collapse

* Notice

Important notice (31 July): We have recently recovered from a nearly two day downtime due to an attack. No data was lost or stolen but the server has been reinstalled as a precaution. Please let us know if you encounter any issues. We apologise for the unacceptable inconvenience. Please read here for more information.

Author [EN] [PL] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] Topic: What was said in 2010 is now "false"  (Read 7355 times)

Offline Radical21

  • Antediluvian
  • *****
  • Posts: 3024
  • Reputation: +-1344/-52
Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
« Reply #30 on: July 03, 2013, 12:19:21 pm »
Quote
Interaction between players is superficial at best

To some extent, allowing players to have some independence and ability to play and progress without being in constant fear of griefing does 'diminish interaction', but its the sort of interaction alot of people want to see diminished or not experienced at all. 'Superficial interaction' sounds awful, but like any marketing buzzword, it doesn't tell the whole story. I could also advertise 'complete freedom of playstyle' while marketing a blue MMO with a PVP switch. Ultimately, it boils down to what  your players will enjoy and demand more of. At the end of the day, more people  careful about an enjoyable and stress-free gaming session than a 'maximal interaction' griefest, but there are niche games that do successfully cater to the latter. Its just that they dont tend to (ever) do well. I liked Shadowbane and Darkfall and early UO, and they were all quite hardcore, but they all either radically changed their ways or fail. Meanwhile, MMOs which compartimentalized PvP and gave players choice, at the expense of "superficiality", thrived whenever they were well executed.


Um, I could say the same thing in reverse, your fear of 'grief-fest' as you put it would cripple any chance at meaningful interaction between players because they don't want to create an opening for griefing.

And PvP enable buttons are the ABC of creating a game for griefers with retarded PvP, which is why you probably hold your current contention and mortal fear that any and all PvP MMORPGs are littered with griefers above all else.

EVE Online seperates things by creating Null-sec and High-sec, guess which one of these places have more griefers: High sec has had players abusing the flagging system by tricking new players into touching cargo that was not theirs, since these players are new and do not know any better thinking they are safe in high-sec they touch the cargo and become fair game criminals to anyone and to the camping veteran player.

Now Lets take this scenario to Null-sec for a moment, would a veteran player really sit there camping newbs? no, that veteran players has better things to do and by sitting around and acting like an asshole he would make himself a target which is not worth it for him.

Now lets back up abit and assume EVE Online was an MMO with a "PvP Enable/Disable button" , that same Veteran griefer could just grief and retreat to turn PvP off again, no one could really touch him and if they did while he is in hi-sec all the NPC security would be on top of them and not the griefer who, by letting time pass, been 'cleansed' of any responsibility for his crimes.

And lets regress even further to a PvE only MMORPG which is a dream come true for you: you end up running things in instances in co-op missions with your friends that do not really matter outside these instances because they have no lasting effect on the game world(at least none that matters).
The game constantly receives updates for low quality story-lines(they have to try to keep it coming somehow and they struggle to deliver anything that is good because of the storytelling restrictions) while prompting you and your friends to talk about uber gear and which junkfood food-chain you like to order from.
So if that is really what you are looking for, good for you, but I think there is already more than enough of that out there to go around.

The Moral of this story is that if you are really afraid of griefers create an anti-griefer defense force or something but dumbing the game down is not really the way to prevent it..

For TSW, I think I heard Claudia report that they fixed some of the bad polish stuff since release.
As for storytelling, all things considered about the mechanics and gameworld, can you honestly say that you could take TSW and do better? (not saying you are a writer, but I'm asking if in technical you can really see a way for them to make it better)
I think it is way too limited to come up with anything good, the real story lies in emergent roleplay which is supported by solid P-to-P systems


Radical21, better is superficial interaction between players, than a forced, fake relationship. If nobody says anything in a WoW dungeon run, that means it went well. Should I try to roleplay during dungeon runs, with people from non-RP servers (WoW dungeon LFG tool is cross-server)?

Lets say, as an Eve player you run an incursion, or some high level complex in nullsec and you need some buddies to help you out. Do you know you can wait for hours to find a group, or your buddies to come online (been there, done that)? I'll run a dungeon instead with LFG tool in WoW within thirty minutes, then I can choose to do something else, like crafting, farming mats, or RPing with people interested in that.

There is quality RP if you take a closer look, not everyone is a Mary Sue, or is interested in ERP (erotic roleplay) only, even in WoW. After all, you rolled a char on a RP server, didn't you?

For a change your post sounds like its more than trollish baiting so ill reply:

The inability or lack of need to communicate during dungeon runs and most raids is what I was actually talking about, I don't think there is any story or interest there, it is done purely for a goal reward rather than actual fun.(here polly, well done, have a cracker).

And yes in EVE Online players have better things to play with than run PvE raids so that is why you would find it harder to be auto-grouped for these things, the same thing can be seen in Star Trek Online where you have two types of end-game PvE raids:
Ground Raids that can be more elaborate and harder to complete because they require the players to know what they are doing and Space Raids using space ships where you basically just blast everything and do not have to be smart about it.
Both of these have a LFG mechanic attached but since they offer the same reward you could spend ages to find enough people to run the Ground raid even though it has more "story".
So that is just more evidence of what I said above and I do not consider it a good thing.

There may be quality RP but on the overall its narrative would be very restricted which is what I meant. To give some idea of what it is to people who have not tried, imagine if every session of RP was like it is within a bar and all you can do is talk to others or 'win the day' against a were-wolf that occasionally breaks-in through the bar's wall.  you could only expect very predictable and boring plot development since nothing significant can occur.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2013, 12:39:55 pm by Radical21 »

Offline xxbxx

  • Fledgling
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Reputation: +0/-0
Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
« Reply #31 on: July 03, 2013, 12:27:02 pm »
Well in a MMORPG, the major design goal has to be preventing players from having any influence on game world. Look at WoW, everyone is at maximum level, yet nobody influences the game world, in Eve Online that influence doesn't exist either, everyone can have an Avatar, given time, one corporation or alliance is the same as another, even CSM members don't have real influence on CCP decision-making.

Why? If they were to exert any real influence on game world, they would grief other players. And even in Eve griefing exists, as Yulai incident was too much even for CCP.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2013, 12:29:07 pm by xxbxx »

Offline Nigama

  • Dead
  • Antediluvian
  • *****
  • Posts: 1883
  • Reputation: +383/-7
Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
« Reply #32 on: July 03, 2013, 12:29:36 pm »
Well in a MMORPG, the major design goal has to be preventing players from having any influence on game world.

That's exactly what I hate about current MMO's.  I'd like a game world where the players do have influence over the game world.

Nigama
"You may not remember us, but we may be responsible for your lack of memory."

Offline xxbxx

  • Fledgling
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Reputation: +0/-0
Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
« Reply #33 on: July 03, 2013, 12:38:38 pm »
That MMO would be a griefer's dream, and a failure.

Look, CEO of Eve corporation already can take all your stuff in the corp hangar and kick you out, but you can easily prevent that by not trusting him, or recover even if you did trust him and lost ISK. By asking such acts to have real meaning, you ask loss to be non-recoverable, such as level/skillpoint loss or permadeath of your character. Are you sure you'd enjoy to be on the receiving end of such game design?

Offline Radical21

  • Antediluvian
  • *****
  • Posts: 3024
  • Reputation: +-1344/-52
Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
« Reply #34 on: July 03, 2013, 12:42:28 pm »
Well in a MMORPG, the major design goal has to be preventing players from having any influence on game world.

See what I wrote in response to your previous reply, I don't consider this a good thing. If anything it leaves a design gap.

And yes I would enjoy my character suffering a loss because it means that loss has a legacy and it sets the background for a tasty revenge story(Kill Bill, Uchiha Suske, Legacy of Kain and so on are all born of such stories).
Even if I will not enjoy being on the receiving end of it on the personal level I still think it is better than living in a boring world where everything is pretty static and everyone are careless cynics who only respond in interest to Phat Lewt or Rare Stuff.

« Last Edit: July 03, 2013, 12:49:06 pm by Radical21 »

Offline xxbxx

  • Fledgling
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Reputation: +0/-0
Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
« Reply #35 on: July 03, 2013, 12:48:05 pm »
Okay, we can discuss that in more detail. How you will make, perhaps, a hundred thousand of players in a MMO, to exert influence on the game world, yet that none of them feels powerless and neglected? Or it has to be something for select few? How do you think that can be accomplished? How much power should be in user's hands?

Offline Radical21

  • Antediluvian
  • *****
  • Posts: 3024
  • Reputation: +-1344/-52
Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
« Reply #36 on: July 03, 2013, 12:51:50 pm »
Okay, we can discuss that in more detail. How you will make, perhaps, a hundred thousand of players in a MMO, to exert influence on the game world, yet that none of them feels powerless and neglected? Or it has to be something for select few? How do you think that can be accomplished? How much power should be in user's hands?

Already did over the course of around ~1500 of my posts, its not an easy topic but even reasonably discussing it is impeded by people who insist on sticking with current methods instead of trying  to work with new design specs. (see discussion about Celerity in Emergent Roleplay as example:
https://forums.planetvampire.com/?topic=5793.msg117610#msg117610
)
But by all means feel free to give me some more negative rep, that is how people around here take out their frustration when I do not conform to their views
« Last Edit: July 03, 2013, 01:01:36 pm by Radical21 »

Offline xxbxx

  • Fledgling
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Reputation: +0/-0
Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
« Reply #37 on: July 03, 2013, 12:55:08 pm »
True, as obstacles to such a design are obvious, but would you mind giving me a link?

Offline Valamyr

  • Kindred
  • Antediluvian
  • *****
  • Posts: 1326
  • Reputation: +395/-17
Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
« Reply #38 on: July 03, 2013, 07:32:30 pm »
Quote
And lets regress even further to a PvE only MMORPG which is a dream come true for you

And after that you tell me not to say you hate MMOs?  :rofl:

Dont tell me what I enjoy, dude, you clearly have no idea. I've played PvE MMos, hybrids, and PvP games plenty, hell I wrote it in the last post and still you say this? I -know- the latter are much harder to market successfully, but I'm not saying they cant be fun. I sure as fuck wouldnt want WOD to be PvE only either way, what I always wanted was a perfect balance of sandbox and theme park content. I'm not 'afraid' of any amount PvP, but when its omnipresent, it does put off alot of potential players. The concept of highsec and nullsec can be used to mitigate this and it's fairly obvious that's their plan; but then you need fun things to do (theme park content) in highsec/safe/Masq zones.

What you do in your posts is just pushing your vision as the only good one, while belittling everyone else's as boring or mindless, and that attitude has never been either enjoyable nor productive. I predict in the end, the game will be plenty hardcore, but you'll still be pissed at the necessary compromises CCP will make.
Quote
For TSW, I think I heard Claudia report that they fixed some of the bad polish stuff since release.

Good for them, but first impressions matter alot, and they scored fairly low with me. Maybe on some rainy day I'll give it another look if I'm really bored.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2013, 07:43:20 pm by Valamyr »

Offline Radical21

  • Antediluvian
  • *****
  • Posts: 3024
  • Reputation: +-1344/-52
Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
« Reply #39 on: July 03, 2013, 08:35:09 pm »
Quote
And lets regress even further to a PvE only MMORPG which is a dream come true for you

And after that you tell me not to say you hate MMOs?  :rofl:

Dont tell me what I enjoy, dude, you clearly have no idea.

Um the same to you, I only say that based on your preachy anti PvP approach.(arena PvP doesn't count IMO)
and yeah trying to push your vision as the only one is exactly what you are doing with your post and predictions about what will work and what wont so its funny that you say that.
Remember, the Ventrue may be the childs of tradition who look back proudly at their legacy but in the end they also prove to be the most blind.

Offline Valamyr

  • Kindred
  • Antediluvian
  • *****
  • Posts: 1326
  • Reputation: +395/-17
Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
« Reply #40 on: July 03, 2013, 08:44:43 pm »
The difference is that I'm not constantly calling your approach boring, dumbed down, pointless, etc. You use these terms and a dozen other synonyms without fail, anytime someone mentions anything anything about theme park content or other typical content, and I just wanted to point that out.

I'd also actually give your dream MMO a shot if it existed, I'm not saying it couldn't be fun, but it wouldn't really feel like a MMO to me (especially since youre not a fan of progression). I do want WOD to have broader appeal and more diverse gameplay, as the original three spheres approach seemed to guarantee. We'll see in due time if they're still sticking to that.

Offline Radical21

  • Antediluvian
  • *****
  • Posts: 3024
  • Reputation: +-1344/-52
Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
« Reply #41 on: July 03, 2013, 09:16:05 pm »
The difference is that I'm not constantly calling your approach boring, dumbed down, pointless, etc. You use these terms and a dozen other synonyms without fail, anytime someone mentions anything anything about theme park content or other typical content, and I just wanted to point that out.

No, your posts simply leave the impression that all if not most PvP is composed of griefers and isn't fun, for the rest you cannot really apply any of the adjectives you listed above to the PvP suggested so I think that is the primary reason you do not use these to undermine it...

Sorry if I hurt your Themepark PvE feelings but that is generally my opinion on it and I don't think I said something rude by saying that something is dumbed down relative to something else when it is...

I think a broader appeal is fine but it doesn't have to come at the cost of something else, the gameplay experience doesn't have to be uniform everywhere for everyone, it isn't as it is anyway and anyway in most of the PVE mmorpgs (yeah there I go using derogative words again by calling them 'The PVE MMORPGs'')  the player base is divided into instances so its not like you get more players playing the same thing at the same time..  I think that at least is something we can agree on.

So there will be players who will choose to play the PVE Themepark version with their theme-park buddies and there will be players who choose to play the aforementioned PVP sandbox version with interaction between these meta-worlds being limited if any with PVE players having their access restricted to some areas, as to not meta corrupt the PVP sandbox game-play.
The other way is making it closer to EVE online although I imagine that would not be safe enough for people who are really afraid of getting griefed.

As for TSW, CCP barely delivers Walking in Stations, how equipped do you think they are to deliver a flawless PvE experience month after month with the quality you expect?
I think CCP's Strength is in design and indirect emergent game-play rather than rapid generation of flashy content , to do otherwise would probably land them where TSW landed.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2013, 09:24:59 pm by Radical21 »

Offline Nosferatu Numbers Station

  • Concealer of a dead language
  • Methuselah
  • ****
  • Posts: 441
  • Reputation: +239/-2
Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
« Reply #42 on: July 03, 2013, 11:39:28 pm »
For TSW, I think I heard Claudia report that they fixed some of the bad polish stuff since release.

Good for them, but first impressions matter alot, and they scored fairly low with me. Maybe on some rainy day I'll give it another look if I'm really bored.

I played til the end on an Illuminati character, the storytelling isn't bad persay, but it's dumbed down by your character's lack of personality.  Only justifiable reason for that is because all three sides share about 90% of the game's content, with just a few faction specific missions.  It's a lot of fun grinding (unless you can't stand zombies), but it has a glass ceiling all the same when there is nothing interesting keeping you there...theme park content in other words.  Only reason to play again, factions aside, is for the minor differences of your actions.

I think a broader appeal is fine but it doesn't have to come at the cost of something else, the gameplay experience doesn't have to be uniform everywhere for everyone, it isn't as it is anyway and anyway in most of the PVE mmorpgs (yeah there I go using derogative words again by calling them 'The PVE MMORPGs'')  the player base is divided into instances so its not like you get more players playing the same thing at the same time..  I think that at least is something we can agree on.

So there will be players who will choose to play the PVE Themepark version with their theme-park buddies and there will be players who choose to play the aforementioned PVP sandbox version with interaction between these meta-worlds being limited if any with PVE players having their access restricted to some areas, as to not meta corrupt the PVP sandbox game-play.
The other way is making it closer to EVE online although I imagine that would not be safe enough for people who are really afraid of getting griefed.

As for TSW, CCP barely delivers Walking in Stations, how equipped do you think they are to deliver a flawless PvE experience month after month with the quality you expect?
I think CCP's Strength is in design and indirect emergent game-play rather than rapid generation of flashy content , to do otherwise would probably land them where TSW landed.

Personally, I think a better comparison would of been Star Trek online.  Has ground and space content, sure it isn't as flashy as TSW and isn't as resource tactical/logistical as EVE, but is perhaps the best baseline comparison to the subject of PvE themeparks and PvP zones.  Heck, it even has player made quests.

I think the real issue in the argument at hand is that it's the assumption that everyone is forced to do this and that to truly be on top, one of the few to make weight-like decisions in the cities they rule over.  But that is easily circumvented by limits that aren't on their power, but how far it can go.  People will make coalitions and coteries, official or unofficial, but there is only so much we can do to keep the abuse of power away...and going too far would render the point of power moot.  I know I talked alot about the threat of griefing, but that is only by usage of disciplines.  Usage of traffic blocks, ambush points, bribery and blackmail, etc on the other hand would be more in line with what we're after.

Why break the masquerade with flashiness to hinder and disrupt people, when you can use the city itself to serve the same purpose, the limit of it all being your money.

« Last Edit: July 03, 2013, 11:47:35 pm by Nosferatu Numbers Station »
If you put your head to a pipe, you can always hear ringing.  But whether it's the pipe or your head that's ringing is the question.

Offline Nigama

  • Dead
  • Antediluvian
  • *****
  • Posts: 1883
  • Reputation: +383/-7
Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
« Reply #43 on: July 04, 2013, 12:15:18 am »
I'd like to see PvE content that enforces the setting/IP.  Like the Ocean House.  That's just a great level in Bloodlines and if they had something like that to introduce us to ghosts, that'd be great.

I also really hope (and the WiS video encourages me) that we as players can have the NPC bots we control handle player created missions (dynamic and static) so that we can add to the world in our own ways.  Yes, garbage would get made, but there'd also be some really great stuff, and the cream rises to the top, so it wouldn't be hard for people to find or hear about the best missions/quests.  I really feel strongly about allowing the players to create.  I don't want to have to wait for the next expansion to be interested.  I don't want to have to try an implement a story arc in game like I did in WoW, hobbling together various pieces of gear or equipment or vendor trash to put on a stilted and artificial game because the world doesn't foster that kind of RP.  I'd be okay if the supernatural community knew that the bartender in the back of Nigama's bar was always interested in buying strange types of blood (fae, garou, etc) (static mission in which the parameters could be variable), or the bartender has a one time mission to get a temporary item I need at that moment in time (steal the Regents magical artifact) (dynamic mission) or I could create a mission that also reinforces the game's setting, like creating my own ghost quest or quest about a new bloodline or clan I've invented (permanent static mission).

Power to the players.

Nigama
"You may not remember us, but we may be responsible for your lack of memory."

Offline Rick Gentle

  • Gangrel Playboy
  • Antediluvian
  • *****
  • Posts: 3057
  • Reputation: +595/-19
Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
« Reply #44 on: July 04, 2013, 03:05:26 am »
Look, CEO of Eve corporation already can take all your stuff in the corp hangar and kick you out, but you can easily prevent that by not trusting him, or recover even if you did trust him and lost ISK. By asking such acts to have real meaning, you ask loss to be non-recoverable, such as level/skillpoint loss or permadeath of your character. Are you sure you'd enjoy to be on the receiving end of such game design?
Didn't somebody famous and wise say, "True freedom must include the freedom to fail"?
I'd rather have the freedom to fail than not have freedom. We may not have complete power over a game, but some power is better than none.

I think you're mistaking "influence" for "treating the world like your own private tabletop session". Even in EVE Online, which is one of the most player-influential games out there, they still limit you. Of course they do - you can't assassinate the Amarr Empress and take her place, for example, or design a brand-spanking new ship, or colonize new planets and get infected with an alien microbe like something out of Star Trek. It would be wonderful if we could, but that goes far beyond what I think most players ask for when they ask for "influence".
"Influence" means having an effect on the world, but not necessarily changing the face of it. In EVE Online, the effect is controlling territory - you have an effect on the systems you control by establishing bases and putting your boot on the neck of the area's economy. In SWG, you had influence over the players who decided to join your city, and you had at least temporary influence over a PvP-contested city when your faction had control.
Then we contrast this to a game like WoW, where you can't even brag about having the latest raid gear for more than an hour or two before somebody else gets the same gear. You can't build houses, control a zone, or design anything new. You certainly can't assassinate Thrall/whoever-runs-the-orcs-now and take his place.
We can't discount social influence either - something which should be HUGE in the WODMMO, like a strong corporation in EVE Online is famous and feared in EVE Online. That gnome in WoW I was talking about, the one who hit level 80 first? He was a friggin' hero, at least for a little while, until somebody trumped his accomplishment. That's more influence than you see in most games, where your self-determined goals can't even be executed, much less get headlines like the gnome did.

Where I would draw the line for influence would be "If it's reasonable/likely in real life, it should be reasonable/likely in the game". Buying a house or property is pretty reasonable and likely in real life; a game that lets players have influence would let them buy a house or property. Gaining controlling shares in a corporation in real life is reasonable, but maybe not quite as likely; a game that lets players have influence would make controlling shares possible, but difficult. Pulling a gun in Elysium and shooting all the elders is not very reasonable nor very likely; a game that lets players have influence would heavily discourage pulling a gun in Elysium and shooting all the elders (but it could still be possible). It is neither very reasonable nor very likely that you could assassinate the president/prime minister/world leader and take their place; a game that lets players have influence doesn't need to include that as an option.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2013, 05:10:28 am by Rick Gentle »
Remember: It's not the size of your fangs that matters; it's what you stick them in.

 

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2020, SimplePortal