Originally posted by MMOExposed

 

PS2 uses guns, which fire at a rate that isn't detectable by naked eye. So there is no need to balance Ranged combat to the Melee Cmbat.

In a fantasy theme game which has you shooting different kind of magic attacks out as well as Melee combat, this could throw balance out the window, with certain magic attacks hitting faster than others from range, or Melee attacks that are gimp from ranged alone. Also let's not forget that usually in Tab Target MMO, the spells are way more unique and interesting that simple damage types from aim combat games.

And yet the best weapon in Skyrim is a dagger.

Yes, there is a certain need to account for the power scale of advanced weaponry, but that's also a line that, just like how the game mechanics operate, can be fibbed versus reality.

I mean, in the first place how many people do you know that can take more blows from an iron mace to the head than a steel one? The game in spite of it's sense of immersiveness does maintain a relatively shallow concept of item and ability power and progression.

You want to make the MMO balanced on that front? Then transfer those aspects over with the game. None of ot would come as a suprise to the elder scrolls players since that's how the single player games play in the first place, with draw/load time on a bow versuss the swing time on a sword, or in SKyrim the secondary abilities you can use to balance your melee skills against a caster such as the charge dragonshout or directional powerattacks and effects you have on each weapon type.

And I really don't buy that last comment about spells. I mean look at Midas Magic for Oblivion or the extra effects possible in Skyrim that people have been adding into spells. Aside from combat spells you end up having time magic, teleportation, transportation, summoning, alteration, auras, stat boosts/sugmentation, and any number of script effects that you can think up.

That is a factor that solely boils down to individual group creativity, not the capacity of the game.

Wasn't trying to flame you. Was meerely point out that your remark was remarkably flawed. Even if it was a personal opinion it was based on wrong information, and that hardly makes for constructive contribution.

So I corrected it. Don't get yer panties in a wad. You're free to your opinion, just don't use false fact. I said as much in my previous post.

Perhaps you should capitolize on the supposed claim that you got SKyrim for the PC and get some mods or play with the editor, you'll understand why people talk about sandboxes and Skyrim.

As for yer other comments, try a different difficulty, there are alot of quests that don't play to the generic 'Kill ten rats' method (I dare say those types of quests are in the minority unless you are trylu anal about going to a select few NPCs that are capable of offering you them ad-nauseum), the mobs were certainly finite, but there were tiers that changed over time, like more bandit leaders, trolls, etc instead of spiders and bandit scouts.

Point of this comment being check the facts before you wanna form an opinion upon them.

My other remark for this is that while the console certainly garners the most sales, it's a definite thing to say that PC players stick with each game in the series for a lot longer on average. Back in early February PC players had an average of 75 hours spent in game, and it's only grown from there.

You wanna make a game that is built on the premise of longevity you  need to cater to the market that is actually likely to play it that long. A Skyrim MMO is likely going to be a PC game. Guess how many Elder Scrolls players on the PC are going to want to play a game that plays very little like the last three titles that are all still actively played on the PC?

Honestly I get why people are bashing the Elder Scrolls mmo cinsiderably better than why they ever bashed TOR.

Figure it this way. Bioware still made a game that catered to the way they make games. With a strong singleplayer focus and tons of narrative and people talking. The gameplay matched what's become the fomrula MMO gameplay, and that annoyed people, but even more so it just failed to live up to what the game could of and should have been for $200 million or so.

Now the Elder Scrolls MMO is announced and you have not only that same dynamic of generic gameplay, but you have to realize that it comes with a dramatic shift in narrative, player control and progression, and depth of interactivity with the game world. It's the same thing I'm gonna have to say about this title for the rest of it's existence, it managed to entirely alienate it's core fanbase and it isn't even out yet.

TOR can still be played by people who enjoy the core mechanics of a Bioware game. Because it still fundamentally contains the assets that define it as one. People moan about it, sure. Lots do. But the people that want a Star Wars MMO are a much more varied group than the people that want an Elder Scrolls one.

As for the other point. No I don't think TOR changed people's behavior towards games. They just spoke louder for the above mentioned reason. People who like Star Wars are a pretty damn big crowd, it's not just the Bioware fans that were looking forward to that game.

People for a while have been annoyed by this trend. When LotRO, Rift, Warhammer, and others came out you had the same kind of arguments being made and the same reasons people were disfavoring them, and yet the trend continues.

For example, look back on Diablo 3's development. How long have people been ranting about that game and it's only now about to be released? Since that first demo of the berserker running around and people commenting that the game looks too WoW-like and isn't 'dark enough' to be a Diablo game up to the changes and cutdowns on variety for player progression, there has been a constant negative parade of people on that game, yet that has failed to make any impact on the inevitable outcome.

It's because as far as a dev studio goes, what publishers and investors say is considerably more important than what players say. We don't pay their salary while they develop the game, their funding comes from other people. It's only gamers paying for their continued existence after the fact.

People have complained forever, TOR didn't change that.

Yeah I gotta say it's an entirely possible option.

And here is my breakdown.

First and foremost Planetside.

They used hitscanning to circumvent physics, which on faster machines and internat now is a reasonably viable option as long as you don't make certain things too obvious, Like hitscan on a siege weapon is a terrible idea. It's better to do an aoe effect on a destination and just hit whatever is there when the animation completes(tracking time, not the object, though that can cuase clipping error if things travel between, but still, more eficient than more realistic options).

A secondary example here being Chronicles of Spellborn. I didn't like the game but I thought the basic physical controls were there and functional.

Point with this though is that technology that enabled 300 players to shoot at one another back in 2003 is a perfectly acceptable basis to build something on.

Or you could go with tech they have developed for Planetside 2 (the modern alternative) which enables better physics and supposedly larger amounts of people.

Or take a more tentative route and develop a game with brand new technology like PicoServers, which was demonstrated for the first time by having 1,000 people shoot at one another in a small FPS made for demonstration.

Point with all this is, there is indeed a way to pull it off. There has been a few ways to do so for a good ten years or so now, they just didn't want to do it that way.

EDIT: Like others have said too, there's varying quality in examples from Fallen Earth, Tera, Darkfall, Mortal Online, Entropia Universe, Face of Mankind, Neocron, APB, etc. Games that play with a semblance also exist(or have existed) like DDO and Tabula Rasa.

Originally posted by Czanrei

If you're going to quote someone, you need to post a reference link. Otherwise it is useless.

Google linked me to an article on DSO.

http://www.dsogaming.com/news/new-the-elder-scrolls-online-details-third-person-perspective-confirmed-combat-system-detailed/

EDIT: Also the OP linked to the article he pulled his quotes from.

EDIT2: In reference to a post made earlier in this thread. http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/4589896#4589896

Yeah that's a different thing. Gaia is an AI independent of mob AI that tracks player activity and manages mob spawns so that the world generally reacts to the players instead of running through canned routines for spawn locations, resources, encounters, etc.

It's like a thinking random encounter system sort of, prepared to scale the challenge of the game against the players automatically or throw them a curveball if they fall into a routine.

I used it as an example of dynamic mob system because it does a lot to make the world respond to player interaction on a pretty direct level.

For example they do have a system like rifts that can happen. When the Chosen(the enemy npc soldier faction) spawn as a drop pod scouting group, response team, or base of operations they will start to take hold of the area, destroy local defenses, and place their own small scale architecture down to create a base as they spread out to control an area. If left unchecked, like a rift, they will be capable of consuming a zone and even the bases it contains for players. This alone isn't the most dynamic aspect because it's running through a routine path. Coupled with Gaia, however, this system is now capable of creating an actual warfront. With Gaia tracking player activity and assembling a border and areas of control, it can then respond by dropping these encounters in appropriate areas that are strong in Chosen presence to expand their territory in a logical pattern, without the Chosen's location or actual numbers ever having to be a strictly coded (static) thing.

The bulk of basic quests and resource mechanics is coupled with Gaia in a similar way. When a thumper (resource gathering tool) fails, scouting Chosen group spawns, or other activities are going on around the player they are automatically notified of it. If the player chooses to participate in salvaging, pushing back, destroying, harvesting resources, etc from one of these notifications they are rewarded as they would be for a traditional quest system. It's setup so it's just a streaming update on the activity of the zone based on the concept of a local network tower the character is tapped into.

Not sure I have the best explanation since I personally am not an engineer and I don't code, but that's hopefully the gist of it.

Yeah, it's nice you're heartfelt about it, but that wasn't exactly new information and that doesn't really conflict with my own remark on the matter. Sure, there are some great QA testers out there and having that kind of understanding of anything is great, but there's several hurdles you have to get over first. 

One, few people are good generalists. Two, few people are as smart as they think they are.

It'd just be easier for me to believe he fulfills the claims you make if he didn't make comments like "If things are perceived to be dynamic, they're dynamic."

Because that's just...well...words I'd get in trouble for.

And I wasn't referring to beta or public tests. But thank you for randomly tossing that out.

Also, your extra commentary on the hiring is rather a matter of semantics since the wording some one may use in the hiring process can differ. They may have sais 'shipped' where you applied at, but it's just as likely they'd use the term 'tested' or alternatively ask about prior bug reports since that's largely what your job actually is for. Can't say this is my field of expertise though.

It's just that you should be wary of how strongly you interperet the world based on your own experiences, because they are rarely universal.

Originally posted by GTwander

Originally posted by Deivos

Yes, but a QA is a far cry different from being some one actually developing said titles.

In terms of singular-involvement, sure.

Though, until you've actually spent months beating a single game every-which way possible, and know every single map with only the collision render or AI mesh visible, the location of every trigger volume... etc, etc... then it's safe to say that you don't know the game as well as the developers do. At best, a single member of the development team knows the game withing their own sphere, but the whole picture falls apart completely.

Shit, they pay *you* to fill in the gaps they consistantly miss because of it. It's like having a journeyman level in ALL aspects of game-making. I thought I knew games prior to actually being on QA - I was dead wrong.

I'd call that a so-so characterization.

There's a reason we have longstanding quotes like 'see the problem, but not the solution'. There's a lot of people who are effective for Q&A that may get a general idea beind it and see how things are going wrong, but utterly fail in core understanding of what the problem is so they can absolve it. Hence why they do bug reports and a separate group traditionally does the bulk of the fixing.

That also doesn't really address the sense in the actual degree of involvelement Axe would have in the supposed 18+ games/projects, or if his claims are even true.

EDIT: And that ain't may fault grunty. >_>

EDIT2: Yeah, turns out his experience centers around Q&A.

If that's all you need to be considered as shipping a new game, then I've been on a lot more games than I thought.

Yes, but a QA is a far cry different from being some one actually developing said titles.

Because lies that big are annoying as hell.

EDIT: Lemme correct that statement.

I hate people lying to me. 

Can Axehilt please explain this comment?

"I have game industry experience and have shipped 7 major titles (soon 8), and have been part of at least 10 others (only counting professional involvement.)

Because my first question is 'how?'

Assuming even only a two year dev cycle on a game you're talking about sixteen years on the 'Major Titles' and maybe anythwere from a couple months to almost a year on 'other' leaving you with another 4-6 putting you as starting in game design back in 1996-1994 putting you in the time of Diablo and Duke Nukem. 

Assuming a more releastic dev cycle of three years for major titles, and you're starting into making games as an eight year old, excusing overlap on projects.

The only feasible excuses you have is it's actually shovelware, the games are not major titles, you didn't play any significant part in their development, only Q&A, or are making it up.

Seriously dude, my experience might be in enterprise software and we get long run turnovers on this, but I've only been a part of two title releases and one upcoming game now.

EDIT: Let me put a bit more clarity in this. I am in graphics arts. I make pretty pictures, UI elements, models, etc. I have worked on plenty of titles in the last few years, but few in a large enough context to consider being an important part of it's release.

Here is a person though claiming a work experience that from the engineering side would have eaten not the better half, but almost all if not all of his present supposed life span.

From the art side it too is again equally impossible, the ramp up to release of titles being very art focused near release as the codebase is done content is completed.

The claim is just, well, I don't understand the physics or temporal means that excuses it.

Originally posted by Impulse47

Is this a legit MMO like Planetside, or is it more akin to Global Agenda?

Bit from column a bit from column b.

World zones are open, and players spawn into and hang out in the open world, there isn't a homebase sequestered from the rest of the game world and mechanics.

PvP is pretty much all instanced for the time being, leaving PvE and crafting as the thing to do the rest of the time. Players are free to just roam about and shoot stuff, or watch other players do so.

Future implementation will expand on this, but that's not any thing near release at the moment.

The one game where I ever leveled up entirely off cooking.

I miss that game, but don't think I'd play it any more. The mechanics behind the combat were great, but I tend to value some of the systems more like Mount & blade for the feel rather than the melee or combat triggers of AC. Magic worked pretty damn well.

EDIT: You are talking about the same AC as other people, right? The one where you have to strafe/jump around projectiles, counter buff/debuff spells, etc?

It'd be rather awkward to admit to working on anything right now. Might also break that yer questions seem rhetorical.

Ye can use my example of Firefall's GAIA as a reference to dynamic content (in practice no less) though, so there's that! :D

EDIT: So...we're actually supposed to say how many games we've worked on or were you actually being rhetorical? Those two comments below me confuses this matter.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Situation A with light population spawns no event.

Sitiatuion B with high population spawns an event.

The world behaved differently.  Based on player activity and which zones they chose to play in.

False characterization. Player activity and player headcount is not the same thing.

Or more accuratly you are obfuscating the issue by using player activity to refer to how busy a zone is, which is again a very different term from when player actitivy is used to describe the actions a player is taking (which is the manner in which I was using it, which is why I used the term headcount to describe number of players instead).

And back to the original point, no the world didn't behave differently. The world is explicitly scripted to behave like that without any variance.

Again I repeat how that is different from the mechanic I mentioned. The AI is tracking player activity (by this I mean the actions the individual players are taking) and generating content for the pleyers to respond to in real time. These are not coming from spawn locations, these are being drawn specificly to respond to the player's actions and success/failure. It's not a finite mob set either. It ranges across the different groups to make players change tactics against tank mobs, swarms, melee, explosive, ranged, and even elemental attrubute enemies all at the behest of the AI's perception of each player's challenge.

Another example would be the Director AI in Left 4 Dead. Aside from the mobs spawns, the director tracks how players respond and fare against the things present and adjust in real time the encounters they players face. Same thing as what's going on in Firefall, but in this case it does operate on some fixed spawn principles.

EDIT: Yeah the mobs stalking you actually does describe more than an aggro system. It's a response from the spawner AI to player's free roaming. It can actually take a few forms, such as swarm enemies lurking in missing cargo, a large predator, or enemy scouting groups. They are all generated realtime to respond to the player, not waiting for an explicit input.

This is also not mentioning the resource growth and corrosion that happens due to player activity.

EDIT2: Should come with the caveat that enemy AI is a little 'tarded and gung-ho at the moment. But this isn't a firefall discussion, it's an example of implementing dynamic systems. :p

Originally posted by Axehilt

Except that rift event frequency spawns in relation to the population of players in a zone, which is basically like any of the Firefall examples you gave.

Not really. Mob spawn frequency changing with player activity isn't abnormal in MMOs, even TOR  uses that. It's not a mechanism that makes the world or system behave any differently, it's a means of balancing the content against overflow.

What I described was very different from that, because the system isn't tracking head count it's tracking player activity. It does not matter how many people are around, it matters what they are doing and how they are responding to what's present around them.

EDIT: C'mon I said this in my last post dude, did you miss it? >_>

Originally posted by Quirhid

Deivos, first you were splitting hairs now you just don't make any sense anymore. Give up.

If you'd like to point out where I don't make sense I can correct myself for you. EDIT: I mean seriously. My original point as well as my secondary stance is the same as it was originally, my arguments have roamed in response to Axe's changes.

As for Axe's comment. I'm going to stand by my remark on it not being dynamic. It's the reason for posting an optical illusion was I was pointing out the logical flaw in you saying player perception is what makes it dynamic, because something can very blatantly appear to be what it is not.

The word dynamic itself defines things as moving. The traditional use of dynamic content (not whatever term one wants to cook up) has to be contrasted against what the term static content also means.

First off Static Content. Static content is any system designed to provide a consistent experience.

Second is Dynamic Content. Dynamic Content is any system designed to change with the experience.

These aren't definitions I'm pulling out of my ass either. Dynamic content functionally has been a part of web implementation for a good amount of time now and is defined to characterize a very fluid and tailored nature to the content provided. It's a term that carries over to games as well, covering the aspects of games that adapt to player interaction.

Static content is the likes of mob spawns and rifts. They happen, and when they do you can rest assured that you can expect some very particular things about them, over and over and over. It is not dynamic content because it does not fulfill the role of adapting to user input, influencing the environment, or any other effect really.

You want an example of actual dynamic content? Then take the mob system for Firefall. They have implemented an overarching AI that tracks player interaction with the game world and spawns enemies based on how the players are behaving in the game world.

Mining resources? Creatures are spawned and pulled to the noise.

Lurking across outcroppings taking potshots? Some flying bugs might pop up or an enemy patrol pod will drop out of the sky.

Meandering through a forest? A wild predator might start stalking you.

None of it is a prebuilt experience, you can't wander over to a particular location and wait for it to happen, and even when something does happen you have no clue what it will be beyond 'it has to be something in the game'.

That right there is dynamic content. It doesn't radically change the game world. It doesn't drastically rock the boat on end user experience. But it adapts and responds to the players to give them a tailored and unique experience.

I hope you can see where the likes of rifts and traditional mob spawns fails to fulfill this role now.

Well it's not like one can argue opinion. It's clear at this point you're going to call it what you want and I'm not going to argue that.

I just think it's a horribly low standard to swing to. But that just becomes my opinion.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Perception is all that matters in a game.  The perception is the experience.

If things are perceived to be dynamic, they're dynamic.

Rifts are clearly different from a mob spawn because they follow a progression system (and are often part of a larger rift event progression system.)

Even mobs spawning is a light form of dynamic gameplay, as an area will transition from being full of mobs, to having few mobs, and gradually fill back in as mobs spawn.

If that's what you think then I have the perfect mmo for you. Have at it.