Originally posted by Tierless

Perhaps stealth is a suicide mission? You see, a spell as powerful as stealth must be very draining. It probably gives you a short term boost, and a long term drain. Once you hit the stealth timer you are invis (predator style) and your stats jack up but you have X amount of time to kill your opponent before the spell takes it's toll and you run out of steam leaving you briefly weakened?

Problem with that, as with most stealth mechanics, is you still run into this situation where one class is always either way too strong, or way too weak. Even if they kill themselves with stealth in the way you're describing, from every other player's perspective they're still getting killed before they can really do anything about it. That's just not very fun.

Games have to be pretty careful about stealth mechanics in multiplayer. If you're going to have stealth, it needs a counter, and you need to make stealth classes non-reliant on stealth (so it's a choice, not a crutch). This way stealth doesn't become an automatic 'Iwin button', but rather a tactic you can use against unprepared players.

Originally posted by MarkJacobs

Originally posted by Tumblebutz

Originally posted by meddyck
We know Mark passionately hates stealthers...

Really?  How do we know that, again?  Nevermind, don't answer that.  I don't want to derail the thread.

Back on topic: I can't possibly imagine everyone will have access to "stealth," even in a watered down form.  I really think the "BSC" part will be in a complete departure from the traditional idea of stealth.

Stealth for everyone is another BSC idea but it really won't happen in CU. As far as my idea being a departure from stealth in all MMORPGs that I am aware of, yes, it is.

Glad to see this MJ.

Imho stealth has always been a crutch in MMO combat, or at best poorly designed. I'd rather either see maps with pleanty of areas you can hide behind / inside, or terrain-specific stealth mechanics.

Originally posted by Xstyles

That's right. I'm tired of these makeup games like "guild wars 2" and "warframe". When I switch gear, I want to feel the difference, not just being getting the same sword, but with a different colour.

I want a quality game with actual progress that you can't just skip every patch (this excludes WoW btw). And it shouldn't be a 10 year old game. Prefferably, it should be a relative new one with different combat than just "stand still and click".

Are my criterias way out of control, or does such a game in fact exist ? :) payment method doesn't matter. I'll gladly pay if the quality delivers.

So you want a WoW-like game, but you don't want to play WoW... Let me see if I can help you there...

- Rift

- SWTOR (I dont really recommend this one though tbh, but some people like it)

- Aion

- LotRO

- Perfect World

- Raiderz

- TSW

You've got quite a few options, some of which are actually fairly good games. All depends on how picky you wanna be.

The trailer's definitely nice, but I'd hold off on getting overly hyped just yet.

For one, the trailer shows almost nothing about the game when you stop and think about it. It shows it looks pretty, and that the game has some pretty bad optimization issues it needs to work on (I don't know if you noticed, but there's a lot of texture shuttering / flickering, and framerate issues in that tech demo).

We don't know anything about the game mechanics, and that's going to be a HUGE factor in determining whether or not the game is actually good. Just look at what happened with FFXIV. I'm definitely curious about this one, though. I saw the trailer a while ago,  and kinda forgot about it.

Originally posted by Amjoco

Much as I hate to defend them because some of the fan base here is annoying as fuck with how they rail on people you did come across as having a less than genuine agenda in your OP whether it was intended or not.

I have to agree. His last sentence in his OP was not necessary and threw any sincerity out the window. After that it just seemed like an excuse to get a response from GW2 fans. 

In the future he may have information I might like to have, but I will have to take it with a grain of salt as being genuine or not.

He may also want to wait until he gets an accurate impression of the game (assuming he's even willing to give the game a fair shot) before making assumptions about the game. Otherwise even a poster w/ the best intentions comes across as trollish, because they'll literally be posting nonsense without even realizing it. Unfortunately this game does a very bad job of introducing itself to new players =/.

Fair enough! :) I recommend folks watch this video. It feeds off of what you just said.

Lol! Thanks for linking it. That's exactly the video I was thinking of when I posted that. The OP sounds very similar to the guy who made that video.

I think this is one of those things that would sound amazing on paper, but would actually result in one of the worst MMOs ever made.

The best games include only the mechanics that support the inate game design and hopefully strengthen that vision. Almost every time a game starts to do too much outside of that scope, it starts to suffer as a result.

Originally posted by Amjoco

Originally posted by Wickedjelly

Originally posted by thark

 I gave genuine feedback..for the first time..!! It wasnt much of a feedback thou , since I obviously haven't played it for very long, but it was me telling that I played It for the first time..

WHere did I criticisise GW2 before I played the game..? I was involved in a few discussions involving several things that happens in almost every MMO there is today..According to you I should not have partaken in those conversations since I didnt actually play GW2 at that time.

Well..If I browse true this post, It matters alittle If I have credibility or NOT, As far as I can see it there is more than enough supporters of what I wrote to to make me more than sure that  what I saw in GW2 was hardly a coincidence...

Maybe you should browse trough their post history aswell..:) Ohh I'm sure you did that already ..but didnt find any "gaps" in their posting history.. 

Much as I hate to defend them because some of the fan base here is annoying as fuck with how they rail on people you did come across as having a less than genuine agenda in your OP whether it was intended or not.

I have to agree. His last sentence in his OP was not necessary and threw any sincerity out the window. After that it just seemed like an excuse to get a response from GW2 fans. 

In the future he may have information I might like to have, but I will have to take it with a grain of salt as being genuine or not.

He may also want to wait until he gets an accurate impression of the game (assuming he's even willing to give the game a fair shot) before making assumptions about the game. Otherwise even a poster w/ the best intentions comes across as trollish, because they'll literally be posting nonsense without even realizing it. Unfortunately this game does a very bad job of introducing itself to new players =/.

Very tough choice.

I'd probably lean towards Aion on this one. TERA has decent combat, but unless you are all about the action combat (and must have that retical), it doesn't really offer much else at all. The PvP is really not all that good, and most players are on PvE servers anyway nowadays.

I had more fun w/ Aion's PvP inspite it being tab-targetted. I'm not a huge fan of the flying in Aion, it's decent, but not good enough to make the combat better, so imho it just kinda gets in the way. Aion has way more content than TERA, and even though the questing is bland in both games, Aion does it better.

To be fair, though, I don't really play either anymore. I just can't do TERA anymore, and Aion still feels very grindy to me.

Originally posted by Aerowyn

Originally posted by aesperus

Originally posted by jmcdermottuk

I still think they're all pretty guilty of this though. It doesn't matter which one you pick, roll an alt and go pick up some quests and I guarentee, you know exactly where to go. As soon as you read what you need to kill or collect, you know where to find them, and those mobs will be there, every time.

So to answer the question what's broken that feeling up for me? Absolutely nothing.

That's kinda a different beast. It's one thing to give mobs a reason to be where they are, and to make them feel like they belong there. It's an entirely different thing to make them completely random, or mobile to the point that they are constantly migrating around the entire game.

The later is definitely doable, and some of the games you mentioned in that list have that to varying degrees, but I'm not sure how much that really adds to a game. Thanks to the internet, you're going to know where things are in any given game. I think it adds a lot more to world to give NPCs a sense of purpose and backstory, rather than making them harder to find.

games just need to find a good blend of purpose for mobs and make it actually "feel" like something is going on in the world which will not only change things up but just make it not so static.. here is one example i used in another thread i think is completely feasble in a MMO

say you started in a town.. The town was under attack from 3 types of creatures..lets say trolls, ogres, and goblins... Now the basic quest would be cut down on the invaders..You go out and hunt down a few groups of goblins... Now after you do this you get wind of a goblin stronghold nearby which you get a group together and invade.You take out the goblins stronghold..now if you decide to setup camp at the stronghold you can build your own fort and help defend it against the trolls and ogres...if you fail the trolls and ogres will rebuild the camp and the goblins will return...each of the other groups will also have a stronghold you can take over and build up...by taking over and building up one of their strongholds you would get access to new supply routes that would stock NPCs at the main town with new materials you could not get otherwise....if a group holds a fort they built long enough a powerfull npc champion would come to try and destroy your fort or a small enemy army.

Agreed.

GW2 actually has the systems in place to do this, all they need is to have enemy factions battling each other as well as other players. But ya, I would love to see more of that.

That said, though, it's incredibly tricky to setup such a system like that in an MMO. We're basically talking about a more complex version of Orr, and a lot of people already bitch about Orr as is, lol.

Originally posted by Sephiroso

i would highly praise GW2 if say for instance the event where you have bandits taking this 1 farm. if they used different means to take over the farm. like if the bandits tried to take over the farm, and they were completely wiped out, then you wouldn't see the event for like 24 hours or something. but if some got away, they would regroup, and then try a different tactic. like bringing mines, or maybe trying to muscle some other races or animals to be their army to bolster their numbers(like by kidnapping some troll king and forcing the trolls to fight for them idk)

but the way gw2 pulled it off, like i said they're just glorified  repeatable quests. no other game has pushed as far as gw2 has imo in trying to change the way quests are done, and its a wonderful first step but its still lacking. and i hate when people try to praise gw2 for making something completely new when it really isn't.

While that bandit example would be cool, the problem here comes from that of meaningful choice. GW2 has mutliple forms of events, and that's as much a strength as it is a detrement. They have quests that change up and vary. However;

There are only so many ways you can program an event, quest, w/e to make it seem unique each time. Could GW2 take it further? Absolutely, and I hope they do. That said, 2 things generally happen as we get more varied events.

1) Players choose the simplest path and ALWAYS push that path.

2) Players ignore the variations and pass it off as yet another 'kill X of Y' quest.

What GW2 has done, especially when you look at the games before it, is a pretty massive step forward. I hope it goes even further, but I think what some people are looking for is just not practical at the moment. The programming behind GW2, while many people still bash it for being 'too simplistic' is often far more sophisticated and complex than that of other games. It's one of the most complex MMOs on the market atm. That still doesn't change people from feeling that there is 'nothing to do', that it's 'the same as every other MMO', or that 'there's a lack of content'.

Honestly, I think GW2 deserves the praise it's gotten. It has a lot of things it needs to work on for sure, but it's a pretty impressive game. The main criticisms I have of the game are generally geared at how PvP was handled, some of the boss mechanics, & the last half of the personal story. To create an MMO you have to sacrifice a lot for it to work, and I think a lot of people have forgotten that, in the chase for an MMO that plays like a single player game.

Originally posted by jmcdermottuk

I still think they're all pretty guilty of this though. It doesn't matter which one you pick, roll an alt and go pick up some quests and I guarentee, you know exactly where to go. As soon as you read what you need to kill or collect, you know where to find them, and those mobs will be there, every time.

So to answer the question what's broken that feeling up for me? Absolutely nothing.

That's kinda a different beast. It's one thing to give mobs a reason to be where they are, and to make them feel like they belong there. It's an entirely different thing to make them completely random, or mobile to the point that they are constantly migrating around the entire game.

The later is definitely doable, and some of the games you mentioned in that list have that to varying degrees, but I'm not sure how much that really adds to a game. Thanks to the internet, you're going to know where things are in any given game. I think it adds a lot more to world to give NPCs a sense of purpose and backstory, rather than making them harder to find.

Originally posted by Ayulin

Originally posted by Aerowyn

I haven't had the opportunity to play Uncharted unfortunately (don't have the console for it :-/), but I've heard the comparison a lot.

I will agree TR is a beautifully presented game.

You're missing out. All 3 Uncharted games are phenominal, and some of the best environment design I've seen in a long time. Naughty Dog is one impressive studio, that's for sure. Especially if you like Indiana Jones, that series is amazing.

I'm actually really glad I went the PS3 route when it came to consoles. By far the best value for my money I've had in a while.

Originally posted by midnitewolf

To my knowledge, there has been only one game that wasn't a zoo and that was SWG.  Of course everyone there complained because there was no content, ie. there wasn't a mob to kill every 10 feet like we see in the vast majority of MMOs.

So basically until people stop looking for everything to be easy and set right out in front of them, the zoo is what we are going to get.

As for SWG, I would play that in a heart beat if they re-released the original verison.  To me the fact that I could walk for miles and not see a thing only to suddenly run into a terrifying beast 5x more powerful than me is what made that game seem real.  Nothing irks me more than having to try to dodge around a dozen mobs just to walk 100 meters off the road.

Making the cage larger doesn't make it not a 'zoo'. SWG was a good game, but mob wise they were pretty standard (just more spread out than most). Honestly, when it comes to MMOs, this is definitely something few get right (or at least close).

Originally posted by Aerowyn

Originally posted by Ayulin

Originally posted by aesperus

 

Sigh...

Seph you're so right... and yet so wrong at the same time.

A good case study would be to check out Bioshock: Infinite. This game has a 9/10 or 10/10 on almost every game review site. Why? Presentation!!! The game itself is the same old, same old. It has mediocre shooting mechanics. It's the presentation that sells the game and makes it fun. It's also exactly the kind of thing Aerowyn is talking about. People / things aren't just placed around to be 'shot at'. They have motivations, a purpose, a backstory. These things matter.

The point isn't that people will pay attention to the mobs, it's that it helps tie the mobs to the world in a very significant way. It doesn't matter if you notice the looping 5-10-15-30minute pattern of a mob or herd. What matters is that when you walk around the world feels alive. This is something that all of the top environment designers in the gaming industry stress.

The praise for Infinite is for much more than its 'presentation'.

Story is a *huge* one.

The setting, and Ken Levine's/Irrational's willingness to set the game in a period of American history that was rather "ugly" in many ways, and presenting it for what it was - not sugar-coating, or toning it down "for the masses".

The addition of skylines, which are pretty new for a game of its type, not to mention damn fun.

The innovative AI behind Elizabeth, and how she grows with y ou as a character throughout the game, being helpful whether by request, or based on your character's circumstances.

Presentation is a big reason for Infinite's praise. But it's definitely not the only reason. It hits home in several categories.

Kind of a poor example.

i'd say Tomb Raider would be a better example.. story was so so... mechanics were mostly the same as uncharted but the overall presentation of the game was fantastic

Or Farcry 3, there's a lot of examples, I just picked one I was pretty sure people have played.

Even still, he's proving my point for me. The setting, the AI behind Elizabeth, these are all parts of the environment that when animated, and given a backstory, a purpose, become WAY more interesting. Yes the story helps, but the environment is what really sells the image. Think about how good the game would be without the people going about their business, reacting to you, the racial bathrooms with the different people trying to avoid punishment. The hidden bunkers, and sympathisers trying to avoid detection. All these little things in that game that aren't part of main storyline, but help make it much more immersive.

Originally posted by Sephiroso

i get what you're saying aesperus but see the thing is. i'm talking about systems that are at fault like tradional mmo quest system. Bioshock game series as a whole as high quality stuff. Sure the 2nd one kinda sucked compared to how good the first one was, but infinite raised the bar yet again. So yes, while Bioshock Infinite is more of the same, it follows the saying, if it ain't broke don't fix it. That same saying cannot be held true when talking about the traditional quest system however. It is broken, many people have expressed their displeasure. But most including myself suck it up because at the end of the day its only 1 part of the game, but that doesn't mean its good.

Also people play mmos and console games for different reasons.

Very few people play mmo's for the story as compared to how many people play console games for the story. People play mmos for the mechanics a lot more than they play for the story. The opposite is true for console games. Most people play console games for the story that they're being told versus the individual mechanics in the game. The 3rd side to that is,FPS games. Where thats all people want, is the mechanics, new maps/setting, new guns, new multiplayer modes, etc.

But going with your post and saying Bioshock Infinite, there's hardly anything wrong with the game for what it is. It's a story driven console game. So to say it has mediocre shooting mechanics is negliglible. If it was a shooting game, then it would be raising flags but thats not the point of Bioshock Infinite. The point is the story it tells, which automatically means it has to look good, and the sounds/voices/music has to be good as well(all things that draw you into the story more).

There's a reason most people say playing Bioshock Infinite felt like i was in a movie.

Think we're having 2 different conversations here.

Not saying there aren't problems w/ traditional questing, and I definitely like that we're starting to see games move away from that model. However, that whole subject is actually fairly complex. For example, look at Darkfall. Pure sandbox, no real quests, and yet you're still doing the 'same old thing'. That whole discussion gets into the 5 D's and the paradox of choice. There really is a limited number of 'things' you can do in any given game, what makes it different is how it's presented.

My point with Bioshock was basically that because the atmosphere is done so well, you're able to overlook the repetative (and basic) nature of the actions you're performing. Story definitely plays a big part of it, but that's not the whole picture. There's a lot of RPGs with fairly good stories, but they aren't always able to distract us from bad mechanics.

I'd also beg to differ about MMO gamers not playing for the story. I'd say that used to be true. However, with the trend of MMOs it's hard to overlook how prevailant story has become in MMOs. How many gamers ask for 'meaningful choice' in their stories, and how many peopel play gimes (look at TSW) for their story. Since WoW,  we really can't look at MMOers as a subset of gamers anymore. Those lines have been blurred. It's all down to personal preference really. Gamers who play for story (which is a fairly large percentage of the demographic) will play both console and PC games alike for that satisfaction. Personally, I prefer solid mechanics, but I will still enjoy a good story.

Anyways, while this is a very important discussion, it's grossly off-topic. The thread's talking about passive mobs, and making them more interesting. I agree with that assessment, and after playing games with more animation / living environments it's very hard to go back to older games (even the ones I enjoyed the most).

Originally posted by fantasyfreak112
As far as the amount of value and content you gain for your money it will be hard beat GW2. If you're looking for GW2 to replace your current MMO you'll be disappointed. It's more like a single player game with bots for other players that just run by and help clear an event then run off with not a word exchanged in the process. Play it like you would Skyrim.

I'm guessing you haven't played in a while. Most of the botting has been dealt with.

I can't speak for the low pop servers, but in Tier1-3 there's a pretty healthy population that's constantly refreshing. People leave the game all the time, but there are also new players all the time to replace them.

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
Just loaded up the game for the free weekend.  I thought that there were no defined class roles?  To me that meant either skill based or multi-classing but that doesn't seem to be the case.  I am a ranger right now.  Is it just that I get abilities that let me do other things or is there multi-classing?

There's no multi-classing, but every class can fulfill a variety of roles (support, damage, survivability, control), they just do it in different ways.

i.e. as a ranger you can try and go for pure direct damage (longbow/greatsword), you can try to go conditions heavy (shortbow/axe+torch & traps). You can support w/ spirits / healing spring. However, regardless of what traits / role you pick the class revolves around using a pet, and sustained attacks.

Other classes function differently, and have their own unique ways of handling those same roles.

- Just a heads up, though, Ranger is one of the weakest classes atm (balance wise). It's still playable, but it's one of the most limited compared to other classes. A large part of this is due to their minor traits being significantly better than most of their major ones, making them highly dependant on their weapon & pet choices for build composition.

Originally posted by Sephiroso

Originally posted by Aerowyn

Originally posted by Sephiroso

Same fucking shit, different presentation.

presentation is key for most everything.. it means a LOT.. there is only so many ways you can do things, only so many things you can do with quests but you present them in a new and interesting way it is a game changer for me and I'm sure many feel the same way.. gw2 system has its issues but in terms of overall presentation its miles ahead of the majority of MMOs out there and hope future MMOs expand on it to make the system even better and add more depth to it.

no, it really doesn't presentation doesn't mean much if the system at heart is the exact same dribble just packaged a different way. i was not moved by gw2's events at all and they were massively overhyped and still are. there's an infinite amount of ways you can do things, people are confined by 2 things, their imagination, and money.

Sigh...

Seph you're so right... and yet so wrong at the same time.

A good case study would be to check out Bioshock: Infinite. This game has a 9/10 or 10/10 on almost every game review site. Why? Presentation!!! The game itself is the same old, same old. It has mediocre shooting mechanics. It's the presentation that sells the game and makes it fun. It's also exactly the kind of thing Aerowyn is talking about. People / things aren't just placed around to be 'shot at'. They have motivations, a purpose, a backstory. These things matter.

The point isn't that people will pay attention to the mobs, it's that it helps tie the mobs to the world in a very significant way. It doesn't matter if you notice the looping 5-10-15-30minute pattern of a mob or herd. What matters is that when you walk around the world feels alive. This is something that all of the top environment designers in the gaming industry stress.

I've got lots of examples.

Off the top of my head, FFXI had quite a few:

-The renkai system / Magic Bursts

-Crafting, having items affected by the weather (smelting during a rainstorm would generally produce bad results).

-Magicka spell weaving

-Oblivion custom spell creation

-RTS FPS i.e. Natural Selection (this isn't 100% unique, there've been games like Savage, but that's basically it. You rarely see anything close to these types of games)

-The Ship (again, AC3 miniced this partially, but if you ever played this game it's a crapton of fun, and one of the most unique experiences in gaming)

-Combat mechanics of Jedi Knight.

I could go add to this list for days, lol.

Just watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzFfO_yyxtI

Going off your post OP, you should enjoy GW2. However, you've already stated you've tried it and didn't like it. As described in the link above, the game does require a certain mentallity to enjoy, and the game does absolutely nothing to help players adopt that mentallity. Even worse, since the game tries to appeal to an outside audience it can even trick you into thinking it's an entirely different game (Which is common).

Essentially, and this isn't anything new to fans of the game, the game struggles to overcome a massive hurtle in MMOs atm. They try to overcome the WoW-mindset that is predominate in this genre. By this I mean the need for guided questing, the need for a gear grind, the need for a trinity, etc. etc. etc.

I will say this, though. Hating on the game seems to be popular atm, but this is hands down the best value you can get for the money (plus it's on sale). A 1 time buy that's an MMO, with 1000s of hours of content, more customization than almost every other MMO (champions online probably has it beat, but not by all that much).

- Just don't trust the default settings. The biggest problem (and strength) of this game is it offers a WIDE variety of gameplay. Just don't assume the default one is right for you.