then you are silly.  If you want to argue my points then fine do so, but I see no arguments.

I read all of it, even understood the vast majority.

You are indeed a very intelligent person, yet the presentation may need a little work :)

And the best part is, you're right.

To (try) and sum it up for others (and please correct me if I'm wrong) :

1. 25 person raid should NOT = 5 person dungeon X 5

Why? Different set of challenges, just multiplying the health/damage by 5 doesn't make it 5 times more challenging.

2. Throwing more people at a problem isn't neccessarily the best idea. In fact, it can make things a lot worse, a lot less efficient, and just plain wasteful

3. To use a more.... reader friendly example....

In American Football, you have 11 guys on each side. 22 players on the field at once. Right?

If you doubled that, would it make the game twice as hard? No. It's make the game too complex and awkward without adding anything to the game but confusion and disorder.

Complexity for the sake of complexity is NOT challenge... it's complexity.

4. Smaller groups of people have to be more specialized, and specializing in a task is more challenging then having a great many people who are generalists.

The same is true of 5-person dungeons vs. raiding. In the smaller group setting, each person's role is more important, and thus the encounter is more challenging because each person has to contribute more.

What did I miss.... ummm... I'll have to read it again! :)

As with all things in life, the outcome is best when balance is achieved.

I'll let you ponder over that one...

If I had a dime for every time someone started a rumor about Darkfall beta starting soon....

I'd be able to pay to train a monkey to type my posts on MMORPG.com for me!

Honestly, I can't imagine the quantity of opium one must take in order to justify such a thing as being in any way "worth doing."

Wow....

*talking about the video itself, not you posting it spirit!*