| 115 posts found | |
|---|---|
Originally posted by Axehilt
|
|
Originally posted by uquipu
DAoC and Warhammer both autoface you toward your enemy. Lame. DAoC even had /stick /follow /face commands so you could almost pvp hands free. This would be fine if you had one arm. Maneuver is a big part of pvp for me. Pvp attracts young males. Young males try to one up each other. We all were that age once. Darkfall was full of young males at launch. They left after they found the game boring. Aion autofaces you toward your enemy too. The /stick and autoface features are there to keep out the "Rogue Tigger" syndrome. In games that don't have those features, melee turns into a big mosh pit where players just jump back and forth in (more or less) circles tapping action hotkeys. Just because you had the /stick command, it didn't mean positioning wasn't important. In fact, in WAR, positioning is absolutely critical for a Witch Hunter or Witch Elf. The same held true for many melee classes in DAoC. |
|
Originally posted by Sovrath
Well, what I saw was a large, epic world waiting to be explored. Because of that little movie I decided to download it just to see if indeed it is a large epic world. I don't require state of the art graphics (even though I enjoy great art design and graphics) to play a game, I'll just use my imagination and trust that the game play will be interesting. It's indeed a large epic world. But unfortunately DAoC now can't reach the glory of Pre-ToA DAoC. I had many good times there. |
|
Originally posted by leinad312 Haha, it did make you click, even if it wasn't because of my original intention, but just because you recognized grammatical absurdity of it all! |
|
Originally posted by leinad312
Oh so "wherefore" can be synonymous with "where?" I was just going off of what I remembered from Romeo and Juliet, where she used it in context with the meaning behind a name. Ahh, and here I thought you hadn't studied the play. Shame on my arrogance. But surely you would recognize that the only reason I would opt to use "wherefore" instead of "where" is to maintain semblance to the famous line. Saying "Where Art Thou, Roleplayers" just doesn't provide the same amount of pizzazz that using the original line, save for substituting for Romeo, does. It's not only harder to recognize the connection, but it also throws the number of syllables off, further detracting from my pizzazz. Now leave my pizzazz alone! |
|
Originally posted by leinad312 Actually, learning the difference between "wherefore" and "where" would occur in an English composition class... In a literature class, you would learn things like the reason I would choose to use the term "wherefore," when "where" is compositionally correct. Hint: Shakespeare's famous play, Romeo and Juliet. ;) |
|
Originally posted by LynxJSA Maybe so, but no matter who the beholder is, you cannot deny seeing the "RP" in MMORPG. And the fact that players (and even devs) are slowly leaving this out, bit by bit, is a slight to the genre.
That would be the result of your misinterpretation of what RPG means in the video game industry. If anything, it has become more true to the definition as time has gone on. I disagree. Definition is, in many cases, applied relatively. Tomatoes "fits" the definition of a vegetable for the cook (and the United States Government); they are however, botanically, a fruit. This is where our disagreement stems from. The term role-playing meant something very different 7 years ago. Originally, that actually meant playing the role of your character not only as a particular class or set of skills, but as a personality altogether unique to you. Nowadays, you could apply that term to any game in which there is a character role assumed by the player, and not directly violate the modern definition of a "role-playing" game. God of War could now be considered a role-playing game in the same vein as World of Warcraft. The only difference between the two here is that in one, the personality is provided for your character, and in the other, it's simply a visual representation of an IP address. Neither qualify in the more traditional definition of the term. And this is what I find discouraging. We're in the era of MMOGs, phasing out traditional role-playing with each new generation of MMOGs in favor of a more mainstream-friendly appeal. Indeed, as MMOGs start to garner more and more popularity within the general society, I feel world lore and role-playing will become abandoned in favor of developer-shaped avatars deemed "cool" enough to compete with the likes of the Niko Bellic, Lara Croft, and Kratos.
|
|
Originally posted by nariusseldon
"Sad" is in the eye of the beholder. Maybe so, but no matter who the beholder is, you cannot deny seeing the "RP" in MMORPG. And the fact that players (and even devs) are slowly leaving this out, bit by bit, is a slight to the genre. |
|
Originally posted by godseek3r Really, it doesn't bother me to roleplay with another person playing a female character. Mostly because my characters act no different towards characters of either gender. I'm not out to find a mate for my character in any game, because that IS ERP, and that IS creepy. Once you take any gender bias out of your character, you can almost totally forget whether or not it's a female avatar, and consequently, whether or not it's a guy or girl playing the character. The only differences I consider when roleplaying with a female character is to use gender appropriate titles. You wouldn't call a female character "M'Lord."
I've seen many mentions of LoTRO as having a great RP community, so I'll have to consider giving that game a try. I never really tried it beyond participating in beta.
And nariusseldon, it seems you may be right. But, it's a sad day for MMORPGs when the players have edged the RP out of it completely. |
|
Originally posted by saebrin True, pretty much everything in an MMO has become more stream-lined and user-friendly BUT roleplaying.. But then again, whose fault is that? City of Heroes had no more support for roleplayers than does World of Warcraft, yet I was able to find infinitely more roleplayers in the former. Even farther back, Dark Age of Camelot had only minimal amounts of emotes (any other was simply done by a special chat command that had no animation), yet I met roleplayers almost every day playing in Albion. As I said in my original post, it's a cruel irony that roleplaying has actually become socially ostracized in massively multiplayer online roleplaying games. Developers may be crapping on roleplayers left and right, but they only assumed roleplayers were a toilet after watching other players piss on them repeatedly.
Edited for clarity. |
|
|
I'm tired of MMOs that stay the same every day
The Pub at MMORPG.COM « General Discussion 1/05/10 1:31:58 AM
Originally posted by girlgeek I agree with your sentiment. Random, well orchestrated events are the next step in the evolution of MMOs. Not instancing a player to death, not PvP by itself (though a random event that involves PvP certainly is), and not constant expansions that provide more linear content for a player to burn through. Minor cities (those not being the hubs of trade or the starting cities for a player) SHOULD be randomly attacked and invaded (with only short warning), and it SHOULD be up to the players to assure their world isn't overrun by, essentially, the players' apathy. If you're too busy leveling your character and farming for your gear to worry about the effects these invasions would have on parts of the world not immediately pertinent to you, maybe you should be playing a singleplayer game, where there are no other players and every invasion is slated to start the moment it becomes ultimately pertinent to you. Though, that isn't to say these events shouldn't provide players with some kind of reward for participating. Maybe a better term is semi-random. Not all these events should come with only an hour's warning. If a major, integral city is going to be attacked, the players should have a couple days' notice that an army is marching on their capital, and a projected time as to when that army will reach the gates. The largest problem with this currently is the latency and performance issues, but there are all sorts of neat ways to circumvent these problems. For example, segment the besieged city into quarters (or more), and they essentially become shards a couple hundred players can enter to defend their city from the invasion. To explain this through lore, one would need to simply deny a player access to a full "shard" by displaying a message such as, "This area of the city is well-fortified, maybe it would be best to see if another part of the city could use your help.." As Jatar has implied, there are no impossibilities. Only challenges to overcome.
Edited for grammar. |
|
|
While reminiscing about the olden days playing DAoC (yet again), I had a realization that was simultaneously startling and discouraging - where have all the roleplayers gone? I remember playing on an RP server in DAoC (pre-ToA) and finding them all over the place. They were out in the wilderness adventuring, out in the frontiers competing in RvR, and hawking their goods in cities across the world. It seems nowadays, though, that one would be hard-pressed to find one on an RP server period; much less so prevalently that you would read messages in trade chat to the effect of, "Isildur, Master-Smithy of Caer Diogel, at your service! Finest Armors and Weapons this side of the Isle of Glass!" It seems that, even in MMORPGs, roleplaying has become so socially ostracized as to be virtually non-existent. The irony here is so thick you could cut it with a steak knife. What caused this unfortunate decrease in the prevalence of roleplaying? Maybe it's an unfortunate side-effect of MMOs becoming "mainstream." Maybe it's a decrease in the amount of former PnP players playing modern MMOs. All I can say is, the last time I can remember truly enjoying a real roleplaying session was back in 2004, with the release of City of Heroes. As an aside, that's also the last time I can remember ever encountering a community in an MMO that I truly enjoyed interacting with, but that is for another thread altogether. |
|
Originally posted by Meridion You actually raise an interesting point.. In my experience, the average online FPS lasts me MUCH longer than the average MMO. Yet, there is no progression in an FPS. What is it, then, that keeps me coming back? It's a hard comparison to make, though. Almost one of those apples to oranges kind of things. |
|
|
How about Mount and Blade 's combat system for mmorpg's to come?
The Pub at MMORPG.COM « General Discussion 1/04/10 12:28:40 AM
Originally posted by Gameloading Unfortunately, none of those systems would work well in an MMO, either. The main reason? In each of those games, you don't have to account for synchronizing animations and combat abilities firing off across numerous PCs all connected through an internet connection to a central server. The fighting is too fast-paced to ever be feasible in an MMO. Could you imagine a 40 vs. 40 match of Ryu Hayabusas on an MMO server? It would never work. Not to mention in each of those games (save for maybe Bayonetta, as it's the only one I haven't played), almost every attack leaves the enemy reeling. Every attack has an inherent, short-duration stun. You could literally run up to a single enemy in GoW, Ninja Gaiden, and Devil May Cry and spam the light attack button and never have to worry about them even getting a chance to fight back. This is because the difficulty in those games came from the sheer number of enemies and bosses. The combat system is custom-tailored to fighting large numbers of NPCs and a boss that can ignore your attacks and pound you into the ground even when you're in the middle of a heavy attack. Without those two types of fights, or by putting a player in control of that boss, the system simply falls apart.
While it may be boring, M&B's combat system would function immensely better in an MMO. Actually its already possible. Games like TERA Online, Continent of the Ninth and Mabinogi Heroes are currently implanting systems that are on their way to Devil May Cry like gameplay. You can not kill any enemy just by hitting the light attack button in Ninja Gaiden. They will block your attacks and break your combo or grab you in a throw. After having just finished a round of Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2, I can say with assuredness that the normal enemies most certainly can be dispatched by simply tapping the light attack button. The only departure from this (as far as the grunts go) are the more hulking minions such as the Lycanthropes, but it's a simple matter of using the heavy attack instead. As for the MMOs you cited, I've not had any experience with them. But, I would assume they aren't as fast-paced as the combat systems in Ninja Gaiden and GoW. Considering you can easily achieve (and even exceed) a hit per second in those games, it's only natural that they wouldn't port to massively multiplayer online play well. The only way to do this in a traditional MMO and not create a massive traffic jam of hit detection and latency issues is by delivering these blows in a set. For example, you can use an ability that hits 7 times in a matter of mere seconds, but the accuracy and defense checks only occur on the first blow.. If the attack passes those initial checks, the entire chain succeeds. But this isn't new to MMOs, nor does it have very much in common with the combat systems of those singleplayer games, save for the rapid animations. A workaround might be in using instanced arenas ala Global Agenda, but I find it hard to classify that game in the same group with games such as DAoC or even WoW, with it's Wintersgrasp. Either way, it wasn't my point to say that the attack system from those games would be an impossible attempt at futility, but rather to say that M&Bs would function immensely better given technological limitations. |
|
Originally posted by AKASlaphappy I'll have to play devil's advocate here. Simply put, Xbox Live isn't a game. You cannot vote a gaming *service* as game of the decade. You might could make an argument on the most popular game used on Xbox Live, but it still would not hold the kind of numbers or records WoW holds. To say that the title should be given to every game on Xbox Live means the title isn't the game of the decade, but rather the platform of the decade. It's apples to oranges. Comparing even MW2 to WoW will show that the latter clearly has had a larger impact on the gaming industry than the former, both socially and financially. |
|
Originally posted by Zorndorf
Yes I agree. The yearly (and so long term) revenu comes from its subscription status. COD MW2 had a record in its launching period of around 500 million dollars, but expect such games to loose sales rather quickly after launch. Like in 6 months it will hardly be in the top 10 sales. WOW has it both. Since 2004 in the top sales charts AND the subscriptions (30 dollars revenu EVERY 2 months). That's really a NEW game every 2 months worth of income . But .... because that revenu comes from subs ... it also means long term playing value. So the income is related directly to the customer being pleased or not and continue the subscription or cancel. Giving the economic arguments even MORE worth and value, isn't it ?
Haha, that's quite an interesting idea, indeed. I do agree that one of the reasons it should be so named the game of the decade is because of its utter dominance of its genre. No other game has showed that kind of dominance this decade. It's simply a record-breaker, period. It's made Blizzard a juggernaut, for better or worse. Only time will tell. |
|
Originally posted by Zorndorf
You figure includes the hardware sales of WII, PS2, PS3, DS, PSP, my grandfathers gaming clock and my grandma's tic tac toe version on the black and white game boy. The title was ... GAME of the decade, not hardware sales of the decade, nor franchise of the decade. Tell me: the biggest gaming sofware group is Activision Blizzard. With BLOCKBUSTERS all over the place in their stock... that little PC only game makes 35% of the COMPLETE revenu of ALL games on ALL platform of that No 1 group... for several YEARS now ... So what was the name of the thread again ? GAME of the decade ..... Not one other single game comes even close to the revenus WOW is bringing to this industry. Baffling that it was possible on a dying platform (PC's/macs) compared to the giant sales of console games (and ports).
You do realize that the majority of this revenue comes not from box sales, but from monthly subscriptions, correct? It gives it a significant advantage over games like Halo and Call of Duty when you're looking at strictly financial contributions. However, for other reasons, I would agree that WoW is the game of the decade. Setting a Guinness World Record for number of active subscriptions being one of those. |
|
Originally posted by Zorndorf
So how many other pure PvP MMO's have every 2.5 hours around 100/200 players on average doing massive Siege fights on EACH of those 596 servers.? EVERY 2.5 hours .... I only use the WOTLK countries (not China). Fighting that is, not searching for a fight. Not including City Raids or constantly skirmishes/ganking. Not including those that do the daily world PvP quests. And since this is world PvP not including the thousands doing the 6 Bg's and 6 Arena's of course... Yep there is no world PvP in WOW. :))) More people play PvP in WOW than in ALL other MMO's combined. You only have to decide the factor (10, 20, 50 ?). Clearly PvP is just "attached" to as an aftertought. :)
Not to comment on what game has the best open world PvP, but you're using the population in WoW as a way to justify it being "open world PvP". The definition by which one classifies an MMO as "open world PvP" or not has nothing to do with the number of players PvPing, and rightfully so. Modern Warfare 2 has hundreds of thousands of players PvPing at any moment of any day, has only an average wait time of around 2 or 3 minutes to get into a fight, and allows players to fight on every inch of whatever map they're playing on. That, however, does not qualify it as an "open world PvP" game. Citing the popularity of a game to qualify it into a category it may or may not be in is flawed logic.
Edited for Grammar. |
|
|
How about Mount and Blade 's combat system for mmorpg's to come?
The Pub at MMORPG.COM « General Discussion 1/03/10 5:21:49 PM
Originally posted by Gameloading Because it isn't a good combat system. it's dull and boring. As by the numbers as todays mmorpgs combat is, I'd rather have combat like that than poorly done combat like in Mount and Blade. I think manual based combat system would work well in an mmorpg, but if you're looking for a non mmorpg game to use as an example, its games like Devil May Cry, Ninja Gaiden, God of War and Bayonetta that should be used. Not Mount and Blade, we need to go forward, not backwards. Unfortunately, none of those systems would work well in an MMO, either. The main reason? In each of those games, you don't have to account for synchronizing animations and combat abilities firing off across numerous PCs all connected through an internet connection to a central server. The fighting is too fast-paced to ever be feasible in an MMO. Could you imagine a 40 vs. 40 match of Ryu Hayabusas on an MMO server? It would never work. Not to mention in each of those games (save for maybe Bayonetta, as it's the only one I haven't played), almost every attack leaves the enemy reeling. Every attack has an inherent, short-duration stun. You could literally run up to a single enemy in GoW, Ninja Gaiden, and Devil May Cry and spam the light attack button and never have to worry about them even getting a chance to fight back. This is because the difficulty in those games came from the sheer number of enemies and bosses. The combat system is custom-tailored to fighting large numbers of NPCs and a boss that can ignore your attacks and pound you into the ground even when you're in the middle of a heavy attack. Without those two types of fights, or by putting a player in control of that boss, the system simply falls apart.
While it may be boring, M&B's combat system would function immensely better in an MMO. |
|
|
Hahaha, I can't pass up a comment thread on my first and forever love, DAoC (Pre-ToA). I've never had the kind of PvP experience I had with DAoC since I quit it, whether you were in the frontiers or even in a battleground as you were leveling up. This is all based on opinion, but here's a couple things I feel like DAoC had that current PvP is missing:
1) Battlegrounds done right. These weren't arena-styled matchups of 15 vs. 15 players, these were persistent instances in which all 3 realms fought over control of a central keep. It included bridges as choke points, terrain that could provide cover to help groups flank without being seen coming from the game's draw distance, and the ability to use siege weaponry such as rams and trebuchets. And these weapons could be placed wherever you liked (angry eyes looking at you, WAR) and it was possible (and very probable) for competing realms to take the siege weapon from an opposing faction and use it for themselves. This not only created a much more fun and exciting experience, it helped to introduce players to the siege system, an idea that became very important in the high-end frontiers. Which brings me to my next point...
2) Siege systems and keeps. There were very few limitations to the amount or diversity in the siege system. Essentially, if you could provide the resources, you could supply as many siege engines as your heart desired. This meant sieges *always* included these war engines, and defenders had to plan tactically according to what type of siege attack they were under. A good ram takes down the door of a keep most quickly (the speed being affected by a type of minigame that was both fitting enough and not too complicated as to take all your attention away from your character or your allies). However, trebuchets could punch holes in keep walls, and were able to be fired from a distance that forced defenders out of their keep to raid them if they wanted to prevent the destruction of a keep wall. These scenarios diversified the process by which a keep was sieged and defended, ensuring there wasn't monotony in the system. There was no "Hey, everyone just poke at the door with your weapons" because no feasible amount of players could equal the destructive abilities these siege weapons attained. Keeps weren't linear, one choke point up to the boss, keeps. You could knock a wall down in any place you wanted with siege weapons, and there wasn't a limit to the amount of holes you could put in a keep wall. Thus, some sieges focused around a single hole in the keep, while others may have three holes around the keep defenders had to protect. This helped alleviate some of the inherent problems of attackers trying to push against AoE. It also made almost every siege seem unique; Mythic didn't force players to take a single path, but let them choose their own plan of attack. In RvR, the more you can leave tactically up to the players discretion, the better. Linear PvP quickly becomes boring.
3) PvP affected PvE in all level ranges. Darkness Falls was a dungeon that included beasts and bosses for almost any level range, provided excellent (though not necessarily THE best) loot, and was a good place to level, whether solo or in a group. This dungeon was also open to only one realm at a time: whichever realm owned the required amount of keeps in the frontier. Thus, players of all levels were affected by the status of the frontiers. It meant that when your realm didn't have control of Darkness Falls, you wanted to help out in the frontiers, if only to attain enough keeps to open up the dungeon to your side. On the other side, however, Darkness Falls wasn't head and shoulders above all other areas in the realm in terms of experience and loot. If you were a hardcore PvE player and Darkness Falls wasn't open for your realm, it didn't mean you had to go practice crafting or log on an alt; there WERE other areas in which you could productively farm, grind, or quest. Variety is the spice of life, and DAoC provided variety, adequately enough.
These things contain some subjectivity, obviously, but I think they are points shared by most of the players who wish Mythic would just release us a DAoC 2. |
|
All things in moderation. A superior rep system to those currently implemented would be to have a quest giver with a number of randomly generated dungeons/areas and random activities to perform while in those areas, in addition to having a diverse pool of mobs to fight. Something akin to what City of Heroes does, only have it serve for the primary purpose of gaining rep. Before anyone rages about how boring it got in CoH, remember that I am only talking about implementing this system as an alternative to simply farming a group of mobs repeatedly. Getting short, one-step missions in which you must clear an area and find an artifact or escort a member of the faction out is far superior to just cutting down the same mobs over and over, even if that system is still considered dated in the general scheme of things.