SLI is your issue.  Here ya go:

http://forums.thesecretworld.com/showthread.php?t=37927

Originally posted by nariusseldon

To make a comparison, let me do the math for Diablo 3.

I just open up my wiz. There is a total of acitive 25 abilities (i just counted), with 5 runes in each one (not counting empty rune, since there is no reason to use it).

There are 6 slots.

So the number of combination is 25!/19!/6! = 177100.

Now each of these 177100 combo, can have 5 variations in each of the slot, so now the number of possibilites

= 177100 x 5^6 = 2767187500

Now we have NOT count the combo of the passives yet. There are 15 passive, and you can choose 3.

So the number of possibilites goes up to 2767187500*(15! / 12!/3!) = 1.25907e+12

If we use 1 millionth of 1 percent as our viability estimator, we get 12591 viable builds. I highly doubt there are that many viable builds for the wizard class. My guess is that even if my knowledge is incompete, there probably aren't more than a hundred viable build, even if you count variations (like using a different passive but still mainly doing archon).

I think this one millionth of 1% that you use is WAY off.

Well, you're probably right about the estimator, but it's tough in the sense that there isn't any upper limit on builds determined as of yet -- as I say, people are still experimenting with and finding builds.  A good article on Massively yesterday on creating viable builds, though (not including PvP builds which folks tend to keep secret):

http://massively.joystiq.com/2013/04/22/chaos-theory-perfecting-your-build-in-the-secret-world/

Originally posted by indrct

Originally posted by Arkain

Originally posted by indrct

Haven't played since beta, would like to see the changes.

madinternets@gmail.com if anyone has any to spare :)

Buddy key sent, have fun.

Thanks.  What's the most populated server these days?

Probably Arcadia though you can group across any server ("dimension").

Originally posted by MMOman101

Two questions about TSW:

1) Are the low level areas populated?

2) How is the grouping in the game?

1) There's almost always someone questing through the Kingsmouth starter zone, since there is both low and high difficulty content in all the zones in TSW.  The vets are always quite helpful to new players, and plenty of newbies looking to group up there as well.  Arcadia is a good server to roll on.

2) You can invite people to group across servers, so easy enough to form groups and share missions.  There's an LFG channel for the dungeons as well as an LFG tool.  FAL mod adds functionality to the tool.  There's almost always a Polaris run going on in Kingsmouth, so the wait isn't long.  Nightmare mode dungeons have more leets, but there's ways around that as well.

Originally posted by Sunshinee

Maybe this is the same old thread, just written differently but I know a lot of you old timers on here love to talk how certain features in a game "break your immersion".

I've in the past have been in beta's and lobbied for group finder tools if they weren't present, flying mounts, instant teleports to dungeons etc etc the tools that make the game possibly more accessible, and weren't wasting your time in general.

Now I've been playing MMO's since pre cu swg. I played WoW before all the tools were available, and I embraced all the tools I've mentioned plus alot more that had come into existence in WoW and other mmo's.

I guess where I question people is at the point where I hear the argument that these break "immersion". I get how these things can be Anti social, but let's be serious with every supposed anti social tool you guys think exist, in any real triple AAA mmo that falls on each individual itself as to whether they want to be social or not. People have a wide variety of experiences with those tools like LFG tools and found plenty of people to be social using them, and vice versa.

So when I hear Immersion breaking as an argument I'm left confused. Are these individuals pretending that they are their own actual characters they see on screen and want to be "immersed" in this feeling of being in this great giant world fighting these evil beast as this mighty conquering hero?

This is a serious question I've wondered, when I've gamed I don't do any of this imagining. Granted this whole thing might just be predicated on each indivuals playstyle.I'm mostly competitive and the type of person who likes to be on the top so I play a game to play a game. Not to feel like I myself am in this pretend virtual world. On top of that in a mmo, there is thousands of other supposed "heroes" running around killing the same mobs as you are. I just have a very hard time seeing it.

Either way I'm curious to understand this side of the argument and or if I am possibly way off base and nobody does this? Either way, thoughts?

 

It's like this: you view MMORPGs the same way you view Super Mario Bros -- just a a bunch of points and achievements without any continuity necessary -- the goal is to "win."  Going to a random dungeon on the other side of the planet makes perfect sense to you, and no explanation is necessary, as long as the leaderboard marker moves up the scale.  

Others view MMORPGs more like group storytelling or novels where continuity is key, and context matters.  They are not playing to "win" but to experience a story, much like a novel, but with the added bonus of doing group story with other players.

The people who REALLY don't understand this are the ones who say, "well, why not just go read a novel and forget about games?"  These are the players who have never tried a tabletop roleplaying game, and cannot understand why anyone would.

This article sums up pretty much why I think TSW is a good choice:

http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/12/13/why-i-play-the-secret-world/

Originally posted by RandomDown

Originally posted by Ortwig
I think one of the earlier posts on this thread hit the mark when it mentioned Frodo teleporting to Mount Doom to drop off the ring.  A big part of "immersion" is the threshold of difficulty and challenge in the world.  We've got this scale between "realism" (within the context of the world) and convenience (efficient gameplay that doesn't bog you down as a player) and finding that  "perfect" (very subjective) balance between the two. 

Well in the context of the world why didn't Gandalf just call in that favor from the Eagles sooner and have them fly Frodo to Mount Doom to drop the ring in? Not a teleporter but that is fast travel and it did exist in the universe as it is utilized in the books at one point.

 

People also keep pointing out "realism" in the most absurd sense. So 1+1 can't equal -8 in a universe where I can conjure fire and lightning and demons out of the very air? Why do they have to use the same math system? Also people talk about "physics," once again they don't have to conform to our world since it very clearly isn't meant to be our world, isn't that the whole point of immersing yourself in these other worlds you crave so badly?

The eagles would have been spotted and shot out of the sky if they were to attempt it, probably by the Nazgul.  As it was, the war in Gondor distracted Sauron (and the Nazgul) enough for the hobbits to slip in undetected.  But that isn't even the point.  The point is that the story would have been 10 pages long and very uninteresting.  Easing "difficulty" is a slippery slope, and if you go too far with it, you are left with a 10 page, very uninteresting novel.  The same goes for a game; on the other end of the spectrum, I don't want to have to play out in a game every time I hit the restroom, or act out every single meal, but a game that takes the need for food into account, or the weight of my gear is more "realistic" and possibly more interesting, depending on how it is implemented.  I remember very clearly when we started questioning in our old D&D days, whether we could transport a million gold pieces out of a dungeon with 5 characters -- hence "bags of holding."

The point here is that a game can be more "interesting" or "immersive" when there are difficulties or challenges to overcome.  The other end of the spectrum is to make everything too difficult and a slog to play.

As far as the physics of the world goes, it all depends on whether it jives with the lore and the world context.  Better novels and games tend to have rules for their magic, and don't blindly allow magic to do anything and everything.  A world like that would be chaotic, and "uninteresting."  It's these rules (fictional though they are), that build in challenge and difficutly.  It's finding that combination of things that allow you to overcome the challenge that makes them "immersive."  

The more a novel or game breaks its own rules, the more uninteresting the novel or game becomes.  We can argue about whether dungeon finders are good or bad, but in the end it's an argument about whether introducing them has broken the fictional rules the game has established.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Ortwig

I'll throw TSW's (b2p) build variety into the ring; over 772 million possible builds (though much fewer that are truly viable) and the ability for one character to equip any weapon, any ability and play any role.  Check out the below sites:

http://karl3d.wordpress.com/2012/08/03/tsw-builds-final/

http://yokaiblog.wikidot.com/guides:build-mechanics

The number of possible builds don't interest me. Viable ones do.

Back in old WOW .. there are theoretically many combinations for each class.  But effectively 3 viable builds.

In D3 .. the combinations are also in the millions, but just for wiz, i can count 7-10 viable builds, even not considering variations (for example, if i just play archon, i will put on different armor depending on my purpose and what i fight .. speed farming run is different from boss/elite runs).

So how many viable ones .. or at lesat those people talk about and put it in a list .. in TSW?

Here's the math:

With 2 weapons, and 3 general segments, there are 13 potential Elite Active abilities. There is also a pool of 57 normal active abilities from which you can build your deck. Assuming that you want to use 1 Elite ability if it is available, that leaves 6 active abilities to be selected from the pool of 57. The math works out as follows:

1 Elite Active out of a pool of 13 = 13 combinations

6 normal actives out of a pool of 56 = 36,288,252 combinations

13 x  36,288,252 =  471,747,276 combinations for each weapon pair

Since there are 36 ways that you can select 2 weapons out of a pool of 9 options…

36 weapon pairs x  471,747,276 active combinations per pair =  16,982,901,936 possible ways to select your 7 active abilities at the end game.

Passives are a bit easier since they aren’t dependent on weapon selections. There are a total of 27 Elite Passive abilities and a pool of 225 normal passive abilities to select from when creating your build.

1 Elite Passive out of a pool of 27 = 27 combinations

6 normal passives out of a pool of 225 = 168,488,720,400 combinations

27 x 168,488,720,400 =  4,549,195,450,800 possible ways to select your 7 passive abilities

So with 16,982,901,936 different ways to select Active abilities and 4,549,195,450,800 ways to select passive abilities, you end up with …

16,982,901,936 x 4,549,195,450,800 = 77,258,540,228,633,700,000,000 potential builds

If, once again, we use 1 millionth of 1 percent as our viability estimator, we still end up with 772,585,402 potential ways to build your character.

People are still finding builds in the game, so there's still discovery going on.  That said, people have created some cookie cutter starter decks (outside of the 45 that come with the game):

http://wordpress.tswguides.com/tsw-build-page/

http://yokaiblog.wikidot.com/yokaibuilds

Lots more decks appearing every day on the forums:

http://forums.secretworld.com/forumdisplay.php?f=12

I'll throw TSW's (b2p) build variety into the ring; over 772 million possible builds (though much fewer that are truly viable) and the ability for one character to equip any weapon, any ability and play any role.  Check out the below sites:

http://karl3d.wordpress.com/2012/08/03/tsw-builds-final/

http://yokaiblog.wikidot.com/guides:build-mechanics

Originally posted by GreenHell

Originally posted by Ortwig

When you go to a movie, do you get overly attached to thinking that you are sitting in a seat and that there is a light projector showing images on the screen?  When you read a book, do you focus more on the bound paper and ink in front of you?  

Or do you actually pay attention to the story being told?  

There is a huge difference between just watching or reading something and actually having to participate. It is way easier to lose yourself in a movie or a book. You don't have to actually do anything. In a MMORPG you participate on a constant basis so it is very easy to be reminded how "fake" the world is.

Before there were books or movies (ancient days), there was group storytelling, and that's really the tradition we are talking about.  Tabletop roleplaying games actually owe a lot to the tradition.  Computers have come along, and we've been experimenting with them as a medium to replicate the group storytelling experience (with mixed success - you could argue that Zork was more "immersive")  Another group has been experimenting with them as pure game vechicles (e.g. PacMan - little imagination required).  For group storytelling, I'd argue that they get in the way more than they facilitate.  "Old timers" will argue that the earlier games tried harder to replicate that tabletop experience, but there really isn't a computer replacement for straight imagination.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by grafh

Immersion is the ability to pull you into the game world. This includes story, lore, combat, and all aspects of the game THAT STAY TRUE TO AN ACTUAL WORLD.

Dungeon finders that put you in groups with players from another world breaks that rule to me. Especially if you have no contact with that other world normally. If its a RVR server, then it doesnt break this rule that badly. Everyone from the other real should be your enemy, thus not able to group with them. But its not that bad if its allowed.

1) YOu haven't heard of parallel dimensions? They are all over sci-fi and fantasy. So what if you pull some people from another parallel universe and group with them. Why should that break immersion?

2) Secondly, even if it does, most don't care. I don't care. I am using a MOUSE to control a animated graphical elf on a 2D computer screen. It is not like you don't know you are playing a video game. It is not like you feel you are walking when your legs are not even moving.

When you go to a movie, do you get overly attached to thinking that you are sitting in a seat and that there is a light projector showing images on the screen?  When you read a book, do you focus more on the bound paper and ink in front of you?  

Or do you actually pay attention to the story being told?  

LOTRO and AoC are both worth trying -- LOTRO is huge and manages to evoke Tolkien pretty nicely.  SWTOR is there as well, but that's a love/hate sort of thing you'll have to figure out.  Luckily you can test 'em all without any cost except download time.

Best article I have read on TSW and sums up why I like the game:

http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/12/13/why-i-play-the-secret-world/

Combat is more traditional MMO (not a fps feel), but also has active dodging similar to GW2, ability to cast while moving, and the option for one character to learn all weapons and skills. People have widely varying opinions on the animations.

Originally posted by kiern

Some people feel that MMORPG's should be forced grouping. They only want to play in groups and feel that everyone else should be forced to play that way, and feel threatened by anything that makes the solo content more enjoyable.

There is plenty of group content, both in dungeons and outdoor areas.  Really, this is no different than games like WoW, other than the stories engage the player more. Investigation missions do not have to be done.  People that don't like them, can skip them, so I don't understand the problem.   

THe one problem, however, is the limited number of quests you could have and the inability to share them (I've been away a while, is that still the case?). That makes it difficult for people to casually group up, as they will likely be in different places in the quest lines, or have different missions altogether. 

Yep, you can share missions.  Once you are grouped, you can share the mission with everyone in the party.  I think the decision to have limited missions was so that players could concentrate on a single story until completion -- many have multiple tiers, so it's just a way of focusing the player in on the content instead of having it scattered over 30 possible quests.  That said, you can always pause a mission and pick up a different one.

Originally posted by Amegashie

In the lower zones, people will either be helpful or ignore you completely. Elitism is fortunately restricted to nightmare groups, but there it is rampant.

 

I would highly recommend joining a Cabal as the mechanics of the game itself do not support grouping and social interaction in general outside of the dungeons.

Cabals are a good bet and a fine way to always have folks to group with, but I fail to see how the mechanics do not support social interaction.  You can't program for people's social or antisocial behavior, you can only give people tools to group if they decide to do so. TSW has all of them: general chat, LFG chat, party chat, an LFG tool, a mod that expands the LFG tool, ability to invite people to group across dimensions, ability to share missions, ability to friend people ingame.  What other mechanics are needed short of a "forced grouping" scheme?