A MILF of an MMORPG if there ever was one, but it no longer holds that graphical bang that it once did.

...Speachless... I haven't decided if this comment is full of win or just inappropriate. Humerous in any case. I guess this is where I say: "I see what you did there". Made me do a double take for sure, so I couldn't let it slide without at least calling it out.

On topic, good comparison. About what I would have expected though I think I would have given the edge to Champions in the end.

Originally posted by maskedweasel

The thing about this is,  theres no cap on participation, or lackthereof.   For example,  if you are on one of the top 5 servers,  but the top server is winning just about every match and you want to join them,  you aren't just joining them,  you're also taking a player away from the participation on the server you left.      With that said,  your participation could be high for one set,  and then on the next set be lower after the battle is over.  You don't usually see fluctuation like that.   Depending on participation it could greatly change rankings very quickly if 2 servers are severely outnumbered by 1 server,   and if thats the top of the bracket,  you really don't have too many choices of who you get to fight in a rotation.

 

There might not be a cap on paticipation but there very will be/should be a cap on server population. In the form a server queue. They have to have some way of keeping everyone from joining the same server. If so this will natually resolve highly populated servers as you now have incentive to go elsewhere. Also to be in the top 5 servers you have had many victory moments before this battle. I still think the vast majority will bond over those victories up to this point and stick it even if in this battle they are fighting a numerically superior opponent.

If the fluctutions are too large from battle results and cause too large a change in rank, I am sure arenanet will adjust them to make it so that you simply have a long slow climb to the top or a slow fall to the bottom. Overtime it evens out and servers are adjusted acurately by skill level.

Originally posted by maskedweasel

 

I think rivalries will start,  but its really tough for me to believe they'll keep up.  For example,  if you lose really bad to server X,  you can just move to server X once your 2 weeks is up.  If you always want to be on the "winning" team,  you can, after a short duration of tournaments and then seeing which one is doing the best,  then you can just be part of the steamroll if you want.

 

The worst part about it (to me) is that its W v W v W,  but only 1 winner.  If 2 worlds team up to beat the third world,  they both don't get to be number 1,  and they don't get to split rewards like you would in an open world battle,  like making deals for castles or what not.

 

That being said,  I think some servers will start with rivalries,  but since players can move around so much, it really kills the idea for me that specific people or guilds will stay rivals for very long.  I think it will be a great PvP plan,  and I'll play it, but I think it will be a different feel than the usual open world PvP.

 

The beauty of your w/l record dictating how high you rise the server rank list and therefore which servers you take on next is that matches abilities very well over time. If there are 25 servers you really can expect to only see a few of those on a regular basis unless something drastic happens to increase or decrease your servers PvP ability. 

Your server wins and they rise in the ranks until they are outmatched and then they fall right back down agian. After a period time this naturally matches servers. It takes care of population imalances and skill imbalances.

Will people flock to the top ranked server that hasn't lost in 3 sessions straight? Sure, but let them. They get the longest queues and they have to face the most talanted, and organized opponents (only proven top servers will be in the top 5 after a few months). And there will likely be plenty of guilds that want to be the spoiler and therefore won't mind facing off agianst them. 

They way I look at it is this. Lets assum we have 25 servers. The top 5 servers will be something akin to a pro league. The middle 10 will be a more consistent AAA league, sort of a proving ground before you hit the big leagues. The bottom 10 will be like Recreational C Beer league. Everyone plays to thier level.

I am actually more interested in seeing if any pro PvP play on the low ranked servers so they can play something akin to PvP Godmode agianst far less skilled players.

Originally posted by Palebane

 No, you are dodging the question because you don't have an answer or because you just don't want me to be right. I've explained why I think they are challenging and not a waste of time 4 times already. I'm not being a bully. I have admited that others have opinions different than mine and that I respect them. Perhaps you don't really know why you feel that tharsh DP is a waste of time in a themepark. Perhaps you've simply been conditioned to feel that way.

I can't speak for Tardcore but I can speak for myself. I think a harsh DP is a waste of time because there is nothing intuitivly difficult or mentally challengeing about the mechanic. It is repetition of the same content I have already mastered for a period of time until I reach the content that I have not yet mastered (the content that at that moment is actually mentally challenging to me). It is unecessary mental teidium for no other purpose than to make things painful. The only skill tested is the ability to endure boredum and tedium. And frankly that precisly the wrong skill to test in a game that is meant for "entertainment".

The game intentionally makes itself "suck" for a period of time for the express purpose of negative feedback. It does not belong in a entertainment medium.

Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

You might not have only 3 "lives" but you might well have penalties of sufficient strength that multiple failures at the encounter would leave your character in worse state then never having attempted the encounter at all. For example,  if an encounter netted you 500 experience, 100 gold and a + 2 magic item..... but failing the encounter 3 times cost you 1000 experience, 200 gold and 3 +1 magic items.... it wouldn't make sense for you to try an encounter an infinite number of times and fail.

The number of attempts the average player is willing to make at something is directly related to the cost of failure. Little cost = little incentive to avoid repeated failure.

Note that also assumes that all encounters were repeatable.... which certainly wasn't always the case in old school online games. I often ran into situation where a GM (or team of them) would be running some live event (either planned or ad-hoc), play an NPC, run the players present through some sort of encounter.....that only existed for that one night and would never be repeated again. That meant only one chance at it. Those indeed, were some of the most fun occasions I've experienced in online gaming.

Which leads to the other point I made. Harsher death penalties foment a game design where you are not forcing players to repeat encounters or "successfully" complete a particular encounter in order to continue playing the game/storyline. It leads to the sort of design where you allow for the opportunity of failure as a viable result.

You've made some of the best arguements I have seen for there being a harsh DP. You have even recognized the concept that no DP means different (not worse or necessarily less difficult) content, which is more than most that take your stance.

The point that an easy DP can drive "gimickey" encounter design should not be lost on anyone. I will say this is one of those points that divides good designers and fantastic designers. And while an easy DP does "allow" a lazy designer more space to push bad design, It's still bad design regardless of DP! Encounters that are hard but intuitive are simply rare gems across all game genres not just MMORPGs. Getting Insta-killed after a completely arbitray time of 3:23 seconds into the encounter because Badass Boss A "enrages" is stupid and will forever be stupid. But it is no less stupid and isn't any more intuitive then dieing deep in a dungeoun because the RNG made the mobs respawn a little faster this go round. And a harsh Death Penalty just makes that lack of intuitive design standout all that much more.

My point: Encounters already lack any sort of intutive problem solving approach to their completion so adding a DP just makes it Dumb AND Painful. Instead of just Dumb.

Originally posted by gaou

 

GeorgZoeller General Discussion -> Thoughts on the Death Probe?

...

The only challenge a really harsh death penalty adds is to player's patience or tolerance to repeating the same content over and over. Most people don't find that fun, and we don't either.



...



If you are looking for hardcore and punishing death penalties that weed out the weak players (e.g. the ones that don't have infinite patience and time), The Old Republic will not be your game. That does not mean we're attempting to make an extremely easy game with no challenge.

Thanks for these quotes.

Man this guy reminds me of the way AreaaNet developers think, though TOR is prehaps a little more anchored in the standard Themepark MMORPG design. They still seem like they have that FUN > ALL design approach.

Originally posted by artemisentr4

I again have to disagree. TOR will be a very different experience in a MMO setting. It may have been done in SPG's, but not in a MMO. No where else can you have 1600 hours of unique game play content for $50 plus $15 a month. You are talking hundreds of dollars for that amount of SPG game content. And at the same time, you will be in an open MMO world with thousands of other players. Killing them, teaming up for world grouping stories, Flashpoints, Warzones, Crafting, Raiding, world bosses, PvP conflict zones and socializing in an open SW universe MMO.

 Obviously we do not know how the game will turn out. Only what we have been given to read, see, play and digest to make an educated guess. But adding a SPG level RPG into a MMO is something other Devs will be looking at and it will make a difference. It may just be the sub, F2P or content choice. But regardless of what kind of game TOR is, Devs and investers will follow TOR.

This. It took me a bit to wrap my head around this at first and I simply didn't get it. I built a preconceived idea of what SWTOR would be based on my past experience in other MMOs. On the surface the game really doesn't look that inovative. But one of the biggest features of this game is that there is SO much content that you simply can't consume it all in a month, or 3 or even 6.

1600 hours is 53 weeks for the 30 hour a week player. There is no need for user generated content if you still have developer generated content to consume! My guess is most people don't believe them (on the 1600 hours claim) and I can't blame them. It really is a see it to believe it type of claim. I trust bioware enough that they get my box sale, and if there really is this much content they will get plenty of sub months out of me.

Originally posted by Markusan

I think it is possible to get large number of box sales but it is very very hard to retain large number of subscribers past the included period of online time. What all current games are lacking is good end game. Most games are really fun to level up in, but as soon as you hit the end-game the game quickly gets boring and repetetive.

To succeed in the MMO market I think developers need to think of end-game play that does not include repetition of dungeon runs and raids that you keep repeating over and over.

What is fun is to continuously develop your characters and investigate new ways of playing. I think the AA system of EQ1 is a step in the right direction, but only if the raid end game is removed from the picture. It is not fun having to grind and grind just to meet raid requirements. Very few want to have second job (aka raid schedule).

I would love to see a game where the focus is on small groups (4-6 players) and there does not exist content for larger parties. How often do you read in books about 20+ people gathering to go kill a dragon. usually it is a small party so I cant see why we cant see the same level of epicness in MMOs.

When companies start thinking outside the raid and dungeon end-game I think we will start seeing better games.

Hang with me here a second:

What if a game had so much content that "end game" wasn't really a problem? Not that your character took 6 months to reach the completion of his or her story but what if it took two months. What if there were 7 other campaigns/storys that you could play after that, that gave entirely different storylines (sort of like the RTSs of old where you would have to play both sides in the campaign to see the whole story). If you droped the preconcived notion of what your "supposed" to do when you reach max level could you get more enjoyment out of the game by completing another whole campaign/story/character leveling game set withing the same universe? What if playing all of these stories took a whole year (casual)? 

Would this standard thinking about how endgame "should" be (raiding) matter that much? The leveling and story were the most fun parts anyway, right?

I am not saying this is exactly what Bioware is doing. They already said they including a lot of the standard trappings: PvP, Crafting, Raiding, etc. But If I were Bioware and my best games were wildly popular story based RPGs this is EXACTLY how I might approach my first MMO.

This could be the golden oppourtunity for TOR then. If WoWs base is increasingly frustrated with Blizzard over these issues they maybe more apt to try TOR. Given the IP I would bet the crossover between the two titles is huge (meaning there are probably plenty of SW fans amoungst WoW regulars). If TOR is enough like WoW but incrementaly better and contains large amounts of what WoW gamers want more of (Content) then it could be a huge windfall for TOR much the dismay of Blizzard.

I think as far as MMORPG's are concerned TOR will do very well. At the very least, like previously mentioned, it will be a very good multiplayer Bioware Star Wars RPG which should excite any RPG gamer.

What I think will be unique for 2011 for this genre though is that we will look at it as the year WoW finally peaked. I think there is plenty of room for lots of MMORPGs to coexist but its rather unsettling (and not healthy for the industry) that a 6 year old game engine has held on to the top spot for long and with such numbers. The WoW "platform" has enjoyed top ranking longer than  most console lifespans.

I think the Rift-> SW:TOR-> GW2 punch will finally wake blizzard up a little. They should have been working on "WoW 2" years ago, and expansions shouldn't take 2 years. No one has challenged them in the least and they have had no reason what-so-ever to innovate.

TOR has the IP and the Development Studio to finally capture the attention of the gamers WoW brought to the genre. It looks great and even if  its nothing but WoW with a KoTor 3 skin unless they really bungle the launch and advertising push, it will be profitable for them. It will start change the genre for good (hopefully we will start to see two big elephants in room).

And then GW2 hits and Everything changes....

Idle speculation based on two games I haven't played admitedly but from what I have seen from both of those titles it doesn't look too far fecthed.

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

The problem is, they use that argument when the debate is over the feature and whether or not it's fun, and not the profitability or business aspect of a game. And those are two different discussions.

1. Is something fun?

2. Will it make money?

There is at the very least a casual relationship between what makes money and what is fun. The subtle point that is being communicated in profitability discussions is that a lot more people find that type of gameplay fun and therefore it is more profitable.

Niche games can make money especially in an environment where there is little competition, but by the very nature of being niche they aren't as fun for the majority.

Originally posted by Swanea

There are more GW2 fanbois then TOR fanbois on THIS forum.  There are plenty more haters for TOR before any sort of real early beta footage was released then any game except wow on THIS forum.

I do notice how people are jumping all over early beta footage, yet the gw2 video was perfect? Sweet!

Hmmm I wonder if that is a decent predictor of actual success. I am getting more and more convinced that TOR may actually be huge (1-2 million accounts huge).

I am not trying to insult anyone just generally curious if the specific tastes of certian people is exactly oppisite of the mainstream player and therefore a good indicator that the majority will actually like/love that style of game. Or more likely they hate what the majority love simply because its what the majority love?

Sort of like a jaded movie critic that hates the popular big blockbuster movie fomula even though it fills movie theatres world wide. The "refinement" of thier tastes is defined by its lack of agreement with regular movie goer. 

1) WoW is a great game!

2) judging from the video TOR looks and plays even better than WoW

And if 1 is true I don't see how anyone can watch that video and not think 2 is true. It seems a lot of the posters here passionatly disagree with 1 (this is a bit of a understatement) and therefore will never agree with 2.

Originally posted by Siris23

Originally posted by Palebane

They talk about doing anything for wealth (of knowledge and power). That may include murder and whatever else could be considered evil, but it doesn't say that they enjoy killing people or eating children. There's a big difference to me. Many soldiers will do whatever they are told, even if it means torturing or killing people. I do not always consider them evil for doing so.

 

 This ^^

Being self serving isn't evil any more than it isn't good.

The Illuminati don't go around pushing down old ladies and kicking kittens...

...unless said old ladies and kittens are hiding ancient arcane secrets :)

*shrug* I disagree, being self-serving at the expense of others is precisely how I would define evil. 

Originally posted by rpgalon

no faction is evil or good, all are gray, that is what they are aiming for.

what is interesting is that, pools have shown an almost equal distribuition between the facs

Illuminati here

 

Hmmm I just don't understand how you can read this:

Their whole existence is founded on the principle of looting and plundering the many mysteries of heaven, hell, and the mortal realm.  They will exploit every advantage they can in the search of power and wealth.  There’s no honor or rules… there’s only the pursuit of the shiny.

And not associate that faction with pure evil. Of course I biased towards a Templar (because I am not a narcissitic sociopath :)). Not a big fan of the "end justifies the means" philosphy but at least they are in it for the good of humanity.

Originally posted by Palebane

 But that's where I think you are wrong. I don't care what other people do in the game. I follow my own path. I don't feel cheats hurt me, personally. But others may. I'm talking about fairness, not about how I personally stack up against other players, regardless of whether or not they cheat. One deals with what you are able to accomplish. The other is what you are willing to accomplish. Players are not able to move faster or duplicatge gold legally in the game. Some players are willing to spend more time or money on the game to accomplish more. Do you see the difference?

 

Of course the whole premise of my argument is fairness. And thats my point the rules aren't fair and they never were. They weren't ever meant to be fair, they were meant to sell copies and keep subscriptions. Claiming any moral ground based on following them or not is simply ignoring the complexity of the whole truth and oversimplifying it. The rules are broken I simply can't blame some cheaters for trying to fix it back in thier favor.

Originally posted by Palebane

---

Pretending that these are fully Closed Eco-systems existing entirely sperate from our world is proposterous and disillusioned. Fairness in any way does not exist (just as it doesn't exist in this world). Time is the primary resource in these Worlds (as in ours) and MMOs don't even try to balance it. In fact they do just the oppisite, they exaggerate int the oppisite direction from any balance of time toward the player with most amount of time to waste. These games will never be sperated from the real world because the time you have to play has the most impact on your success and that time is completely dictated by this world.

That is a personal flaw. If you are so upset by what everyone else has that you have to hurt others to make yourself feel better, that is called envy. One of the seven deadly sins.

Thats an Ad Hominem argument.

But even if we were to accept the that primary motivation behind a cheater is envy then the whole premise of the anti-cheater falls flat on its face for the exact same reason (you are envious of the cheater for what they have obtained given the "work" you put in for the same accomplishment). Agian this arguement is ad hominem but can be cleanly revesed back to on to you if you wish to make it.

Ahh Cheating... This is a fun topic. I see much Judgement and condemnation has already been dealt out. Real Evil exists in this world, associating in game "cheating" with this is not only silly but cheapens the word for those who actually really deserve it.

I’m a gaming nerd, and like most gaming nerds with a tabletop gaming background, I know what my alignment is: I’m generally chaotic good. I try not to harm people needlessly and I mostly abide by rules and laws, when they make sense to me.

So let me ask since you played table top. When your gaming group had been playing for 6 months and a new player arrived did your GM start that player at level 1 (say a good 10 levels behind the party) or did the GM level that person up, fast track them or let them start on par with a pregenerated level 10? If they did was that person cheating to play a level 10  the first day while it took the rest of you 6 months to get to that level?

Of course not. The GM sets the rules the rules are all agreed upon by everyone (mostly :))and it would be stupid otherwise to have some level 1 adventuring with a party of level 10s. Plus the level acheivement isn't nearly as important as the social context.

Fast forward to MMOs. We can say that those EULA are the rules of our game. But lets not even remotely pretend like we the players have any say in what goes in them. We certianly have the choice of not playing and paying (and thereby maybe a indirect input) but that is different.

You see with the tabletop Games our GMs weren't getting paid (generally) their primary motivation was that "everyone" had a good time. The primary motivation behind an MMO is for the game company to MAKE MONEY. They are not interested primarily in a fair gaming experience for all. They are interested in extending your subscription time primarily.

Pretending that these are fully Closed Eco-systems existing entirely sperate from our world is proposterous and disillusioned. Fairness in any way does not exist (just as it doesn't exist in this world). Time is the primary resource in these Worlds (as in ours) and MMOs don't even try to balance it. In fact they do just the oppisite, they exaggerate int the oppisite direction from any balance of time toward the player with most amount of time to waste. These games will never be sperated from the real world because the time you have to play has the most impact on your success and that time is completely dictated by this world. 

Lets not even try to pretend that these games "start" with a level playing field. They do not. They are not designed to. They are designed to make money and extend subscription times.