KickStarter Pantheon - (Brad "EQ" McQuaid's new MMO)

[Xenich]

Been too busy to read every post in this thread but I get the feeling you both are arguing for your perfect vision of what an online game should be.

I think most of us probably agree on 90% of what an online game should be, it's just that last 10% of the recipe that we can't agree on. The problem with most "hardcore" gamers is they think everybody who doesn't agree with them 100% is there enemy and must be battered into submission. Most of the last 10% issues can be addressed in multiple ways. No game is ever 100% to your liking. Deal with is bros.

Well, I am flexible to an extent, but get leery of certain paths.

Norfleet doesn't seem to want what this game has to offer, you can tell in the details of his discussion (ie, he hates everything about EQ, and focuses on PvP systems mainly).

belowmecoldhands seems to want old school, but I can't help but cringe on the newschool arguments he makes at times.

I see the same problem on the Pantheon boards. In the beginning, most there were old school gamers and there was a pretty solid EQ vibe in what was expected. Now... well... I see a lot of newschool expectations and the various requests and arguments for such make me very worried as I have seen this all before.

Here is what I think... I think between the PvP crowd and the "new school" crowd, Brad and team are going to be slowly worn down on many aspects until the game is really a shadow of what it was intended to be. I am a cynic, so excuse the negativity, but I think in the end... this game will be a "mainstream lite" game and sold as an "old school" predecessor. I think Brad and co mean well, but in the end will sell out due to the extreme hype the game will get and the waves of zombie hordes demanding features.

The end result may be a game that holds on a while, but ultimately will be a half eaten carcass left from the locusts.

 

[Ranselknulf]

I'm with you on that. I think a PvE game can have good PvP with as long as it's developed with a little thought in mind for PvP. It doesn't have to be the entire focus though. Most new school shit pisses me off as well but doesn't necessarily mean it can't be implemented as long as it has sufficient drawbacks.

I'm not sure what new school features are in discussion but some of these features exist because of problems with old school game play, but most of the features implementations have terrible results worse than the original problems. Not sure what to do about the issues beside let the problem remain or try something "newish" with proper restrictions. It really is a case by case basis imo but these issues are the channel through which the dilution of old school game play occurs.

Some convenience features exist because of the argument "It's pointless to not have this feature in the game because everybody will just use third party tools anyways", like with maps as an example, or even parsers. Just put a parser into the game itself and save everybody the trouble you know? Although I did like these types of games better when maps weren't so commonplace.

Although I'd be happy if there was some sort of automation/scripting interface in an old school game.

 

[Norfleet]

Norfleet doesn't seem to want what this game has to offer, you can tell in the details of his discussion (ie, he hates everything about EQ, and focuses on PvP systems mainly).

I actually hate everything about everything. You don't get anywhere in life by being positive, because "everything is great" is not an attitude that leads to action and improvement. Like the ancient Roman proverb states, "Omnia Merdae Sunt".

Here is what I think... I think between the PvP crowd and the "new school" crowd, Brad and team are going to be slowly worn down on many aspects until the game is really a shadow of what it was intended to be.

Ayup, that seems to be what happens to every game: Rather than finding their niche and doggedly sticking with it, they water it down until it appeals to no one and is firmly mediocre.

I am a cynic, so excuse the negativity, but I think in the end...

The gift of clear observation is called cynicism by those who have not got it.

this game will be a "mainstream lite" game and sold as an "old school" predecessor. I think Brad and co mean well, but in the end will sell out due to the extreme hype the game will get and the waves of zombie hordes demanding features.

The end result may be a game that holds on a while, but ultimately will be a half eaten carcass left from the locusts.

Maybe the farming will be good. We'll always have farming.

 

[Xenich]

I'm with you on that. I think a PvE game can have good PvP with as long as it's developed with a little thought in mind for PvP. It doesn't have to be the entire focus though. Most new school shit pisses me off as well but doesn't necessarily mean it can't be implemented as long as it has sufficient drawbacks.

See, I greatly disagree unless it is done as EQ did it with separate servers AND separate rules with no thought to its development until after release. I think anything other than that becomes a "jack of all trades, master of none" type of scenario with each sides focus pulling away from each other. How many years and games have they been attempting to do this and yet every single time the same thing happens? Now you can be an idealist like Norfleet and claim "eventually" it can be done right, but the reality of its occurrence consistently failing holds to the fact that it can not be done.

I'm not sure what new school features are in discussion but some of these features exist because of problems with old school game play, but most of the features implementations have terrible results worse than the original problems. Not sure what to do about the issues beside let the problem remain or try something "newish" with proper restrictions. It really is a case by case basis imo but these issues are the channel through which the dilution of old school game play occurs.

Not that I could see. Most of the "new school" arguments were centered around the same mainstream arguments be it the complaints about people having limited time, so the game should accommodate such in its design, to gear restrictions (the desire for all bound gear), to instant travel, content being "useful at all times" (ie no empty spaces like in EQ), to instance content, etc... I have seen all these arguments with each game release and each game that attends to them becomes yet another mainstream bland boring entertainment simulator.

I used to be of the mindset that many features of old EQ were flawed, but I came to the realization that I was letting my frustration drive my expectations. Corpse runs, exp penalties and loss of level, extremely slow leveling, very rare gear, camps, travel taking an hour or more to get across the other side of the world, zones being dangerous to all levels, tradable gear, etc... I used to think were poor design, but now after years of seeing what resulted in moving away from these difficult play features, I have come to realize that this is what gave me enjoyment, that it was the frustration of loss, the constant difficulty, the annoyance of the limitations that gave all the means of progression in the game meaning. See, when they threw out all these difficulties, all of those various class/race features had no need. Many tools of play had no more purpose and so the result was streamlining the character progression, ultimately killing the entire point of playing an RPG. Not to sound pretentious, but I have seen all this, I know where this is going and "new school" had their chance year after year, game after game and yet... always the same result.

Some convenience features exist because of the argument "It's pointless to not have this feature in the game because everybody will just use third party tools anyways", like with maps as an example, or even parsers. Just put a parser into the game itself and save everybody the trouble you know? Although I did like these types of games better when maps weren't so commonplace.

Although I'd be happy if there was some sort of automation/scripting interface in an old school game.

People can cheat any game. This can't be stopped. If we took that arguments approach, then there would be no point to put in TSW putting in its puzzle content. I mean, why bother, everyone will just cheat it anyway right? That argument is the mainstream argument and is responsible for all of the bland (go fetch, kill) quests in games these days. Remember Smedly's blog on this? Where he went on about them putting content into games is pointless because people will just cheat it anyway?

From what Brad stated, they are undecided on maps so far. What they did say is there will be no mini-map (notice the new vids don't have one) and if a map is added, it will be static (not showing your position on it). He said people using third party to create their own maps is fine as it would be a choice.

As for the other arguments they have on travel, session time, etc... all of these are the same tired arguments that led us to mainstream. I argue that it is the lack of those features to which people long for. While they are not things we enjoy themselves (who likes penalties and corpse runs anyway?), their existence gives more meaning to the successes over them. That is what is lacking in games today and the "convenience" argument is merely one that attempts to avoid them.

 

[Ranselknulf]

I'm ok with travel items or abilities, which EQ had plenty, as long as they aren't overly common or easy to use. Like a transport ability that requires consumeables to use or an oh shit ability that functions once every 48 hours. Everybody has a different threshold but it really comes down to how much the abilities affect the over all game imo.

There should be ways of faster travel if not instant travel.. or at least automated travel I'd say. Like taking a boat or hiring a wagon team to pull your avatar to a major city.

 

[Xenich]

Maybe the farming will be good. We'll always have farming.

Nope, if they stray away from the old school concept, I won't even bother with the game as I have watched enough games destroyed over time by the mainstream locusts. It is a perpetual cycle of idiocy. They demand all these "new school" features, game gets released, people get bored and drop it and complain about nobody can make a good MMO anymore. Then they head back to WoW to their pointless easy mode mind numbing content and bitch about how the game sucks and nothing better is out.

Maybe Star Citizen will be an option for me. The nice thing about that game (providing he sticks with the plan) is that I can run my private server and configure the world the way I want it. Granted, much different style of game, but it will be fun to play with friends (though I am not sure about the MMO portion, they say it won't be, but I get an odd feeling it will be hard PTW) at least on my own server.

The other option is Vanguard EMU, though that I think is a ways off.

I really wish they would start making MMO games where they sell off the server software to people to host their own servers. This way, people like you and I could tweak the servers to our liking without ruining the content as a developer does by creating it. Honestly, this is the wave of the future imo, to make MMO server/client systems and then sell, and update content packages, engine features, etc... over time. I think this would be extremely successful and would herald a new generation of gaming.

So, who is with me? Lets get a business going and get to it!

 

[Xenich]

I'm ok with travel items or abilities, which EQ had plenty, as long as they aren't overly common or easy to use. Like a transport ability that requires consumeables to use or an oh shit ability that functions once every 48 hours. Everybody has a different threshold but it really comes down to how much the abilities affect the over all game imo.

There should be ways of faster travel if not instant travel.. or at least automated travel I'd say. Like taking a boat or hiring a wagon team to pull your avatar to a major city.

Oh, I didn't mean to say that those things shouldn't exist. Rather as they existed in EQ (pre-PoP). That is, spells from specific classes, potions with the right skill (though limited and very hard to create like it was in EQ), boats, etc...

No mounts, no personal teleportation via vendors, or the like. This way, classes who have this ability are sought after, have a benefit, something to weight between the selections.

Thing is, like I said, some people argue for far more than this. EQ had the right balance (pre-PoP), travel meant something, it was actually a strategy of play. These days, travel is... pointless.

edit:

On that same point, when I talk about how certain expectations that seem unrelated have a large effect on the game, it is things like zone design and size. People complain about how EQ zones were huge, but empty, that the "new school" method is to have smaller zones filled with content. Problem is, by doing that, you eliminate they relevance of travel as a means of difficulty and progression. Now I am not saying having content rich zones is bad, rather I am saying that to have very large zones that make travel meaningful AND have them content rich is something very time consuming and likely to not be practical. So, if I had the choice between smaller zones filled with content, but diminished travel need or huge zones with less content, but a strong reliance on travel abilities, well... I would take the latter like EQ.


Also, the larger zones with less content also leaves new content additions to old zones easier to implement. Rather than having to go back and completely redesign the zone to add something, there is already space to add it and do so without the gaming public immediately knowing it.

 

[Norfleet]

Some convenience features exist because of the argument "It's pointless to not have this feature in the game because everybody will just use third party tools anyways", like with maps as an example, or even parsers. Just put a parser into the game itself and save everybody the trouble you know? Although I did like these types of games better when maps weren't so commonplace.

Maps were always commonplace. Even oldschool MUDs had an automap, lovingly rendered in procedural ASCII every time you typed "look". The notion that this was "popamole" never existed. Shitty UI is not a thing to be nostalgic for. If you actually WANT a shitty user interface, hold out for QWOP Online, where the terrible controls and UI will be the entire point. For any other game, anything that makes the UI smoother, more informative, and generally more USEFUL is simply better, period.

No mounts, no personal teleportation via vendors, or the like. This way, classes who have this ability are sought after, have a benefit, something to weight between the selections.

I dunno, I think mounts are a good thing. A good thing traditionally done badly. Why can't I be a cavalryman? BEAR CAVALRY, even. Can you imagine the looks on the faces of the hapless enemy footmen as the BEAR CAVALRY charges over the hill into their flank?

 

[Xenich]

Maps were always commonplace. Even oldschool MUDs had an automap, lovingly rendered in procedural ASCII every time you typed "look". The notion that this was "popamole" never existed. Shitty UI is not a thing to be nostalgic for. If you actually WANT a shitty user interface, hold out for QWOP Online, where the terrible controls and UI will be the entire point. For any other game, anything that makes the UI smoother, more informative, and generally more USEFUL is simply better, period.

Some games had them, some did not. It really depended on what the game was trying to achieve. Part of the experience in EQ was getting lost, feeling that the world was vast, open, and dangerous. Also, because mobs were not leashed and would chase you to each zone line, getting lost was even more dangerous, even if you had a increase run speed. Knowing your surroundings was another element of play, another knowledge aspect of play (being a monk, I had the luxury of being able to explore deep into dungeons before others, learning the area). I remember running like a scared chicken after getting agro not knowing where the hell I was and where the zones were (before I got FD high enough to be reliable). It made for some very comical and memorable moments in play. These are subtle features where "convenience" destroyed the experience.

Now that is not to say I am opposed to maps being in games. Though if it were going to be in Pantheon, I would want it to be a skill that is difficult and time consuming to raise. So eventually someone could have a map they pull out for a given zone, once they have explored.

hmm....

Here is an idea for a map skill.

First you have a map skill specifically. What this does is give you the ability TO map. To raise this skill, it would take time and components maybe. Now, this is just the first part. The next part is the act OF mapping each zone. This would require an active concentration or focus (ie, can't be focused too much on other tasks such as be in combat). Maybe a "hit this button and an ability is channeled for several seconds" type of thing. This would map the area of your line of site... or maybe a certain diameter. Now, how well it maps and its accuracy would be dependent on your main map skill. That is, it is entirely possible to have an incorrect map if your skill is too low essentially giving two skill focuses (ie map skill, and individual zone map skill) This would allow people to get their map skill up, but also would keep them from "in game" having an instant map of a zone they have never explored. This gives an element of character development and encourages detailed exploration (add in tons of secrets all over the place and this increases the reward for such attention to a skill).

Now I know some of you will say... "but some people will just look up the maps online". My response? "Who cares?" You can't stop people and if you spend your time trying to develop for cheaters, you will end up with a game that is pure shit. Develop a game for those who want to play a game, the rest can fuck off.

 

[Norfleet]

Some games had them, some did not. It really depended on what the game was trying to achieve. Part of the experience in EQ was getting lost, feeling that the world was vast, open, and dangerous.

I wouldn't say maps actually stop you from feeling the world is vast, open, and dangerous. If anything, the map can be used to further convey that feeling. If you want to convey the world being vast, let the player see where he is on the map. After he walks for a good several minutes and checks his map and finds that, according to his map, he's barely moved, the idea that the world is REALLY HUGE will sink in even faster. As for dangerous, maps don't really tell you much about dangerousness, but that's nothing some "HC SVNT DRACONES" can't fix. Especially if there are. And you die before you get there.

Also, because mobs were not leashed and would chase you to each zone line, getting lost was even more dangerous, even if you had a increase run speed.

Yes, I hear the infamous "Train" was a thing of beauty. I know a high-ranking guild-member of Fansy the Famous Bard.

I remember running like a scared chicken after getting agro not knowing where the hell I was and where the zones were (before I got FD high enough to be reliable). It made for some very comical and memorable moments in play. These are subtle features where "convenience" destroyed the experience.

I wouldn't say that...a map could show you things, yet still be, well, merely a map...

Now that is not to say I am opposed to maps being in games. Though if it were going to be in Pantheon, I would want it to be a skill that is difficult and time consuming to raise. So eventually someone could have a map they pull out for a given zone, once they have explored.

Or it could just be something players could buy and/or sell from vendors, and be a map.

This would allow people to get their map skill up, but also would keep them from "in game" having an instant map of a zone they have never explored. This gives an element of character development and encourages detailed exploration (add in tons of secrets all over the place and this increases the reward for such attention to a skill).

And let people sell/trade the map.

 

[Xenich]

I wouldn't say maps actually stop you from feeling the world is vast, open, and dangerous. If anything, the map can be used to further convey that feeling. If you want to convey the world being vast, let the player see where he is on the map. After he walks for a good several minutes and checks his map and finds that, according to his map, he's barely moved, the idea that the world is REALLY HUGE will sink in even faster. As for dangerous, maps don't really tell you much about dangerousness, but that's nothing some "HC SVNT DRACONES" can't fix. Especially if there are. And you die before you get there.

Knowing is the issue. It is dangerous because you don't know. If you have no idea how big the map is and where you are located concerning it, well... that puts a fear in the player as to where they can go to escape. With a map, I can begin to logically deduce the likelihood of a given exit and my relationship to it. Like you said, you "moved", looked at your map and knew how big the map was and your location reference to it (ie you gimmick'd the game to gain info). I remove that and you are blind and have nothing to go on but your immediate view of the area.

Yes, I hear the infamous "Train" was a thing of beauty. I know a high-ranking guild-member of Fansy the Famous Bard.

So you never got to experience EQ? Kind of limits your ability to argue a point concerning these features don't you think?

I wouldn't say that...a map could show you things, yet still be, well, merely a map...

You mean like show you where you are in terms of the zone (ie knowing the outline, how far it is to an edge, etc... ) I mean... if a map is "merely a map" as you say, well... doing without it won't be much of a loss right? I mean... it is "merely a map"? We both know that is bullshit and why people whine over wanting these hints. I remember having to learn a zone, where to go, mapping out myself or in my head the layout so I could pull areas safely. It took time to do such, to learn my area and it usually resulted in lots of deaths and some pretty difficult corpse recoveries when I got turned around and lost. Though you are going to say that the map isn't a big deal, that its just a map and there really isn't much there? Yeah... umm... right.

Or it could just be something players could buy and/or sell from vendors, and be a map.

Sure, but segregate AH money from game money (and make game money no trade with no way to gimmick sell to vendors to make cash) and make maps very expensive. You want that map? Fine... go play the game and save up for it. No "I just sold dis itemz to sum gold buyer fer likz milluns!!! I'm rich!!!".

And let people sell/trade the map.

Yeah, so you can like play the AH game and get mega rich off gold buyers to make easy money to circumvent the time and effort to gain them.

 

[belowmecoldhands]

I'm ok with travel items or abilities, which EQ had plenty, as long as they aren't overly common or easy to use. Like a transport ability that requires consumeables to use or an oh shit ability that functions once every 48 hours. Everybody has a different threshold but it really comes down to how much the abilities affect the over all game imo.

There should be ways of faster travel if not instant travel.. or at least automated travel I'd say. Like taking a boat or hiring a wagon team to pull your avatar to a major city.

Are any of you familiar with the mark/recall system used in old school Ultima Online? I liked it. The thing I liked was fast travel was created uniquely by players. A player would train up their magery skill and cast Mark spell to store a location in a rune and Recall spell to travel to it. They could use the rune alone or put the rune in a rune book. They could also sell the rune books to other players or give them away. They could create an indefinite number of runes. The only limitations were:
1) Training magery high enough to cast mark/recall reliably (about 60 to 70 I think)
2) It used some spell points
3) Usually try not to be in combat because it has a cast time and can be interrupted
4) If you died, your runes were kept on your corpse - but your corpse wasn't lootable (early on top-level items were lootable)
5) You could of course store runes in your bank or make copies indirectly (recall to rune and mark it on an empty rune)
6) There were a variety of wyas to get back your corpse..... even instantly

The beauty of it was it helped spur the player economy because players might buy rune books. It was creative in nature. IMHO, this was JUST ANOTHER way that Ultima Online was a sandbox before anybody used that word in that context.

On the subject of corpse runs, her'es a blog entry form Raph Koster from 2008:
http://www.raphkoster.com/2008/11/17/why-are-corpse-runs-bad/

I'm of the opinion corpse runs definitely added a tension. I'm a tension junky, no doubt, as all my posts on the codex, in one way or another, allude to. I probably most relate to the 2nd comment in the raph koster blog:
http://www.raphkoster.com/2008/11/17/why-are-corpse-runs-bad/#comment-142727

Dying and leaving a corpse (especially when your corpse has the value of a house filled with items–to compare it to UO) made zones in Everquest feel more immersive than any other game I’ve ever played, single or multi. When you can run into a dungeon without worrying about a true penalty (temporary statloss or experience loss aren’t enough of a penalty) the game changes completely: you aren’t scared, so you don’t pay as much attention to your surroundings; you don’t care as much as you would really care if you were really in a dungeon. Everyone that played Everquest has a story where they are led deep into some place they have never been before by a more experienced player. The first time I was led from lower to upper Guk, I couldn’t keep track of all the turns, twists, ladders and water–there was no way I could find my out or in without someone’s help. Because if I made a wrong turn somewhere I could die–fall into the water with all the hostile mushrooms things or wander into an even more terrible part of the zone. And if I died, I knew I would have to retrieve my corpse; to retrieve my corpse I would have to get friends together, beg my guild, pray for the kindness of strangers. And this–where it was very likely I could get my corpse but it would take awhile–pales in comparison to guild wipes in the Planes–or even a place like Veeshan’s Peak.
(.....)

But I'll say I'd still play Pantheon if there were no corpse runs.

 

[Xenich]

I'm ok with travel items or abilities, which EQ had plenty, as long as they aren't overly common or easy to use. Like a transport ability that requires consumeables to use or an oh shit ability that functions once every 48 hours. Everybody has a different threshold but it really comes down to how much the abilities affect the over all game imo.

There should be ways of faster travel if not instant travel.. or at least automated travel I'd say. Like taking a boat or hiring a wagon team to pull your avatar to a major city.

Are any of you familiar with the mark/recall system used in old school Ultima Online? I liked it. The thing I liked was fast travel was created uniquely by players. A player would train up their magery skill and cast Mark spell to store a location in a rune and Recall spell to travel to it. They could use the rune alone or put the rune in a rune book. They could also sell the rune books to other players or give them away. They could create an indefinite number of runes. The only limitations were:
1) Training magery high enough to cast mark/recall reliably (about 60 to 70 I think)
2) It used some spell points
3) Usually try not to be in combat because it has a cast time and can be interrupted
4) If you died, your runes were kept on your corpse - but your corpse wasn't lootable
5) You could of course store runes in your bank or make copies indirectly (recall to rune and mark it on an empty rune)
6) You can get back to your corpse with an exp penalty instantly... or use a rune to come back.. or spawn nearby... or a player who was with you would rez you for no exp loss

The beauty of it was it helped spur the player economy because players might buy rune books. It was creative in nature.

You do realize the problems PoP brought to EQ concerning travel? That system would not go well with a game trying to revive old school EQ style and mentality. I am not saying its a bad system for UO, but it is a terrible system for an EQ like game.

 

[Ranselknulf]

I don't think that type of system would work well, maybe if the ability was to repair or recharge transport items with charges.. then there could be some sort of crafted magery skill going on there.

Considerable failure rates should be in effect even with high crafted skill levels of course.

 

[Norfleet]

So you never got to experience EQ? Kind of limits your ability to argue a point concerning these features don't you think?

Let's just say that with the crowds I've associated with, I've probably heard more about these games than most players of them have, and unlike people stumbling around, I get targeted, direct information. The notion that one must personally experience something to know and understand is bullshit, anyway. A wise man learns from the mistakes of others.

Knowing is the issue. It is dangerous because you don't know. If you have no idea how big the map is and where you are located concerning it, well... that puts a fear in the player as to where they can go to escape.

Okay, I suppose maybe we're coming from different backgrounds with no real common ground, but "not knowing" is not a thing I do when I embark on a venture. By the time I attempt anything for reals, I've throughly dissected the process and have a solid theoretical knowledge of how to do it, generally better than that of the people who actually do it, because they've pigeonholed themselves into their own methods and are blind to other alternatives. But I gather that a lot of people like to blunder into things blindly and die horribly. But like I said, I prefer learning from the mistakes of others.

With a map, I can begin to logically deduce the likelihood of a given exit and my relationship to it. Like you said, you "moved", looked at your map and knew how big the map was and your location reference to it (ie you gimmick'd the game to gain info). I remove that and you are blind and have nothing to go on but your immediate view of the area.

Sure, you could logically deduce the likelyhood of a given exit, but let's just say that as a game administrator, I've killed a lot more players because of specifically providing them with a very nice map, than forcing them to go in blind, or worse, with some OTHER player's map. Other players tend to make highly reliable maps with very detailed annotations. If one can pull up a MAPPY map in-game, someone is less likely to even try...and the hilarity ensues. If the player has only one option, going and pulling the map from a third party, that's the only option he has and so he has to do it. If you give the player two options, the easy way (in-game map) and the hard option (google-fu), he'll take the easy way. The easy way is always mined.

Sure, but segregate AH money from game money (and make game money no trade with no way to gimmick sell to vendors to make cash) and make maps very expensive. You want that map? Fine... go play the game and save up for it. No "I just sold dis itemz to sum gold buyer fer likz milluns!!! I'm rich!!!".

Why? Do you just hate working, logical economies? Maps shouldn't be outlandishly expensive. They're simple pieces of parchment that someone has drawn on. Maybe a fair amount of effort in a fantasy setting, maybe no effort at all in a sci-fi setting. The interesting part comes if you want the GPS, which, in a fantasy setting, is pure magic, which may or may not be expensive depending on just how many +5 swords there are floating around in the word; in a modern to futuristic setting...well, that's a feature that comes with your phone, which you probably got for peanuts, so that's not expensive either.

I'm just saying, there's plenty of ways to create tension and challenge even while making the UI more accessible: Bad interface is not the only option. It's not even the best option, since eventually you annoy the players enough to defeat your shitty UI, and create a really large gap between those who haven't quite worked it out and those who have rejected your bullshit UI, and then the whining starts. I've seen THIS enough firsthand.

Also, maps are cool, they have all these nice little pictures of dragons and sea monsters on them.

 

[Xenich]

So you never got to experience EQ? Kind of limits your ability to argue a point concerning these features don't you think?

Let's just say that with the crowds I've associated with, I've probably heard more about these games than most players of them have, and unlike people stumbling around, I get targeted, direct information. The notion that one must personally experience something to know and understand is bullshit, anyway. A wise man learns from the mistakes of others.

This isn't an issue of a wisdom lesson. You being described trains, death penalties, camp breaking, endurance fights, etc... isn't a simple break down to where you understand by description. You have to experience it to understand. You think you know, but you are academic in nature and that just can't convey the feeling the game provided with all of its subtle elements of play. At the end of the day, you really are just reading about something that another person actually experienced.

Knowing is the issue. It is dangerous because you don't know. If you have no idea how big the map is and where you are located concerning it, well... that puts a fear in the player as to where they can go to escape.

Okay, I suppose maybe we're coming from different backgrounds with no real common ground, but "not knowing" is not a thing I do when I embark on a venture. By the time I attempt anything for reals, I've throughly dissected the process and have a solid theoretical knowledge of how to do it, generally better than that of the people who actually do it, because they've pigeonholed themselves into their own methods and are blind to other alternatives. But I gather that a lot of people like to blunder into things blindly and die horribly. But like I said, I prefer learning from the mistakes of others.

You have to go in blindly to first learn. It isn't that I choose to be ignorant, it is I must learn, I must "play the game". It is learning your environment and dealing with the various obstacles, to eventually overcome them through acquired knowledge in game play. I am not sure how you would go in more prepared before that? Unless, you are saying you would be the guy waiting for someone else to map out the zones for you and annotate the details for you?

With a map, I can begin to logically deduce the likelihood of a given exit and my relationship to it. Like you said, you "moved", looked at your map and knew how big the map was and your location reference to it (ie you gimmick'd the game to gain info). I remove that and you are blind and have nothing to go on but your immediate view of the area.

Sure, you could logically deduce the likelyhood of a given exit, but let's just say that as a game administrator, I've killed a lot more players because of specifically providing them with a very nice map, than forcing them to go in blind, or worse, with some OTHER player's map. Other players tend to make highly reliable maps with very detailed annotations. If one can pull up a MAPPY map in-game, someone is less likely to even try...and the hilarity ensues. If the player has only one option, going and pulling the map from a third party, that's the only option he has and so he has to do it. If you give the player two options, the easy way (in-game map) and the hard option (google-fu), he'll take the easy way. The easy way is always mined.

It isn't about an absolute here. It is about the elements I speak of all thrown together to provide and element of risk, confusion, a need to learn, etc... this goes back to the "experience" thing. You are arguing with me about elements of play you have never experienced, yet claim you understand. I keep trying to explain to you the elements of the feeling this provides, but all I can do is explain the culmination of mechanics in hopes you could get an idea, but since you have never experienced this, it is just meaningless words that you "tit for tat" argue with. I am sorry, but you don't have a grasp of what I am describing. Your level of understanding is like arguing with a war veteran over the heat of the battle at Normandy because your grand pappy told you a lot of stories. You just don't get it and that is why you keep arguing like this. You have never experienced it and completely miss the point.

Sure, but segregate AH money from game money (and make game money no trade with no way to gimmick sell to vendors to make cash) and make maps very expensive. You want that map? Fine... go play the game and save up for it. No "I just sold dis itemz to sum gold buyer fer likz milluns!!! I'm rich!!!".

Why? Do you just hate working, logical economies? Maps shouldn't be outlandishly expensive. They're simple pieces of parchment that someone has drawn on. Maybe a fair amount of effort in a fantasy setting, maybe no effort at all in a sci-fi setting. The interesting part comes if you want the GPS, which, in a fantasy setting, is pure magic, which may or may not be expensive depending on just how many +5 swords there are floating around in the word; in a modern to futuristic setting...well, that's a feature that comes with your phone, which you probably got for peanuts, so that's not expensive either.

I don't think someone should be able to buy progression through easy gimmick play and playing the AH game is just that. You know this, which is why you take issue with my suggestion. Notice I did not say "no" player economies, I merely had them separated so one could not manipulate the other. This way, you have to earn your way in the AH game (though that is stupidly easy anyway), but you would also have to earn your way through the game systems. One can not easily gimmick the other. This allows them to regulate the system economy so it can't be gimmicked by the player economy (ie gold sellers etc... causing massive inflation). That means, system expenses don't become meaningless because the player economy turned the game on its head in a few weeks. There are still problems like dupes that would have to be watched for, but without the ability to trade system money, they would be easily found. It is the best of both worlds really. It means people can play the game without being affected by the player economies which are as I said, broken gimmicks that any moron could easily manipulate.

I'm just saying, there's plenty of ways to create tension and challenge even while making the UI more accessible: Bad interface is not the only option. It's not even the best option, since eventually you annoy the players enough to defeat your shitty UI, and create a really large gap between those who haven't quite worked it out and those who have rejected your bullshit UI, and then the whining starts. I've seen THIS enough firsthand.

Also, maps are cool, they have all these nice little pictures of dragons and sea monsters on them.

So apparently not having a map is an "inaccessible UI", a "bad interface"? LOL

Seriously, now that is a delusional argument. What does not having a map have to do with that? You are grasping at straws now. Don't confuse your dislike for a feature as being a technical design flaw . A Map is just a element of a play system. A UI is an interface that connects the player to that system. The absence of a map does not make that UI inaccessible. I mean... seriously... WTF are you thinking?

You need to get better at trolling, I mean, you do pretty good there for a bit, but then swing out with a dead obvious troll statement. Get better man, you aren't the savant you think you are.

/em gets more popcorn.

 

[Norfleet]

This isn't an issue of a wisdom lesson. You being described trains, death penalties, camp breaking, endurance fights, etc... isn't a simple break down to where you understand by description.

Actually, understanding by description is what I do and how I operate. People often say things like this to me, "How would you know? You've never even played it.". But personally experiencing it is irrelevant if I've assimilated the thing at the most basic possible level: Dissassembling the game and reading its code. It's an RPG, not a fighting game. Basically everything about it is governed by the numbers, YOU don't have any impact beyond selecting which numbers to pull. So if I know the rules, I already know the game.

You have to experience it to understand. You think you know, but you are academic in nature and that just can't convey the feeling the game provided with all of its subtle elements of play. At the end of the day, you really are just reading about something that another person actually experienced.

I'd find this argument more convincing if I didn't have a history of sweeping into games armed with nothing more than an exhaustive study of everything about it and proceeding to dominate it.

You have to go in blindly to first learn. It isn't that I choose to be ignorant, it is I must learn, I must "play the game".

No you don't. When you want to play a game, you first begin by analyzing its rules. If you just blindly pick up a game and try to play it, you will lose. This means that before I ever boot up the game and try to play for real, I will go through all of the information available to me, up to and including disassembling the game itself. Armed with a knowledge of the rules of the game, I will then attempt to come up with a strategy, a plan of attack, for how to approach the game. Going in blindly is like sticking your hands into unknown dark holes which may or may not inhabited by bitey things.

It is learning your environment and dealing with the various obstacles, to eventually overcome them through acquired knowledge in game play. I am not sure how you would go in more prepared before that?

The customary method is to disassemble the game, like you would when trying to understand any other strange machine.

So apparently not having a map is an "inaccessible UI", a "bad interface"? LOL

The way I see it, every time I have to tab out of the game or even write my own thing just to perform a basic function in the game, the UI has failed me. Sure, some games specifically are designed to function on a shitty UI, but those things are parodies. The lousy controls of QWOP are the entire point of QWOP. Other games...are not QWOP. Maps used to come in the box because the technical limitations of the system made it too resource-intensive to actually have an in-game map. Now there is no reason I shouldn't be able to have a map in the game itself, and not have to deal in something as crude and antiquated as a physical map.

You need to get better at trolling, I mean, you do pretty good there for a bit, but then swing out with a dead obvious troll statement. Get better man, you aren't the savant you think you are.

Just because we don't agree doesn't make me a troll. I don't call you names, even though you say what are, from my perspective, pretty outlandish and silly things. I just figure you genuinely believe those things, even if they are ridiculous.

 

[Xenich]

This isn't an issue of a wisdom lesson. You being described trains, death penalties, camp breaking, endurance fights, etc... isn't a simple break down to where you understand by description.

Actually, understanding by description is what I do and how I operate. People often say things like this to me, "How would you know? You've never even played it.". But personally experiencing it is irrelevant if I've assimilated the thing at the most basic possible level: Dissassembling the game and reading its code. It's an RPG, not a fighting game. Basically everything about it is governed by the numbers, YOU don't have any impact beyond selecting which numbers to pull. So if I know the rules, I already know the game.

You are full of shit.

You have to experience it to understand. You think you know, but you are academic in nature and that just can't convey the feeling the game provided with all of its subtle elements of play. At the end of the day, you really are just reading about something that another person actually experienced.

I'd find this argument more convincing if I didn't have a history of sweeping into games armed with nothing more than an exhaustive study of everything about it and proceeding to dominate it.

Again, you are full of shit.

You have to go in blindly to first learn. It isn't that I choose to be ignorant, it is I must learn, I must "play the game".

No you don't. When you want to play a game, you first begin by analyzing its rules. If you just blindly pick up a game and try to play it, you will lose. This means that before I ever boot up the game and try to play for real, I will go through all of the information available to me, up to and including disassembling the game itself. Armed with a knowledge of the rules of the game, I will then attempt to come up with a strategy, a plan of attack, for how to approach the game. Going in blindly is like sticking your hands into unknown dark holes which may or may not inhabited by bitey things.

You can't inform yourself on something unless you play OR you use outside information. So, you go to hint sites and study up on things before you play. That is like the guys who look up strategy guides when they fight a raid boss and then act like they somehow were skilled in taking it down.

It is learning your environment and dealing with the various obstacles, to eventually overcome them through acquired knowledge in game play. I am not sure how you would go in more prepared before that?

The customary method is to disassemble the game, like you would when trying to understand any other strange machine.

??? How... how do you disassemble the game without playing OR without 1) looking up hint guides/discussion/spoilers OR 2) hacking the game files to obtain any relevant information as such if possible? Again, you are full of shit. The more you talk, the more you sound like a kid who doesn't know his head from his ass. Sorry,. but them there be the facts of your arguments (ie.., you use vague mention as to your style without ever being specific, that is...you talk out of your ass).

So apparently not having a map is an "inaccessible UI", a "bad interface"? LOL

The way I see it, every time I have to tab out of the game or even write my own thing just to perform a basic function in the game, the UI has failed me. Sure, some games specifically are designed to function on a shitty UI, but those things are parodies. The lousy controls of QWOP are the entire point of QWOP. Other games...are not QWOP. Maps used to come in the box because the technical limitations of the system made it too resource-intensive to actually have an in-game map. Now there is no reason I shouldn't be able to have a map in the game itself, and not have to deal in something as crude and antiquated as a physical map.

You are a fucking idiot Norfleet. /shrug

 

[Norfleet]

Again, you are full of shit.

You ask Vaarna who built his starbase, then. They thought that at first, too.

You can't inform yourself on something unless you play OR you use outside information.

Sure, it's convenient if outside information is already available, but in the old days, sometimes you were first, so you had to do your own disassembling.

That is like the guys who look up strategy guides when they fight a raid boss and then act like they somehow were skilled in taking it down.

As for "skilled", eh. As you've probably noticed by now, I have the mindset of a PvPer, and as such, do not really consider PvE to be a skill, merely a thing you grind to prepare yourself materially for PvP.

??? How... how do you disassemble the game without playing and without 1) looking up hint guides/discussion/spoilers OR 2) hacking the game files to obtain any relevant information as such if possible?

I don't know, how do you breathe without air? If you're going to exclude the two most obvious options (although there are other things you can inspect other than game files), I'm not sure how I should answer.

(ie.., you use vague mention as to your style without ever being specific, that is...you talk out of your ass).

In what way was I vague? I am not here to use the thread to recount each and every player I have killed or every single game I have won, if that's your goal.

You are a fucking idiot Norfleet. /shrug

I get that a lot. Somehow, I still win.

 

[Xenich]

Stupid fucking kids. I swear.

 

[Norfleet]

Well, I'm certainly not one of them. Have you seen my registration date? I've been HERE alone for nearly 10 years, and I have verifiable credentials that trace back maybe another 10+ years at minimum. You're probably going to interpret this as being vague.

 

[Xenich]

Well, I'm certainly not one of them. Have you seen my registration date? I've been HERE alone for nearly 10 years, and I have verifiable credentials that trace back maybe another 10+ years at minimum. You're probably going to interpret this as being vague.

You were better off letting people think you were young. At least with that, you could be construed as being immature and arrogant. That works for kids as it is expected that being a fucking idiot as such (we all were once) will be grown out of. You admitting you are much older and still a fucking idiot, well... you aren't "winning" as you like to claim. In fact, I pity you now.

 

[Ranselknulf]

Endurance fights are a completely different ballgame.

Classic EQ had some fun ones but nothing like pandemonium warden in ffxi. Think the first kill in the game took like 18 hours straight. Had to get guild shift rotation going lol.

Games don't really aim for the obscenely challenging any more but I'd prefer my endurance fights to be no longer than 4 to 6 hours I guess. Though I question if I'd want to commit that much effort to a game these days.

 

[Xenich]

Endurance fights are a completely different ballgame.

Classic EQ had some fun ones but nothing like pandemonium warden in ffxi. Think the first kill in the game took like 18 hours straight. Had to get guild shift rotation going lol.

Games don't really aim for the obscenely challenging any more but I'd prefer my endurance fights to be no longer than 4 to 6 hours I guess. Though I question if I'd want to commit that much effort to a game these days.

Oh, I am certainly not hoping to go back to those EXTREMELY long fights of old, I would prefer them to shorten just a bit these days (raid fights that is, mob HP in EQ would be just fine imo), but to be every bit of an endurance fight.

 

[Quigs]

Endurance fights are a completely different ballgame.

Classic EQ had some fun ones but nothing like pandemonium warden in ffxi. Think the first kill in the game took like 18 hours straight. Had to get guild shift rotation going lol.

Games don't really aim for the obscenely challenging any more but I'd prefer my endurance fights to be no longer than 4 to 6 hours I guess. Though I question if I'd want to commit that much effort to a game these days.

Oh, I am certainly not hoping to go back to those EXTREMELY long fights of old, I would prefer them to shorten just a bit these days (raid fights that is, mob HP in EQ would be just fine imo), but to be every bit of an endurance fight.

EQ's issue wasn't the mob HP so much as it was the player's HP regen. When I couldn't get a group as a warrior, soloing was a slow affair. Kill a mob, bind wounds to 50%, then sit for 3-5 minutes and do it again, X250 for the next level.