All Posts by vesavius

Originally posted by GrayPixie

Why does every mmo that releases now thinks that in order to be successful you need to have classes? It is just stupid; classes limit customizability and cause you to reroll when you decide that you don’t want to play that class anymore. If you don’t want to reroll you will just quit the game all together and I doubt developers want that. It limits pvp to a rock paper scissors match. Take pvp in WoW for example if you play a warrior and see a mage it doesn’t matter if you have more skill and better gear you will still lose just because the class is made to kill you. And if the classes aren’t fair at release (they never are) the developers have to take time to nerf some classes and buff others, time that could be used to add more content to the game. I think Oblivion and Morrowind are perfect examples on how a no class game can work. If you don’t like the way you built your character you can just use a different type of weapon/armor/magic.  You should make your own destiny instead have the developers hold your hand the entire game.

/end rant

Please do not confuse anything that I am post here as advocating core trinity gamelay. I just say that 'cause people tend to get confuse when you are talking about the positives of a class system.

Classes serve several mechanical functions in a SOCIALLY BASED CO-OP MMORPG;

• They are a shorthand for clear and fast communication. I don't nee to have a long dscussion with a wannabe group member about what school healing did he take, or what rank is his particular style of healing at, or des he choose to have 'Perpetual Mana' or whatever as a spell. I call for a 'L50 cleric', I get a L50 cleric. I know what he does, I know what role he fills. I know he enjoys the role he has chosen to play. We can just get on with the game.
• They make a game very accessible for the starter, while providing a scaling frame for character develoments the player grows in knowledge. Classes also make it very hard for a newb to gimp his character from the go, cutting down much frustration.
• Classes encourage group roles and reduce zerg gameplay. You take away defined group jobs and you have everyone running around DPSing, healing, tanking.... The strategy element of the game has gone as we just all bullrush from one mob to the next.
• Classes give the character a strong and instant indentity, allowing even newbs to connect with them and what they do straight away.

You see, you acutally choose the exact wrong example of your point in Oblivion. First, Oblivion is really overrated as a RPG imo. Second, it actually did have classes. ok, these turned out to be a false choice as your character slowly turned into a generic porridgy grey 'adventurer', but the game did ask you to choose.

A major problems is that most MMORPGs demand a level optimised character build so even with no classes everyone would play recognised best builds. This makes most no class systems a false choice at best, as most people won't deliberetly gimp themselves and cut down their involvement in the game.

The illusion of choice is no choice at al.

Like I say, in any game built on social co-op principles, classes serve a valuable role. In today's solo casual quest grind market though? Who knows...

Originally posted by Die_Scream

It's a bit rantish. Not that I disagree mind you.

hehe I was in a rantish mood, it happens now and again.

It did me good to vent over this game and purge my frustration with the way it's been botched. I'm free of my AoC anger now ;)

It coulda been so good... such a shame.

Originally posted by Caineth

Originally posted by vesavius  

Funcom doesn't believe in making a player grind in the lower levels or make levelling hard and slow.

But you WILL force us to 'play' for 79 levels to get to the 'good' stuff??

You guys are tools. Blind spun out ingorant tools.

In case you dont know, there is NOTHING different between 'grind' and 'quest-grind', except the name.

Ask to explain that if you don't understand.

 

In what way was this surprising to you, and exactly what are you dissatisfied over? That they put in levels? That they put in quests? As far as I'm concerned, I prefer quests over traditional grinding.

You can at least try to give AoC credit for the things it does right.

No, I am dissatisfied wth the fact that the levels they put in from 1-79 are, by their own admission, pointless.

By 'pointless' I mean they are not designed to be fun, they are designed to be a long solo quest-grind as a timesink to pad out the end game.

FC only care about the end game, when these games should be fun all he way through.

btw, a 'quest' that says go kill 10 wombats is no different then simply going and killing ('grinding') 10 wombats... why do you think it is? The fact that the NPC tells you a lame story abut needing wombat skins to make some shoes? That actually diguises the grind for you?

ok.. This post was originally an answer to FC's statements only, but to please you I will also give some credit for the things it does right...

• It's pretty.
• Good soundtrack.
• Neat fighting animations.
• ...

Ok, I'm done.

Although Eidos was not showing Age of Conan at E3 this year, Product Manager, Erling Ellingson of Funcom and Rick Reynolds, Sr. Marketing Manager of Eidos were on hand to talk about it.

OK cool, some straight talk...?

“We were tremendously pleased with server performance during launch week,” Erling informed me.  “We kept bracing for what we thought was inevitable – the server crash,” admitted Rick, “but it never happened.”  At present time, I was told that 700,000 accounts were registered, logged in and characters created.  Far exceeding their expectations for the game.

Don't miss a chance to get the 700,000 boxes stat in right?

What about player RETENTION??

Why do you NEVER talk about RETENTION?

HYPE.

SPIN.

FLIM FLAM.

Erling boasted that Age of Conan probably had the largest live team around at this time as the entire team is still working on the game.  Erling was also pleased to say that their customer service team has been growing by leaps and bounds and are solving almost 100% of all petitions in a day.

A live team for a game in LIVE DEVELOPMENT.

Stands to reason.

This was shipped in BETA., an YOU are paying for the final development stages.

You like being charged for an imcomplete game that does 2/3 of what it was sold to you as?

I asked about the large number of people that have already reached level 80:  

“The speed of levelling is conforming to our expectations,” said Erling.   The game design is targeted at getting players to the level 80 end game of siege warfare, city capture and city building.

So...

This game is ALL about the end game? With just the 'starter' 1-79 levels being there... for what?

IF you wanted us all to be 80, then just start us in the frikin game AS 80!!

What the hell is the point of the 79 levels of pointless repetitive vacant BORING 'game' play that you force us to endure to get to 80??

The objective during the journey to the end game is for the player to understand their character, to relate to it and to learn it.

Goddam.. FOR 79 LEVELS???

These guys are on acid.

Funcom doesn't believe in making a player grind in the lower levels or make levelling hard and slow.

But you WILL force us to 'play' for 79 levels to get to the 'good' stuff??

You guys are tools. Blind spun out ingorant tools.

In case you dont know, there is NOTHING different between 'grind' and 'quest-grind', except the name.

Ask to explain that if you don't understand.

Erling also gave me an update on the PvP game.  The interest of players in the PvP game has also been more than expected with a majority of players on their PvP servers.

The PvE servers are really that empty?

There bis a HUGE difference between boxies sold and active player base I guess.

 New PvP XP levels will be introduced and vendors will sell equipment that require certain PvP levels to equip, and the Fugitive system will be implemented. 

 When?

WHEN?

This was supposedly release stuff, and wit their 'massive' live team they can't swing it YET??

Spin and BS.

In the content update to come, players will enjoy a new 55+ zone,

Screw that...

Make the inbetween zones more substantial and fulfilling first.

Don't make the 1-79 so FAST and then just focus on high levels. What the hell are you thinking??

You shoulda just made a game that starts at L80 and been done with it.

Both Erling and Rick agreed that the 55 – 60 game needs more content.  

See above.

If the 'low' level game wasnt so WEAK, 55-60 WOULDNT need more content.

Poor game design has bred this probelm.

“Players constantly surprise us,” said Rick.

You say...?

How long have you been in this hobby?

You really SHOULD be past this by now.

  “We found that they were doing things in their 40s that we didn't expect them to tackle until their 50s, hence we have a need to concentrate development in the 55 – 60 content right now.”

POOR POOR design.

If you were my employees I would sack the lot of you.

The majority of players at this time also seem to be concentrated in the 55 – 60 spread.

Because you MADE it that way!

Erling reiterated that the original AoC team has not been moved to other projects and they are busy focusing on implementing suggestions and fixing bugs and issues brought to their attention by the players.  

Players??

BETA testers you mean??

God's sake...

As we were wrapping up, Rick looked over to Erhling and asked “Did you tell her about Kingship?”  The flood gates were opened slightly and I stuck my foot square in

Weak attempt at making this look lije an 'exclusive'.. heh

 Kingship is a future system whereby guilds can form alliances and can capture and build legendary battlekeeps.

Right.. implemented BEFOR or AFTER the intially promised launch features?

FLIM FLAM and SPIN.

One last note to close this out this interview of current status and future plans in AoC, players can expect the Xbox360 version of the game to launch in late 2009. 

Hilarious.

AoC will be RIGHT off my radar by this time.

Welcome to the house of ' amost rans'.

According to them, they have surpassed all of their expectations in terms of subscriber numbers and have many things in the pipeline planned. 

Hype wins the day?

FC should be ashamed with the way they have playd this game.

Originally posted by bonzoso21

Actually, an AO rating would kill the game's retail sales...just ask Rockstar, which lost tens of millions in the fiscal quarter following the "hot coffee" scandal. 98% of North American retailers do not stock AO rated games per store policy, so an AO re-rating by the ESRB would cost Funcom millions. Between the retailers returning their unsold copies and refusing to stock the game until it had been re-manufactured to remove the AO content and then re-rated to M by the ESRB, Funcom would lose months of potential sales and have to eat the development costs associated with removing the content. Plus, as was the case with GTA: San Andreas, there are the millions of "Kyle's Moms" out there who would seek damages for the innocence stripped from their little angels by the developer and the game industry (Take-Two awarded close to $1 million in total).

QFT

Can I also add these two previews from Curse.com?

http://www.curse.com/articles/details/11709/

http://www.curse.com/articles/details/11789/

Nice opeining shots.

Originally posted by tvalentine

Originally posted by vesavius

Originally posted by tvalentine

Forcan already explained the core mechanics of a sandbox mmorpg in his first post. This thread has fulfilled its purpose.

 

Ahh, Im out of here before this turns into a stupid argument.

 

lol, maybe you shouldnt try and start one in the beginning. There is nothing to discuss, THAT is a sandbox. Others will have their definintions but Forcan's definition is the one that is the best, it covers all aspects, and every sandbox MMO has those 3 core mechanics. I didnt bother reading through your other posts because they were worthless blabber, but what sandbox mmogs have you played?

I knew you would go down the personal insult route... Thats exactly the kind of poster you came across from the second I read what you wrote. Carry on friend, if you need something in your life to make you make you feel a little better about yourself. I have nothing to gain or learn from talking with you for another second. We are done.

Originally posted by tvalentine

Forcan already explained the core mechanics of a sandbox mmorpg in his first post. This thread has fulfilled its purpose.

Well, god forbid anyone else would have a different way of seeing things and want to discuss them eh? Thank you for your declaration though... Do you always think a conversation should end at the point you personally have reached your conclusion? 

Dictate much?

Ahh, Im out of here before this turns into a stupid argument.

Originally posted by Dreamagram

For those who say "this is how it is" instead of "this is how I think it is/should be", can you please provide links to the source of the definition you're using? As you present your posts as absolute truth and fact, I would think it's documented somewhere that lends more credibility than a random post on these forums. ;-)

Hey! My posts arnt random!! They are based on observation, a critical mind, and the ability to express those things! I have as much right as anyone else, expecially some other random nerd on the internet I have never met and don't know, to define what sandbox means! :P

Feel free to link others to me though ;)

Seriously though, I think half the problem with this discussion is that I maybe am talking about sandbox in it's purest form, where at which point they obviously becomes a toy rather then a game. Sure, you can play a game using those toys, but the game dosent come bundled with those toys.

I think thats the core difference... Most here are talkng about games, whereas I am not.

Seeing as the title stated this was about MMOGs, I will take this chance to bow out and leave you all to it :)

Originally posted by strongaxe

Darkfall online is coming out this year, its as sandbox as you can get I think.

For one, that release is somewhat dubious, but lets not get into a vapourware debate here :)

As for DF being as sandbox as you can get?

Hehe nah, not by a long shot....

So... they are dropping the cotent of the product, and a lot of you say thats ok 'cause they had the 'decency' to tell you about it.

They are quitre open about the fact that this content 'probably' wont be sold to you again as expansion material, and that the missing content also 'maybe' won't be added in at a later date.

And for this, a lot of you are saying thanks and good job.

Are they dropping the price of the product as well though? Are they dropping the cost of the sub? Surely a man of such 'integrity' wouldnt take all your money for 2/3 of the product?

If I owned a shop and I was trying to sell a 2/3 full box of cookies for the full price, but I put a sign on it saying that I had eaten theother third, would I be a man of integrity? Sure... I have been 'honest' I guess, but it's an arrogant kinda honest isnt it? I would have to be some kind of assh*ole to even try to sell you those missing cookies for the full price right?

This situation is a very very bad omen about the launch and success of this game to me.

I am fine to let that one go, I think we have just different definitions of what a defintion is ;)

Was reading a PC mag the other day though that happened to be lying around and it said that Assasin's Creed had a 'sandbox' world... Now, I don't know if you have played this game, but in no way can it's world be described as even semi-sandbox. In this case, they say 'sandbox', but they actually mean 'free roaming', and the two are extremely different.

Even professional jouranlists can't agree, or just don't know, the true meaning of the term, so what chance do we have?? :)

But you see right? Thats what I mean... The meaning of the term is so muddied now that if 100 people use the term, they mean 100 different things...

• EQ1: It's social heart and interdependent gameplay. Not talking about raiding, but I consider the removal of grouping and shared reliance in crafting and the like the death of this genre. Dropping it out in favour of solo play casual lite gaming has led us to the point where we stand now. The only thing really special about MMORPGs, that is the people that play them, has been sold out for a fast buck. Reuptation meant something in EQ1, and the removal of inter-dependence is what has allowed to rise of the rude anti-social 'community' we have now in every game.
• EQ1: It's meaningful XP penalty for making people care if they succeeded. Meaningful CRs, even when they hurt, for making sure people got a rush when they didnt die. Meaningful travel, making sure people expored and learnt their world. Non GPS quest sysem with NO mini map.
• CoX: Costume design and the idea of personal contacts with tailored story arcs. Just genius, if it could only be developed and extended.
• Saga of Ryzom: The Ring. Player created content is the future of the genre, if it survives past the current tragic statre of the hobby that is.
• Vanguard: A lot of good can be taken from this game, from an open world, to true flight, to ship crafting. The sheer epic feel when you look at a distant mountain and realise you can get to the top of that same mountain if you want to... Awesome.
• DDO: The idea that dungeons can have puzzles and a meaningful plot. There is a lot of atmosphere in this game the first time you run through it.
• LotR: It's music system. Hate the game, but this bit is actually a lot of fun.
• Age of Conan: It's graphical excellence, though with a LOT  more variety in itemisation etc, and it's score. Actually, the part I like most about AoC is the score.
• Age of Conan: Guild cities and keep sieges. Both would be great, if the rest of the game wasnt so solo lite easy mode crappola.
• Savage (ok, not a true MMORPG, but forgive me): The RTS style role of the 'commander'... This could really work in an MMORPG if the player was given a plot of land to develop alongside his character... This goes hand in hand with player created content though, so see above :)

I am sure there is more... I will think on it :)

Just great :)

Originally posted by Abrahmm

I really don't understand the popularity that fantasy games seemed to have. While I have played a few fantasy game(WoW and Guild Wars), the whole elves and spell casting has always seemed somewhat childish. I'm a sci-fi person at heart and like sci-fi games, but the sci-fi options in MMO's is lacking at best. Can anyone explain to me why  Fantasy is so popular? Or are you just like me, sick of fantasy and looking for some good sci-fi?

Well, seeing as I have played D&D since around '83, I would say Im not sick of fantasy no... :)

But on to the other... Childish? eh? what? Prententing to cast a spell is childish, but pretending to fly a battle cruiser isnt? Purleez... If one i 'childish', then they both are. My advice is though to stop seeing things as 'childish' or 'grown up' and just enjoy what you like to enjoy.

Noone wil be able to explain why fantasy is so popular, it's just a matter of subjective taste, so I wouldnt worry about looking for a reason.

Anyhow, sci-fi fans have Eve, which is a very decent game, here now and Jumpgatte: Evolution, which looks like it's gonna be a very decent game, coming up... Maybe you should be glad that the ones you DO have are being done right. Much better that then the scatter gun offering of crappy fantasy MMORPGs goin on right now eh? Quality over quantity ftw. We won't talk about TR ;)

i

Originally posted by Forcan

Originally posted by vesavius

 

I havent read Zorn's other posts in the thread you refer to, but from what I made out he wasnt saying here that WoW was a sandbox game, he was saying that it had sandbox elements.

I think he was saying that, in fact, most MMOs have sandbox elements?

I think he was also saying that a true sandbox game hasnt been made yet. Including Eve.

I actually agree with these points.

Eve as a true sandbox game would have started all the players off on an asteroid loaded with resources,with the potentiol to develop and craft the means to expand out into the galaxy and everything that entails. It would not have any dev infrastructure at all past the tools to interect with the world. It would have no given plots, history, or lore; all story would be player generated. It would have no non natural points of interest past those which the players build, it would have no economic forums (AH etc), factions, or guilds, except those which the players establish.

In short, the universe would be 100% player created and player driven.

I am not saying Eve isnt a good game, it obviously is, and it obviously has a stronger set of sandbox elements then most out there, but it isnt a true sandbox game.

That hasnt been made yet.

ATitD2 came closest I think, but that fails for pretty obvious reasons.

 

Ok, thanks for bringing me up to speed there :)

 As for sandbox and sandbox game, I believe that your opinion on player-driven vs dev-driven are not fully correct.  That definition is going by extreme, and may seem to be correct, (since people use sandbox vs linear as two extreme), but it is misused if you go to extreme.

Well, I think a definition *has* to be 'extreme' by it's very nature... It has to be concise to avoid confusion and argument. It certainly isnt a misuse I think to keep the term 'sandbox' true to what it started out as.... That is it's meaning a tray full of sand and the tools to manipulate it in whatever way you choose you. Noone gives the kids in the sand a script to follow, and noone tells them what characters to create, and noone tells them the ending that must happen for them to be considered a success. They make all that stuff up for themselves. Thats the definition of true sandbox.

Sure, use terms like 'semi-sandbox' or whatever to cover the middle ground, but lets not attempt to bury every game, no matter how many sandbox elements it has, under 1 term. It will just lead to confusing debates like the one you are seeing here.

EQ2 has sandbox elements, Eve hs sandbox elements, and, yes, even WoW has the odd sandbox element. I stand by the assertion that none of them are true sandbox games though. They would all fall comfortably under a 'semi-sandbox' category in  my eyes. I think any MMORPG that has an open free market and crafting would as well.

Sandbox game doesn't mean it's all player-driven contents and such.  Player-driven contents are derived from of the core element Dynamic World.  The idea that sandbox game is player-driven is that since player-driven contents are the only thing around, they will be the only thing that affect the game-world, hence the feel of a dynamic world is created.

A sandbox game would have to balance between player-driven contents and developer-driven contents.  Most of the developer-driven contents should be re-designed to fit the sandbox game, so you can't just copy the quest system from games like WoW and LOTRO to fit a sandbox game.  It has to make sense to the sandbox game and not overpowering the player-driven contents.

What you are describing is semi-sandb