All Posts by tmr819

What I *wish* Blizzard would learn from the past -- both the original game and BC:

(1) Revamp the LFG tool and chat channel: Players should have the option to list themselves as available and interested and to view all other players also interested in said quest or instance in a very simple form, sortable by region or level or instance:

Name. Class. Subtype. Level. Description/Note. Instance(s).

For example,

Joetauren. Druid. Resto. 61. Trollbane, Matriarch. Ramps.

Better still would be if the LFG tool would tell you who in the region you are in has the same quest(s) as you do. So if you click on a quest in your quest log you can find out who else in Hellfire Peninsula has that quest -- or even who serverwide has that quest. Perhaps have this feature "toggleable" so if you don't want to be listed you can turn this feature on and off.

The current LFG system is unbelievably awkward and annoying. When you use "/who" to list all the players in your area, there should be a "Notes" section so others can see not only who you are but what quests/instances you'd like to do. There should be 2 or 3 LFG channels: 1 for lvl 1 to 30, 1 for lvl 31 to 60, and 1 for lvl 61 to 70 -- that you can click on or off at will.

(2) Scale instances to group size, at least the 5-man instances, so that smaller groups (or even a single player) can run an instance without having to wait and wait and WAIT for the group to fill out to the magic number of 5. This is especially true for the lower-level instances (lvl 1 to 60).

(3) Allow more character customization options -- and allow druids to choose their own cat or bear forms. The current models (especially for horde cat) are incredibly lame.

(4) Allow players/accounts to buy time increments, like blocks of 100 hours of play time, rather than pay a flat monthly subscription. That way, if you play only a few hours a week your buck goes farther.

I think WoW is a fun game, but I play for a while and burn out and only come back to it when there's nothing better out on the market -- as is the case now. WotLK really has nothing about it that appeals to me, as far as I can tell. It seems to do little to nothing to enhance the lvl 1 to 70 gameplay experience, with the exception of the Death Knight ... and the Death Knight is not enough to get me to buy the expansion.

At least BC had *something* for new players (the two new races, new starting areas, and new profession). WotLK looks, to me at least, like Blizzard is catering only to veteran and harder core players. So, no thanks.

This was a good review. Thanks for posting it.

I am curious about the solo-ability of this game. I assume from the "why bother to play the single-player mode" comment that you can pretty much play it through solo even if you are in multiplayer mode? Is that correct? Or are certain missions/sections/instances completable only with player groups?

The biggest turnoff for this game (for me, that is) is that it looks unremittingly grim, gray, bleak, and depressing. I think that would kind of old for me pretty quickly.

I loved Firefly the series and the movie. I thought the idea of a Firefly MMO was intriguing when I first learned of it, but I am dubious about its execution, and I also think the silence from Multiverse regarding this MMO is "deafening", as they say -- not a hopeful sign, imo.

It will be interesting to see whether Stargate Worlds can pull off a similar challenge, i.e., translating a popular TV brand name into a successful MMO. The success or failure of Worlds is going to impact STO, Firefly, and any number of other would-be sci-fi MMOs waiting in the wings.

I'm guessing that this is good news for AoC, frankly, as now it will get a hefty head start over the other big MMORPG contender of 2008. Assuming WAR keeps to the new release date, I assume it will end up launching at about the same time as Stargate Worlds, which I also think may hurt them a bit.

Of WAR and Stargate, the latter MMO interests me more.

---

Originally posted by Ozmodan
Lately I have to wonder what is it about the 2nd "M" in MMORPG that developers don't get?  Mutliplayer does not mean that complete solo play!
You know when you put in mostly solo play you satisfy the kids and turn off everyone else.  Problem with kids is they have a very short attention span, hence most subscriptions last only a short time.  
Without significant multiplayer features, games like this die on the vine very fast.  I am suprised the people funding this have not pointed out that error to the developement team, seems to me you should always examine the problems encounted by previous games and attempt to alleviate them....not compound them.
 

---

I think you're generalizing too much here. For one thing, just because a game can be soloed doesn't mean it won't have "significant multiplayer features." I suspect it will. But the smart money would be in designing a game that can be soloed for the core content but that also has significant *optional* multiplayer and/or PvP content/regions. If CoS does that, then I think they could be quite successful.

Guild Wars is a good game that is playable either multiplayer or solo or a mix of both and has proven to be quite popular. If CoS can be either soloed or played in player groups from beginning to end, then I'd say that's a really good feature. There's nothing I hate so much as getting totally stuck in an MMO trying to pull a player group together to complete some instanced dungeon or other. Yuk. It's why I canceled my WoW subscription and never went back.

If CoS *required* grouping for instance content (the way WoW et al. do), then I wouldn't be interested in it. Apparently (?), CoS does not--though I'm not quite sure how they intend to do this. There are plenty of other MMOs out there that REQUIRE grouping for people who prefer that style of play. I am not one of them.

I also like the idea that CoS appears to be story-driven, rather than grind-driven, like so many MMOs. It (evidently) has a beginning, middle, and end ... leading to a new beginning, and so on. If lots of instancing is required in order to personalize the story, I think that's also a really good thing.

Well, that answers my question from part 1 about "solo-ability". Many thanks. :)

This game sounds very interesting, and I wish you developers much luck and future success with it. I suppose it's too early to talk about your beta/game completion time frame? Oh well... I'll definitely be watching this one.

If you need a writer/editor, let me know. ("Intriguing", not "Intriguiing"...)

And, yes, this game IS definitely intriguing. :)

I have to say I am impressed by your willingness to address concerns so thoroughly in the post above.

I like the sound of this game. The part of the article that caught my eye was this line: "Some of these NPCs become your friends and enemies… not everyone’s… just yours."

The reason is that so many MMOs are group-requiring and therefore casual-unfriendly, in my opinion. Guild Wars really bucked this trend by allowing players a real choice between soloing the content (by using AI/NPC assistance) or forming full groups or combinations of AI and players in order to complete instanced content.

I enjoy group content and activity OCCASIONALLY, but any MMO that *requires* collective effort in order to move forward in the game (rather than having it be optional) gets an immediate thumbs-down from me.

I can't help wondering how this game stacks up on the "solo-versus-group content-o-meter".

I have to give CoS high marks for creative (and logical) landscape designs and also for providing regular updates to the public.

I am really looking forward to trying this game!

---

Originally posted by Romuluas

Would you say the same thing about WoW? That is a game that was developed for the casual player, plain and simple. There are casual players that play almost every MMO out there I dont think a monthly fee is a problem.

---

Actually, I would. I enjoyed WoW but eventually quit because it just wasn't economical for me (plus I got a bit bored by it). But, yes, I recognize there are a lot of "casual" players playing WoW. One thing that I can say for WoW is that it is one of the very few MMOs out there that, in my opinion, actually earns its $15/month.

I have played EQ2 and CoX and, while these games are OK, there is just NO WAY I'd pay that much to play them. I suspect TR is much the same, but I would need to try it for a couple of weeks to find out for sure.

---

Originally posted by Romuluas
I can see this being a good game for a more casual player, ...

---

One of the problems faced by casual players is that subscription-based games are seldom a good deal. If TR went in a more Guild Wars-type direction (buy the game, play for free) or offered a more modest subscription fee (say, $5 to $10/month U.S.) or a package deal (TR+CoX Station Pass, etc., for a single subscription price), they'd attract a bigger following. They could then sell added endgame content as pared-down expansion packs (i.e., not full-price expansions) or something along those lines.

I think, from a financial standpoint, they'd recoup a lot of their losses on this game and might even prove to be a genuine success.

Short trial periods (3 days!) are a red flag (to me, anyway) that a game's fun quotient is front-loaded and that it does not not have "staying power."

I am actually tempted by this game and wish they would offer a free trial for a week or 2 the way other MMOs do. TR's 3-day free trial didn't seem worth the downloading effort, in my opinion, so I didn't bother with it.

TR sounds like a pretty good game, but I am not sure it is worth paying a subscription fee to play, based on what I have read. If NCSoft ever comes up with a more generous free trial period and/or a more economical subscription plan (say, a CoX/TR "package deal" or something along those lines), I would probably give it a try.