Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by Gintoh

I know about the AI and how it can't stack b/c of the resources required etc. I'm not talking about that.

 

Why don't mobs attack on sight, why must hostile mobs act like you are invisible until you walk close to them, it's absurd to walk into a bandit camp, but you just have to pull them one at a time, and the others don't see you until you shoot/blast with a spell/stab them. Is there a reason for this or is it just laziness?

I don't think it's laziness as making the game playable as well as supporting a style of play that mmo's have come to rely on.

Also, mobs are meant to be defeated. They are essentially powerups that offer a small bit of challenge or perhaps challenge if one makes a mistake and lures too many.

This.

The logic for mobs has changed.  It used to be that people complained that mobs chased you too far because it seemed like splitting and pulling was artificial.  Some might say mobs shouldn't chase you into an ambush (that you prepared for them).  Well, should they chase you or shouldn't they?

If there was huge line of sight aggro, i could see everyone just waiting by the guards for a mob to pop 1/4 mile away.  It sees you and instantly runs to you.  No need to explore, all the mobs come to you!  If a couple pop together, thats what the guard is for.  Making the player leave the safety of the guard seems better.

Actually, popping into existance with an instant hate for the player seems silly as well.  And running any distance just to kill an enemy seems stupid as well.  If i were a mob I'd much rather gather some friends and wait with an ambush. 

A smart mob picks its fights, and doesn't just attack anything.  You don't grow up to be strong by attacking everything in sight.

Originally posted by bunnyhopper

Actually the vast majority of mmo gamers have just about the same definition for the words 'sandbox' and 'themepark' in terms of mmo's, very little neads 'cearing up' so to speak.

 

Look through any thread on the subject (including this one), the majority share the same definition, you get one or two who deviate from that but any term like this will have some amount of ambiguity (and you cannot take into account fanbois who refuse to hear that their precious game is a themepark) regardless of the common consensus.

There is little need to come up with better terms or new definitions for the simple reason that most already agree on the general principles.

Actually, it seems there is a bit of disparity on the definitions.  Everyone has their pet definition.  And as others have mentioned, the term sandbox originally applied to non-mmos.  Therefore, 99% of the mmo players use a definition that is specialized to mmos, and not the original definition as it was used.  Theres a disparity right from the get go.  Now most people won't like the original definition becaues it doesn't support their pet cause.

Originally posted by Sylvus

Originally posted by Waldoe

Originally posted by Angier2758

It seems like each year the games get weaker.  Instead of more classes and specializations we get fewer.  Instead of larger worlds we get smaller ones. If you look at things objectively most of not all the games in the last 5 years have sucked.  When I say they sucked.. they offered much less than games that game out years ahead of them.

 

What brought this on?  Well I'm sitting here wondering if I should pre-order FF14....but I look at the classes and the media page....you know what it reminds me of Aion. 

 

Even weaker than AIon....

None of the great MMOs of the past started out with all of the customization they currently have. Nuff said. You seems to forget that they all started off fairly slow before they grew into the successful games they are/were.

 That is a false statement, UO, EQ,DAoC all started out strong and required much more effort from the player to progress. I think the OP is right, the current MMOs are far to "easy" and limited in progression. Even WoW when it was released was closer to the old style mmo's, but over the years it has been dumbed down with gold buying, websites such as thottbot that can be referenced so you never actually have to do any thinking, quest trackers etc.

 UO,SB,EQ,DAoC, and to some extent vanilla WoW were heads and shoulders above today's style mmo's such as CoH(even though its older it started out pointing the way for you and handing you everything)Warhammer,Conan,Aion,WoW after BC expansion,CO and essentially all of the ftp's.

 Sure some of it is nostalgia, but some of it is fact, the older mmo's pwned the newer ones.

 

 

p.s. and yes I've played every MMO I've listed.

City of heroes gives far more classes and specializations than say DOAC or EQ.  The ability to mix and match primaries and secondaries gives alot more choice.  It was also more fun.  But that is irrelevant to the main point.

We really have to look at the industry as a whole.  Is having 20 games that have 7 classes better for the consumer than having 5 games with 10 classes?  Yes, some of the classes are quite similar between games, but not completely.  You still wind up having more choice with the market flooded than you do when the mmorpg genre started.

Yeah, the older games required more effort, you had to kill 1000's of mobs to level, instead of 10's.  The older games had tons of grind and thats what made it require more effort.  However that sort of effort is not good for the game, so its okay that newer games take less effort. 

Killing a mouse is different than killing an elephant.  Killing a human for revenge is different than killing a human for self preservation.  Those are non repetitive.  But thats only if you look at gameplay at a certain middle level of detail.  if you look at it from a crazy myopic view, the game play will look all the same... repetitve. 

For example with a really poor view of games, mmorpgs are repetitive in the same way all FPS  are repetitive. You are always moving the mouse and hitting WASD.  If you want something different, use a Wii.  Heh.  Looking at it that way, you can't see the forest because of the trees.

Okay, maybe you shouldn't compare things down to such a picayune level.  Well, even if we take it at an extremely broad view, they are all STILL repetitive,  they are all about killing monsters.  I mean, who doesn't get bored with half life after the first hour, all you are doing is shooting and killing, shooting and killing for the whole frickin game!  Its no different than a mmorpg.  And people actually play those FPS all the way through, no levels or trainers or nothing!  Heh.  another silly view, just looking at the broad action and not seeing the details.

Okay, maybe just saying 'killing things' isn't the right level to look at missions, mmorpgs or fps.  You have to find a middle area to compare missions, read the mission backstory, look at the models, the landscape.  Now you can see how FPS missions arent' boring after 30 minutes or mmorpgs missions appear to be different whether you are in a fantasy world or  a sci-fi world.

My point is that you can't look at  games either too closely (mouse click level) or too broadly (its just killing).

Once you find the right level to look at games, its easy to find non-repetitve gameplay.

Originally posted by BruceYee

I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood the message the OP was trying to convey. I took it as having the right to choose with enough options available differant and unique paths however he/she sees fit, not a follow the sign to another sign, then go to another sign type of scenario like we've been seeing a lot of as of late.

If so, then you've neatly condensed their sentiment to 1 sentence whereas they wrote 20.  And i think that most people here would probably agree with you.  Better quest design is a no brainer.

However, i rather think that their desire was more broad than opening up the choices available to you during a quest.  

I think many of us here have played a game where we thought about a really cool 'what if' idea.  Like i used to think about archery from a horse.  But we tend to only think of the upsides, not the downsides.  I think the OP is guilty of this as well.

The trouble with being given 'freedom' is that it doesn't buy you a whole lot.  Because freedom is a zero sum game, if you get some, then so does someone else.  And very soon, the freedoms bump into each other and don't get any bigger.

So 2x the freedom doesn't equate to being able to do twice as much.  Your freedom to move about ends where my face begins.  And not only my face, but everyone elses as well.

Now if you want freedom from balance, i think it would be cool if we could work it that all of your characters from here on in are nerfed to hell.  You will be free from balance, the rest of us will have our balance.  Everyone is happy.  Somehow, i don't think you will care for this brand of 'freedom from balance'.

And since i just replied to this on the DCU board, i would love to develope my Superman character.  i would love an insta-win (not your cliche insta-win where it takes 5 minutes to win, i mean a true press one button, and get the XP .01 seconds later.  But i'm not holding my breath for it.  I can't develope the character i want in ANY mmorpg.  To be fair, i couldn't (except once) do that in any PnP game either, the GM always has the final word.  And that is how it should be.

i figure superman is way out of any mmorpg league. 

I'd rather him be a deus ex machina here as well. 

Or, since at least once i've heard he gives friends a special signaller when they need help.  Maybe in some missions, as a reward you get a superman signal, and for 1 minutes he shows up and does his thing then flies off to save some other city after that.

I do not buy that you can't have a game that is solo and group friendly.

As a gedanken experiment, what would happen if we glued the LOTRO world with the EQ1 world.  I think those are examples of one of each world.  Meaning, you could take a boat from Freeport to the Grey Havens (assuming that zone existed).

Also please ignore graphics and ui differences...

How would that destroy the EQ1 world?   Is such a gluing not possible because the skill/character mechanics could never match up?  By that i mean that it is the character design that makes a game solo friendly, world design doesn't matter.

Or maybe everyone would flee Norrath to go to middle earth.  It is believable to me that a group oriented game only survives if people are forced to play it.  EQ1 in its first year (when all the 'hardcore' were playing it) had its detractors saying that you couldn't tie your shoe unless you had a group.  And the reply was that they were free to leave and play any other mmorpgs out there (there were none save UO).  However when both these games are glued together, a person who didn't like having a group to tie their shoe could leave to middle earth.

Some of that list dates back to paper D&D.  If thats your definition of clone, i'm not impressed.

Alot of PnP games are clones of each other, except they are not because they take place in different place (sci-fi versus fantasy). 

In fact, alot of games used the same exact rules set.  That was a selling point....A good thing!  The whole point of the game was that the rules were clones.  The rules worked, all that matters is the setting.  That was the start of the golden age of rpgs.  People back then knew enough to look past the rules, that wasn't what made things fun or not.

If we find that the rules are being copied in computer based rpgs, (and only the setting changed), then perhaps that is the signal that we have reached the golden age of online crpg.

Originally posted by Rydeson

 

 

Oh but RScot.. don't get us wrong about the agro range thing.. in EQ1 you could run away, and after 100 feet or so, or until you are far enough that he reasonably gives up..  but you are never off his agro list if you didn't zone out.. Soon as you go back in the general area again.. you have instant agro.

 

I played EQ1 from the very beginning, and that is not my memory.  Train to zone was the norm, or train to guards, either way it was quite a bit more than 100 feet.

Originally posted by plaxidia

2003 I signed up :) I think the only reason I signed up was to join a contest actually LOL .. Since then I have been using the site for all the resources it has.. :)  I am a Beta testing addict so this site makes it much easier to find and sign up for testing of different games :) 

Same here on all counts.  There were plenty of other forums which talked about MMORPGS, i used them instead of this one.  Still do in fact.

Mobs that follow you to the ends of the earth are just as bad as mobs that only follow you 20 feet.    I think games these days have found a happy medium.  That is, they follow you 100 feet.  I mean, you won't see a tiger chasing an elk or bison or (insert correct prey here) for 10 miles.  They do stop after a while. 

Now one thing that is a problem is that for each action, the mobs need more animations, and that adds up.  personally, i would be happy if the mob just has a description of its activity after its name.  Bear (Wandering).  Bear (sleeping), bear(foraging).  Bear (resting).  So when  you see it moving, its either wandering or foraging, and if its stopped, its either sleeping or resting.  Not much extra to keep track of, and maybe it will add to the game.

There is room for better AI, DAOC had some interesting ideas, with scout mobs and the like.  EQ was nice in that some mobs had a huge range of wandering. 

I think alot could be done.  I also think that the mobs spawn points should be destroyable, to cut off the spawning of the mobs for a while.  I think mobs should hunt each other.  The world could be made more intersting and complicated.

Originally posted by brokenss

When people say "Can I have your stuff?" in responce to some long and boring post about how a player hates this and that and is forced to leave, it usually means "I couldn't care less".

Actually, i think originally this was used when people would complain about EQ and then say if something wasn't fixed, they would leave.

Then someone had the bright idea to call their bluff and ask for their stuff.  The other person would usually stutter a bit and then say no, cause they really weren't leaving.

So it was more of a "Put up or shut up" comment.

These days when there are so many other games to go to, its easier to leave (imo).  But OTOH, as many have said, alot of things are BOE.

Originally posted by Torik

Originally posted by zymurgeist

Originally posted by tkobo

By definition all MMOs are sandboxes.

 Nope. It's the absolute truth. That's what the term means. Look it up.  I didn't make up a new definition. That's what it's always been.  You trying to narrow it doesn't change that. The rest of what you have to say is theusual revisionist garbage. As for your last paragraph back atcha skippy.

The problem is that 'sandbox' is not really a binary term but rather a sliding scale.  Every MMO will be part sandbox and part themepark.  The important thing is where the restrictions on gameplay are.  You go too far in one direction and you end up with Second Life which many people don't really consider a game anymore.  You go too far in the other direction and you get into games that are hard to call RPGs anymore. 

Well yes.  But the real issue is the term sandbox can apply to all sorts of genres.  And taking them all into account, mmos all tend to fall WAY into the sandbox territory.

OTOH, rather than say all MMOS are sandboxes, they should say all MMOs SO FAR are sandboxes.  I imagine it could change at some point in the future.

Where the term themepark came from i don't know.  Because its 'safe'?  Height restrictions for certain rides?  The fact there are rides at all?

I think the fact they are trying to make it playable on consoles will make this game less interesting.  I prefer having 15-30 different command options.  i don't like being limited to 5-10.

The only way you can get away with races not being restricted to certain classes if you make each race so bland that they might as well be the same.  Otherwise people will cherry pick the best race to go with the best class.

I'd rather the races play VERY different from each other so that at least there is some replayability built into the game.

Similarly, if classes are VERY different (like EQ) then we have more replayability.  And if there are real differences to good/evil (including not being able to group) then we might actually have a winner.

Henchmen as an option for pcs=good.  Because more options = good.  (at least in this case)

Originally posted by Angier2758

Really guys?  You act like MMOs have gotten easier? "noobified?"

 

Really?  Explain how it's "harder"?

 

I played EQ1 and DAoC... neither of those games were hard.  EQ1 was a massive grind and you had to camp stuff for days possibly... is that "hard" or "tedious"?  DAoC was an awesome pvp game.. but it was still fairly easy and it had loads of balance issues  (3 sides helps with class balance too btw but no one seems to realize it).

 

Stop saying things were harder... they were not.  You guys sound like "I went uphill 6 miles in the snow to go to school!"

 

They were more tedious and the people who played were happy to finally have a 3D RPG.  Now you've been there and done that and you have a bunch of people who get into the genre because its popular.

I agree with you 99%.  My 1% reservation is this...

As the games were played, they were a little harder.  Since corpse runs could be difficult, people made sure to keep track of where they were.  It was a constant concern and people had to concentrate a wee bit more.  True, they didn't HAVE to keep track.  They could just lose all their stuff and be slowed down another month, but most people chose to play it with greater caution/concentration.  This concentration made the game as it was played a little tougher.

Similarly, you didn't HAVE to group.  You COULD solo.  But the game as usually played was with a group, and this required a little more care.  It was still EASY to take out most spawns, but there was an additional level of concern.

Not a whole lot, i'll grant you, which is why i said i agree with you 99%.

Originally posted by Daywolf

Originally posted by rscott6666

 

Dumbed down how?  All it took in EQ1 was a repeated killing of the same mob 1000s of times.  I was there (like many vets).  How is that challenging?

It was challenging because you needed a group to stay alive. Everyone had very different skills, not all heal bots and tanks. We relied on one another to stay alive, and needed to actually learn how to master our abilities, or face not being let into groups.

Not quite.   In the dungeons, yes, you needed a group for most of the rooms.  In the wild, you could find the stray green.    Repeatedly.  And there was no reason you HAD to go into the dungeons. So you could solo your way safely to the top.  It just took 1000s of mobs.  Easy.  No challenge.  And boring.  What they have done today is change the 1000's to 10s.

Originally posted by Zeppelin4

Originally posted by Amathe

So while people claiming to be "vets" who dismiss the challenges posed by older games may draw high fives from people who never played those games and who prefer a less challenging mmo, in the eyes of we who actually are vets - we know you are not what you claim to be.

 All I have to say is well said and I agree 100%.  That is what I miss the most from games today is the challenge. The second most would be the social part of the game. The MMO's today remind me of fast food. They want it fast, they want it now, and complain when they have to wait more then a few seconds to get it.

Heh.  So if we don't have the same opinion as you we must not have played EQ1? Utter nonsense.

Sorry, Even the poor soloing classes could find a green in the corner of the zone and farm it up.  Then find a new green and repeat.  The old games DID NOT require grouping (many necros solo'd to 50), any claim to needing to be social and find a group is false.  Groups did make the game more enjoyable.  There was no challenge to beating those greens.  There was no challenge to those games.

Yes, corpse runs could be a pain.  I still love the 'Has anybody here seen my corpse" song.  The lack of an ingame or out of game map (and if you didn't train your compass skill up, oh boy.  But the corpse runs just boosted the number of same difficulty mobs up 10%.  As long as you could kill greens safely, the game was not challenging to hit max level.  Pay to Win was all it took.

Thats the honest truth.  What made it more difficult was the fact it was the first of its kind.  You had to learn the rules of the road for the first time.  I still remember being scared to zone into the newbie zone from the town zone.  Of course, even the concept of a newbie zone wasn't common yet.