Originally posted by UsualSuspect

The thing is, that type of character is only really going to be found in a single player game rather than an MMO. MMO's generally go with the trinity or close to it, so no one person can do everything. The MMO's where that sort of character can 'kinda' be built generally have a solo style, which - in my eyes at least, I know you disagree - are pretty much like single player games anyway.

The problem with the trinity is that everyone has to build their characters to fit with the trinity, which limits individuality.  Everyone has to be functionally identical with very little variation so they can jump into any group.  Where's the fun if everyone is a cookie cutter of everyone else?  At least soloing, you don't ahve to rely on any specific tactics,  you cau build your characters the way you want to because you don't have to rely in trinity mechanics.  If you want to do more damage, go ahead.  If you want to be a more effective tank or a better healer, go ahead.  It's up to you.

I don't think everyone is in a rush to cap, I think people just want to do whatever content there is. If they can get to cap in a rush then that's a problem with the games design, not the players. Take original EQ as an example, there was almost no way of rushing through that game, it took months to get to max level and that's if you played a LOT every day. And so you found that groups were more laid back, they'd chat, they'd have fun, they'd move around from location to location or camp at one spot and just chill while bashing mobs. There was no rush as there was a certain inevitability to it, that max level is a long way off so you might as well just enjoy the ride.

I can't tell you how many groups I've been in where I was trying to open chests and loot bodies and they were all racing down the hall to the next kill.  I want to take my time, loot 100% of the bodies, look at the surroundings, etc.  In games like Anarchy Online, where there are generic quests, groups grab 8-10 at a time and race through them over and over to gain experience.  Or, they camp high-value areas, moving from one mob to the next so they can get 4-5 levels per hour.  That's all they do.  They don't loot.  They just leave everything laying there and race to the next kill.  That's just no fun for me.

More modern MMO's that have appeared off the back of WoW seem to increase the feeling of 'rushing' due to their design. Levels come fast, you move quickly from quest to quest, combat is a spam of button presses (EQ was a lot slower paced), conversation is almost non existant because your fingers are too busy attacking - it's like playing a game while overdosing on coffee. It's no wonder it feels like a rush.

EQ was, at least back in the day, a bit slower paced, but EQ is a dinosaur and nobody is interested in making another game like it, simply because it wouldn't make any money.  That's fine, I have no problem with that and EQ had a ton of other issues.  Honestly, I don't think EQ is immune to those problems today because the majority of problems come not from the game necessarily, but from the fact that MMOs are mainstream and draw a mainstream audience.  Instead of the majority of players being intelligent, college-educated people like they used to be, they're spastic idiots with entitlement issues.  I can't say I have any interest whatsoever in playing with any of them.

Originally posted by UsualSuspect

Originally posted by Cephus404

You're making a subjective call that the "best content" comes from grouping.  I entirely disagree.  I think that being self-sufficient and not having to rely on others to get through problems is far superior, especially if, as is far too often the case, there simply are not enough people playing MMOs that share my outlook.  Everyone is too busy being a gear-whore, rushing to max level.  I couldn't care less if it took me 5 years to max out my character.  I've done that before.  I have zero interest in endgame content, I retire every single character instantly when I hit max level.

The problem with comparing PnP and MMO players is they are entirely different experiences.  Most PnP groups were hand picked.  They met on a regular schedule.  There was very little pick-up gaming going on, outside of conventions and the like.  You knew who you were playing with, you had a long relationship and you knew that everyone thought along similar lines and had similar goals.  I had a PnP group that played together for more than 15 years.  We never had to worry about some retard ninja looting or killing the entire party out of stupidity.  That's not usually the case in MMOs, where the most common group is a PUG, where people come together to do something, then go their separate ways.   Sure, you might occasionally find someone worthwhile, but if you have to dig through hundreds of shitbags to get there, is it really worth it?

I reserve the real world for hanging out with nice people.  Online, where mature, intelligent, rational people who aren't in a rush to get to end game are a real rarity, forget it.  It's just a frustration I choose not to engage in.

You contradict yourself a little there, you say being self-sufficient is far superior, then go on to say you were with a PnP group for 15 years, so obviously realise the benefits of having a team with you. Unless you always played the Lone Wolf character in those PnP games and went off to do your own thing half the time.

It sounds to me like you've had a bad experience with some groups that have tainted your view of things. I'd guess this happened in WoW, as I played that game and everything you describe is exactly what I found too. World of Warcraft had possibly the worst community I've ever experienced, and I only experienced it for 30 or so levels before quitting, so I pity the people who stayed there for the long haul.

Most MMO's I've been to aren't like that though, even in the solo-centric SWTOR I almost always had nice groups. They never stuck together after completing the flashpoint or group quest, but that was the nature of the game, it being solo based, but at least the people were cool. The same with LOTRO, though I'm not sure how it is more recently as that too has become solo based and being F2P inevitably brings in a bad crowd.

Actually, it wasn't WoW, since I only played WoW with RL friends and never really bothered with the awful community they had there otherwise.  It was most other games that likewise had immature communities, LORTRO included.  Everyone is in a rush to cap.  That's a bad community IMO.

And no, I didn't contradict myself, I said that MMOs and PnP RPGs are two entirely different experiences.  PnP RPGs do have good communities by definition because you have a static group that you know works well together.  You don't have that in an MMO.  Further, because of the standard mechanics in an MMO, most people who group constantly do play a relatively weak character because they only have to focus on a specific mechanic.  If you're a tank, you don't have to do anything but tank.  Someone else will take care of healing you.  If forced out on their own, a tank becomes virtually useless because they cannot handle more than tanking and will quickly die because someone isn't constantly healing them.  I much prefer playing a well-rounded character in an MMO that can do everything.  Maybe it's not as strong as a dedicated tank, maybe it can't heal as well as a dedicated healer, but it can stand it's ground better than either of them.

Originally posted by UsualSuspect

Originally posted by Cephus404

You are aware that AD&D started publishing solo modules pretty early on to cater to people who didn't want to play with others and still wanted to play AD&D, right?  That was one of the strengths of PnP RPGs, you could play the way you wanted to play, you were not forced to get a certain number of people together to make it work.

Maybe people wouldn't want to play solo so much if so much of the MMO-playing public weren't immature asshats.  I want nothing to do with the majority of idiots in most game worlds, people who can't spell, act like 2-year olds, have no clue about common decency and are ultimately in it to screw everyone else so they can get more loot.  And you want me to play with these asshats?

Forget it.

Yeah, I'm aware of the solo modules, but the main outpouring of AD&D modules have been made for groups of players to work through. Much like MMO's, they can be fun playing alone, but ultimately the best content comes from joining up with other people for adventures.

And sure there are immature asshats in MMO's, but on the flip side there are also some really cool people who are great to hang out with. To turn away from grouping because of a few bad experiences with groups is like saying you're never going to date again because the last girl broke your heart. People are different, while one might be a pain another might be awesome, while one girl might have broke your heart, another might be with you for life.

It's the way of the world. If we were all the same then the world would be a pretty boring place. Just remember the asshats and hang out with the nice people. It's common sense, really.

You're making a subjective call that the "best content" comes from grouping.  I entirely disagree.  I think that being self-sufficient and not having to rely on others to get through problems is far superior, especially if, as is far too often the case, there simply are not enough people playing MMOs that share my outlook.  Everyone is too busy being a gear-whore, rushing to max level.  I couldn't care less if it took me 5 years to max out my character.  I've done that before.  I have zero interest in endgame content, I retire every single character instantly when I hit max level.

The problem with comparing PnP and MMO players is they are entirely different experiences.  Most PnP groups were hand picked.  They met on a regular schedule.  There was very little pick-up gaming going on, outside of conventions and the like.  You knew who you were playing with, you had a long relationship and you knew that everyone thought along similar lines and had similar goals.  I had a PnP group that played together for more than 15 years.  We never had to worry about some retard ninja looting or killing the entire party out of stupidity.  That's not usually the case in MMOs, where the most common group is a PUG, where people come together to do something, then go their separate ways.   Sure, you might occasionally find someone worthwhile, but if you have to dig through hundreds of shitbags to get there, is it really worth it?

I reserve the real world for hanging out with nice people.  Online, where mature, intelligent, rational people who aren't in a rush to get to end game are a real rarity, forget it.  It's just a frustration I choose not to engage in.

Originally posted by UsualSuspect

Some seriously flawed reasoning there. Raids to use the bathroom? No, people do that on their own. We're talking about a game designed where the player can't do things on their own. For a better example from real life, people can't design and build a skyscraper on their own, or fight an army alone..

The whole "I'm a hero." thing in modern MMO's is entirely that, a creation of modern MMO's. If you were the hero there wouldn't be 1 million other heroes surrounding you, doing the exact same things that you do. That doesn't make you a hero, that makes you normal.

MMO's were born out of AD&D which had normal characters going through adventures and becoming stronger as they went. And they were always in a group. Why? Because without support that Dragon is simply going to bite your head off. Or what about trapped dungeons? One needs to stand in a magic circle while another needs to get through the door it opens. How do they do that alone?

Modern MMO's have moved so far away from what MMO's should be that they're barely distinguishable from single player games. Take a look at TOR, for example.

You are aware that AD&D started publishing solo modules pretty early on to cater to people who didn't want to play with others and still wanted to play AD&D, right?  That was one of the strengths of PnP RPGs, you could play the way you wanted to play, you were not forced to get a certain number of people together to make it work.

Maybe people wouldn't want to play solo so much if so much of the MMO-playing public weren't immature asshats.  I want nothing to do with the majority of idiots in most game worlds, people who can't spell, act like 2-year olds, have no clue about common decency and are ultimately in it to screw everyone else so they can get more loot.  And you want me to play with these asshats?

Forget it.

I just don't get where people are saying that Skyrim is a sandbox.  It's not.  It's pure themepark.  It is full of quests.  True, you don't have to do them in order, but there is a main storyline that you have to go through eventually.  The hallmark of a sandbox is that there is *NOTHING* you have to do, *NO* story, *NO* quests, etc.  You just run around in a world doing what you want to do.

Skyrim isn't that game.  It's a great, fun game, I love playing it, but it's not a sandbox in any way, shape or form.

Originally posted by headen

 

---

Originally posted by robert4818
I rarely hear about the exciting time someone had mining rare materials, or flying 1 hour across the map to go pick up a purchase.

---

 

Ya I doubt you would ever hear that about EVE. I never found it that gripping myself (not enough to stick around for long that is). Though I stuck with Darkfall for many many months. Oo

I thought THIS video summed up my feelings with this game...at least when you start out.

 

 

That was pretty much how I felt about EVE.  I want excitement and fun.  I got spreadsheets, wallpapers and sitting there for hours going nowhere fast.

No thanks.

Originally posted by WhiteLantern

Interesting thought process. No, companies shouldn't cater to the few with tons of time on their hands. These are the FEW that cannot be satisfied no matter what.  The devs should make enjoyable games and let the gamers experience them as they will.

Devs absolutely hate the people who play the game 100 hours a week.  Those are the people who use up lots of server resources, who typically take up tons of customer service time and don't pay any more than anyone else.  Those people shouldn't be catered to, in fact, they should be strongly discouraged.

Originally posted by Cuathon

Actually if we are assigning psychatric disorders to gamers than sociopathy is not the proper designation.

Actually, it fits perfectly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by Cuathon

I already knew about all the solutions people proposed. I was looking for a new one. You can change human nature, thats what society does. The problem is finding a way to make up for the things society in the real world can do and games can't, because just half the controls society uses won't help.

No society in history has ever done away with crime.  They simply punish people who break the laws.  Unfortunately, you don't want to punish people for breaking your laws, you just don't want them to want to be criminals in the first place.

Ain't gonna happen.

You do not understand crime at all. Most crime is committed for good reasons(for instance poverty among the lower classes)

There is no real poverty in a game, people don't have to eat to survive.  There is only greed.  People want more than they have, and in the PvP arena, people kill others, not for any noble reason, but because they're being anti-social.  PvP is, by it's very nature, anti-social.  Societies work to live together in peace, not to kill each other.  Griefers, by definition, kill to piss those around them off.  They are game-bound sociopaths.

Originally posted by SpottyGekko

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by Cuathon

I already knew about all the solutions people proposed. I was looking for a new one. You can change human nature, thats what society does. The problem is finding a way to make up for the things society in the real world can do and games can't, because just half the controls society uses won't help.

No society in history has ever done away with crime.  They simply punish people who break the laws.  Unfortunately, you don't want to punish people for breaking your laws, you just don't want them to want to be criminals in the first place.

Ain't gonna happen.

Social (or game) rules don't "change human nature", but they do modify human behaviour by suppressing by force those parts of human nature that are not deemed acceptable in that particular society or game.

Take away the rules and punishments in any society, and you'll quickly see all the "bad" aspects of human nature coming to the fore.

The clearest example of this occurs during times of war. The most appaling atrocities can often be committed by soldiers who are perfectly normal and law-abiding citizens in their own societies outside of wartime. Did their society change their human nature ? No, it just modified their behaviour.

That's exactly the point, he doesn't want any rules, he just wants people to all play nice without having any penalties for not doing so. 

Originally posted by Cuathon

I already knew about all the solutions people proposed. I was looking for a new one. You can change human nature, thats what society does. The problem is finding a way to make up for the things society in the real world can do and games can't, because just half the controls society uses won't help.

No society in history has ever done away with crime.  They simply punish people who break the laws.  Unfortunately, you don't want to punish people for breaking your laws, you just don't want them to want to be criminals in the first place.

Ain't gonna happen.

Unfortunately, you're looking for a solution to a problem, then shooting down any  conceivable solution ot the problem.  You want to change human nature and that's just not going to happen.  If you want to get rid if griefing, you have to hard-code the solution into the game.  If you refuse to do so, give up on trying to get rid of griefing.  You just can't have it both ways.

If nothing else, it's not another annoying fantasy title, that gets my attention immediately.  Once it's actually out and working, I'll take a look at it.  I ignore games in alpha and beta. 

Where is "nothing"?  I won't buy a thing out of a cash shop, I don't  care what it is.

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

I completely agree and started a thread saying the same thing just a little while ago.  Either the game has all the bells and whistles which costs tons of money and therefore has to draw in the largest possible audience (which unfortunately so far does not at least seem to be sandbox).  Or they don't have all the bells and whistles because they can't afford and my never be able to because there are targeting a smaller demorgraphic, the devs make sacrifices and the players either accept this or hope that someday the game draws enough peole to add bells and whistles (see Eve).

With every demand the player has, the more it costs developers, they wider the base they need to support said game. 

Venge

You're absolutely right, but I have to wonder if there are enough people who would play such a stripped down game if there aren't enough right now who would play the full-featured version and make it worth producing.  Sandbox players are a very small niche, especially since you can't even get any kind of agreement among them as to what they want in a game.  Could a game be produced that would have enough for a large enough audience to be financially successful?

I'm not sure it could.

None of the above.  Hate fantasy.  Want sci-fi.

Originally posted by demarc01

The reason alot of us say these older games were more social has nothing to do with the mechanics of the game in a themepark / sandbox respect. They were more social because the player base back then was alot smaller, we KNEW most of the people on our servers and there was none of this re-naming and character transfer crap thats abundant these days.

The result of this was that your reputation was EVERYTHING in these games. If you were a dick the whole server knew it and since the games required group cooperation at the higher levels you limited your own progression. You could'ent pay $20 and get a new name of server so the most important attribute your character carried was not thier gear, or level, or guild .. it was thier personal reputation. You would'ent find it on any character sheet but trust me it was there.

These days there are no ramifications for being a dick in there games, annonimaty is king. $20 buys you a clean slate meh.

 

Not only was the player base much smaller, but these games appealed to a single niche audience, the majority of people on the server had the same outlook, the same goals and the same life experience.  Today, you have dozens of different groups of people, each with their own "community", each wanting different things out of the game, etc.  It's no wonder there isn't a single, cohesive community, there isn't a single type of player running around in the game.  Everyone ran with the same group, thus people who were dicks in that group all knew about it.  Today, you just rename the character, create an alt, or switch groups and you can do whatever you want.

That's the reality of MMO play today, people need to stop living in the past and just deal with today's reality, like it or not.

Originally posted by Telil

To me your argument is all about the making millions, and if you dont then change and do something else. Now i admit i myself am no millionaire! but what i do have is a decent paid job that puts a roof over my head and food on my plate! along with that i have a job that i can honestly say i enjoy. now in your argumnet i should leave my job as its just not making me enough cash. but in my argument, i am doing something i enjoy and getting paid enough to get by. I'm happy friend.

Now all i want is for thier to be a group of people who are in the same mind as me and are in the buisness of making MMO's.

you feel there are no people like that in this world but i beg to differ, i see them all the time.

If you think i am asking for EQ to be remade with better graphics, then again you are so far of the point. Remake a game like EQ with better graphics if you want ( myself, graphics come down the list ) keep the freedom and choice that i had, improve on it by all means, have a good advancment system like AA's, where i can choose my own advancment...again improve on it by all means. But just keep the danger, the fear of losing all my stuff, heck even sitting on a boat and chatting about what  we will find on the other side is ok with me. make me plan things. Yes add something for me to do that will take minutes to set up, but dont take away the bigger dangerous things....i enjoyed that.

Look me and you can argue our views all day, but there are games in development that are trying to do the things i want back. now do i go with your argument or trust the developers that are trying these things? sorry friend i have to go with the guys that have experience behind them and trust them.

The problem is, you're looking at this from the perspective of the individual gamer who wants what they want and thinks it's the job of others to provide it.  I'm looking at it from the perspective of the business owner who has bills to pay and needs to produce a product that has wide spread appeal to garner the largest return on investment possible.  The problem is, the business owner perspective wins every time.  You just won't find any business out there that is  going to produce a game that they know will run at a loss.  It just doesn't work that way.

At the end of the day, the employees have to be paid, the investors have to be paid, server costs need to be paid and there needs to be enough of a profit to make the stockholders happy.  If all of that isn't being done, there will be no game because the developer can't afford to be a charity.  Unfortunately, there are far too many people in this consumer-happy, liberal society who think they get what they want, because they want it, no matter the consequences.

It just doesn't work that way.  Never has, never will.  Deal with reality.

Originally posted by InFaVilla

If you consider it to be a threat, you will never be able to stop reincarnation, because a crucial part of the path is to not indulge in neither excessive negative nor positive thoughts. 

Since there's no such thing as reincarnation, I'm not particularly worried. 

Originally posted by Telil

to see both side is not a gift, it should be a basic understanding of every average person. you think us old timers think that really? i would rather say that was your poor attempt at sarcasm. fact is we grew up in a different time. and although we recognise there were limits to our beloved games back in the days, we still loved them for what they were.

Myself...i am not trying to say old games were far superior, just that in my opinion ...again i repeat, in my opinion, modern games have lost some of the romance of older games. Maybe the reason was that our older games were limited due to technology and the fact that the genre was just starting out. whatever the reason makes no difference, to me, games have still lost a lot of that feeling of danger and adventure.

Onto your other point. you have repeated what 99% of this thread have been either saying or agreeing too. That money is the primary motivation...of course it is. but did the developers of Everquest make billions and retire laughing all the way to the bank? or did they make just enough to survive and see thier project come to fruition?

Now ask yourself this! do the devs of Everquest see it as a failure?

Point is if everything was just about making money, then why not just do something else back in the days when mmos didnt make wads of cash?

See, I'm one of the old-timers, I was there playing back in the UO/EQ days and, for what games were back then, they were fine.  But that's not something that will continue to work as time goes on, any more than Pacman or Asteroids will continue to work over time.  If you want to expand your market and stay in business, you have to change with the times.  That is what every successful industry does.

The fact is, the people who made EQ made their money and moved on to other things.  That's not their primary source of income today.  It was great for it's time.  That time is over.  Now it's a mere ghost of what it once was, with a very niche audience and not making much.  Why?  Because there just isn't that much mainstream interest in it as a game.  If they made it again, with updated graphics but otherwise very similar, it would fail.  It's just not the kind of game that modern gamers are looking for, any more than modern gamers would go back and play Pacman or Space Invaders in droves.  Trying to make those games again would be a recipe for failure.

EQ was just as much about making money as any other game, the playerbase was just different back then.  It was very much a niche market.  Today that's just not the case.  We'll never go back to a time when a tiny niche model is going to be acceptable, especially with modern development costs and timelines.