PlanetVampire.com Forum

Cancelled or Suspended Projects => WOD MMO General Discussion => Topic started by: Claudia Vonigner on June 14, 2013, 06:33:58 pm

Title: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
Post by: Claudia Vonigner on June 14, 2013, 06:33:58 pm
http://www.wodnews.net/Home/tabid/41/Article/958/EXCLUSIVE-TGM-2010-info-partly-off-the-table.aspx (http://www.wodnews.net/Home/tabid/41/Article/958/EXCLUSIVE-TGM-2010-info-partly-off-the-table.aspx)

Dere.

Nice to see they're not consistent in their leakings :D
Title: Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
Post by: Nigama on June 14, 2013, 06:50:54 pm
http://www.wodnews.net/Home/tabid/41/Article/958/EXCLUSIVE-TGM-2010-info-partly-off-the-table.aspx (http://www.wodnews.net/Home/tabid/41/Article/958/EXCLUSIVE-TGM-2010-info-partly-off-the-table.aspx)

Dere.

Nice to see they're not consistent in their leakings :D

Most of that info was already updated at TGM '11.  Nothing really new here that I can see, 'cept less of a focus on the LGBT community.  I don't expect actual news until late next year. 












Maybe.

Nigama
Title: Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
Post by: mouser9169 on June 14, 2013, 08:58:45 pm
Did anyone expect anything different?

Everything they say about the game is subject to change, up to and after launch.

Until they have an actual beta, I consider anything said by the devs to be 'cool ideas they're thinking about'.

At launch, they become 'cool ideas they're trying to see if they generate enough revenue'.
Title: Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
Post by: Valamyr on June 16, 2013, 03:47:26 am
Honestly, I suspected and still view all pre-Black October 'infos' as suspicious. They made such a break with the initial project then that I feel like until we get new confirmations, all the old stuff is possibly off the table.
Title: Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
Post by: chaoticjoy1 on June 16, 2013, 05:58:26 am
They just need to release the game already!
Title: Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
Post by: Radical21 on June 16, 2013, 04:39:14 pm
They just need to release the game already!

They will release when its ready, stop pushing them.
Title: Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
Post by: Valamyr on June 17, 2013, 02:14:53 am
They just need to release the game already!

I wish, but no. They're nowhere anything even remotely close to a marketable product.
Title: Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
Post by: Nosferatu Numbers Station on June 17, 2013, 02:51:23 am
It could of been, but alas they had other priorities...and it turned out to be a bombshell.  Aiming for the fps market wasn't the bad part, it was going for the console and trying to make it a part of EVE when it'd of been more beneficial to stick to PC (if only because they'd have access to the same audience).

I don't know if it's getting harder to please people, or if it's really just them.  Usually it evens out as both, but I'm really not familiar with CCP's practices other than that they promised too much.
Title: Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
Post by: mouser9169 on June 18, 2013, 04:06:58 am
They just need to release the game already!

They will release when its ready, stop pushing them.

They will release it when marketing and accounting tell them it needs to be released, and not a day later.

It used to be that console games were only released 'when done', but with internet patching even that is starting to fall by the wayside. PC software has been released by ship date as standard practice for a long time now. Very, very few companies can honestly afford to release software (not limited to games) 'when its done': guys like Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, Blizzard [soon(tm)], maybe Bethesda and a handful of others [SOE if they really wanted to, which they've never shown any interest in doing]. The rest release it when it's good enough and use the revenue to finish patching what they can/need to.

Title: Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
Post by: Radical21 on June 18, 2013, 05:47:29 am
Yeah well it isn't a console game and CCP is a self-publisher so I really don't see how any of what you said is related to WoDMMO.
Title: Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
Post by: Valamyr on June 18, 2013, 02:28:59 pm
Self-publishing lets you make the 'When' call in-house, but it doesn't give devs absolute freedom. CCP has inked quite a bit of red, and that was one of the causes behind the restructuring of the project. Devs certainly didn't want to slash half the staff and essentially start over, but there were financial imperatives at the time. These can mean being forced to rush the product even if you're self-published.
Title: Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
Post by: Radical21 on June 18, 2013, 09:24:07 pm
Self-publishing lets you make the 'When' call in-house, but it doesn't give devs absolute freedom. CCP has inked quite a bit of red, and that was one of the causes behind the restructuring of the project. Devs certainly didn't want to slash half the staff and essentially start over, but there were financial imperatives at the time. These can mean being forced to rush the product even if you're self-published.

Of course, they have investors and stuff but still it means that they have total control over the production
Title: Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
Post by: Valamyr on July 01, 2013, 02:21:11 am
At least WOD isn't the only MMO project suffering, so to speak.

Last year, "EQ Next" was scrapped and design started all over from step one to turn the game into a "pure sandbox experience' (Which is good news from the POV of this strongly pro-sandbox crowd at least, and though I'm good either way, sounds good to me as well I guess given how few of these titles are out there. Its not like I was dying to play EQ3.)

Now, its apparently a month-old piece of news, but the secretive Titan project from Blizzard which is a next-gen MMO originally slated for 2015 in leaked papers and in development for many years has apparently work done on it so far has been scrapped last month and I'm sure the language will sound highly familiar; "We've always had a highly iterative development process, and the unannounced MMO is no exception. We've come to a point where we need to make some large design and technology changes to the game. We're using this opportunity to shift some of our resources to assist with other projects while the core team adapts our technology and tools to accommodate these new changes. Note that we haven’t announced any dates for the MMO."

I guess now that F2P MMOs are commonplace and people are tired of the old formula, we'll see some innovation for better or worse.
Title: Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
Post by: xxbxx on July 01, 2013, 07:08:31 am
Indeed, but "sandbox" sounds to me like "lazy developers don't want to develop the content but let the players create 'content' for themselves".

Honestly I believe good MMO must have both sandbox part and theme park part.
Title: Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
Post by: Valamyr on July 01, 2013, 08:36:45 am
Indeed, but "sandbox" sounds to me like "lazy developers don't want to develop the content but let the players create 'content' for themselves".

Honestly I believe good MMO must have both sandbox part and theme park part.

I agree personally, for what that is worth, but some people do prefer or think they would prefer a pure sandbox.
Title: Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
Post by: Rick Gentle on July 01, 2013, 08:59:49 am
I'm okay with sandbox as long as there's plenty of context and background to create something for myself in. If it's just a big empty sandbox, I can do better in my own head. But if they make sure that sandbox is in The World of Darkness, with vampires and ghouls and creepy stuff, I'm okay with having minimal theme-park content.

Theme-park content in most games is usually just a shiny cover over another way to make players grind. "Do these missions, get experience and money!" "Do this mission, grind faction rep!" There wasn't any actual impact on the world - which is what a good sandbox offers, even if that impact is temporary - and most of the theme-park plots were short and pointless. "Yes, you've rescued the Emperor from an assassination attempt! Here's your reward! Go away!"
Title: Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
Post by: xxbxx on July 01, 2013, 10:07:14 am
But its a shame that its like that. Look, I virtually cant remember anything worthwhile that happened during my  gameplay of Eve Online... being podded in nullsec? No thats definitely not worthwhile. However I have memories from raiding WotLK content in WoW, no matter how weak is WoW in story and storytelling department.

For me that makes even weakly scripted content worthwhile, and sandbox only for its economy and PVP, but not story. And BTW there's no reason MMO cant have great story, its just developer decision to omit it and to make a cheap game.

True problem lies in people that accept to buy cheap products. That's why developers don't have a reason to up the bar, and make better game, why would they when audience will be satisfied with whats in essence sub-par product? Look at WoW NPCs, for example, almost all of them stand at the same spot 24/7 instead of being scripted and making the world come to life, but its the developer decision not to bother, because their users don't mind.
Title: Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
Post by: Rick Gentle on July 02, 2013, 12:53:42 am
What World of WarCraft does, it does well - raids. The two times I got into a Karazhan raid, I had a lot of fun (not least of which because it had historical value in the setting as the home of Medivh. I was somewhat confused to see how Medivh's house turned into this massive castle with all these weird people in it. Isn't the butler a raid fight?). However, this was mostly temporary, present fun that was interchangeable with any other well-done scripted raid boss. After I left Karazhan, it was the same old game.

The nice thing about sandbox style is that there's still no storyline, but players actually have a chance to make a name for themselves - BECOMING the raid bosses, as it were. Corporations in EVE Online fill the roles of guilds, social clubs, trading organizations, PvP, and raid bosses. The added benefit is that if you manage to take out another corporation in EVE Online, it has a lasting impact - that corporation doesn't just respawn when the server resets. If an elder in the WODMMO is equivalent to a corporation in EVE Online is equivalent to a raid boss in World of WarCraft, then the game should be able to provide everything a player needs to enjoy themself.
Prepping to take on a "raid boss" - a.k.a. an elder player - in the WODMMO would hopefully be very much like a tabletop plot, but instead of scripts you have an actual human intelligence combating you.
Title: Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
Post by: xxbxx on July 02, 2013, 07:27:55 am
I've played Eve Online, what you said isn't true. There's a difference between PVP and PVE, so a guy in a Nyx your fleet brought down wasn't a raid boss, sorry. Also, I said, sandbox PVP offers practically zero story. All time I played Eve Online, I haven't managed to find a single group of like-minded people to RP with, although the setting is very conductive to RP. If a guy puts damage the mobs deal to you in his bio, can you believe he'd be willing to RP? And about PVP, I'm better served with zero-sum game, such as a first-person shooter. At least there's no grind for gear there.

And, guess what, people don't want human intelligence against them in a MMORPG game. And they don't want a challenge in a RPG game either. Thats why dungeon master will make encounters well below your character's skills or level, so adversaries he controls have only slim chance of winning.

People are there to group raid or run a dungeon and get loot. Surely they dont want AI to have fair fifty-fifty chances that would mean wiping half of the time.

Also, most of the people here, I believe, wait for WOD MMO because they like the setting, whether for RP or not its another matter. Without the story (theme park content), all the potential of the seting is wasted. We might as well play Eve Online instead.
Title: Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
Post by: Rick Gentle on July 02, 2013, 09:23:11 am
I think a vast majority of people interested in this game are either fans of the setting - meaning that they like RPGs, because you can't be a fan without being a fan of one or another of the published RPGs - or they're fans of EVE Online who are interested in other CCP products. We shouldn't have much of a problem with finding people who will get into the setting.
EVE Online does have raid boss analogues... the primary difference between their "raid" system and WoW's raid system, though, is that you're fighting a raid boss WITH a raid boss. _username, can you give us an example of a couple of those crazy-huge capital ships?
In a sandbox game, there's a lot more freedom for what you want to do. I found a little bit of RP when I was playing EVE Online - I was an Amarr captain going down the road of becoming a saint - but I didn't really try looking too hard. I was distracted by all the numbers. Even PvP in a sandbox can have story. Theoretically just playing the game is you creating your own story - emergent roleplaying and whatnot. You may not get handed a script (or scripted bosses), but there's still story. In WoW, you basically HAVE to PvP and fight raid bosses to get anywhere - and where you get is more PvP and raid bosses. In a sandbox, especially if the promise of the WODMMO holds true, you'll be able to defeat a raid boss-analogue by talking around him, if that's what you want to do.
Title: Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
Post by: xxbxx on July 02, 2013, 10:13:30 am
Not true, in a WoW or any other MMO, you don't have to raid, oo run dungeons, or do battlegrounds to obtain gear. Gear is there, but is it necessary? Or just you want it?

Sometimes I just want to RP, when I do I don't need levels or gear. Level one character is all I need. So the goal doesn't matter, what matters is whether you had fun getting there.

You perhaps wanted to say that a majority of MMO players are there to get the best gear they can. But for me its an empty goal not worth pursuing, as long as I don't have a story to immerse myself in. That's why I found Eve Online to be too shallow for my taste. To each its own I guess.

Sandbox offer great freedom, but it have its serious drawbacks. Mainly the crowd that want open world pvp and ganking wants a sandbox, yet they fail to realize every successful mainstream MMO needs to reduce travel time. One of great things about WoW and one of the reasons of its success is that they pioneered LFG tool, so you can queue from the trade hub or while questing, while other MMOs required you to make groups from chat channel, and waste hours in doing so. And you just cant have open world pvp with dungeon/battleground queue! That open world pvp requires people to be outside of the trade hub, and that's where sandbox conflicts with mainstream MMO design. Those that have the time to camp a gate for hours just to have ten minutes of entertainment are a minority.

That's why IMO its ideal to have both theme park and sandbox content, with a degree of balance, its good even to those that want open world PVP, while providing way to efficiently play for those that don't have the time. How? Its easy to simply give bigger rewards for questing in a PVP zone, or for just queuing in LFG tool from a PVP zone, easy enough.

And I don't think CCP can pull off that social PVP stuff, no way. Every character will be too one-dimensional, bent on acquiring as much power as possible, and given enough knowledge of the game, very hard to trick. It doesn't provide base for meaningful roleplay, where character flaws can come to the forefront.
Title: Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
Post by: _username on July 02, 2013, 05:08:37 pm
EVE Online does have raid boss analogues... the primary difference between their "raid" system and WoW's raid system, though, is that you're fighting a raid boss WITH a raid boss. _username, can you give us an example of a couple of those crazy-huge capital ships?

The most dramatic example of large-scale PvE is probably the Incursions.  It's basically elite PvE...a small percentage of Eve players do it full time, but anybody with decent skills and the right kinds of ships has a good chance of getting in on it.  This video is a couple years old, but is still accurate.  For a sense of scale, each of the little purple blips is a ship in fleet, controlled by an individual player.  The "Kundalini Manifest" they keep referring to is a Revenent class Sansha Mothership (http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Revenant).  It is *possible* to snag a blueprint copy of one of these things, but the number of documented cases is in the single digits.  A couple month ago one of these exceptionally rare ships was discreetly constructed then publicly auctioned for 290 billion ISK (https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=216397) (about $11,600 USD).

2011-04-22 - Kundalini Manifest - EVE Incursion Final Battle (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xGcLZ5gUwc#)

The vast majority of player-owned capital ships are carriers and dreadnoughts, which can be used very effectively for either PvP or PvE.  Above that are motherships, which are almost exclusively used for PvP.  Titans are the closest thing to what you described as being a raid boss.  They're elusive, though.  It's hard to know with any certainty, but Titans tend to be kept in stasis: piloted by purpose-built characters, often logged off on inactive accounts, waiting for months or even years, until they are needed.  They are simply too valuable to leave floating inside the force field of a starbase.  When they appear, they are summoned from nowhere, do their alliance's bidding, then disappear again into the void.
Title: Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
Post by: Nigama on July 03, 2013, 01:05:24 am
Woah... I should do drugs and watch space battles in Eve..  lots of pretty colors and moving dots.

Nigama
Title: Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
Post by: Rick Gentle on July 03, 2013, 03:19:08 am
Not true, in a WoW or any other MMO, you don't have to raid, oo run dungeons, or do battlegrounds to obtain gear...

Sometimes I just want to RP, when I do I don't need levels or gear. Level one character is all I need. So the goal doesn't matter, what matters is whether you had fun getting there.

You perhaps wanted to say that a majority of MMO players are there to get the best gear they can.
I think it's fairest to say that you don't need an MMO at all to roleplay. In a sandbox setting, more of the burden to create the story is on the individual player, this is true, but that burden is something roleplayers usually have to take on for themselves anyway (and most of them enjoy it immensely), even if there's a big world full of background and races and politics. All that is meaningless unless somebody wants to use it. I doubt too many hardcore raid guilds care that they're playing on Azeroth; rather, the focus is that they're fighting big-ass monsters that drop The Next Big Thing in loot. In a sandbox - or in a tabletop RP - you server as your own developer (at least as far as the DM/Storyteller says you can). You get out of the game what you put into it.


"Sandbox offer great freedom, but it have its serious drawbacks. Mainly the crowd that want open world pvp and ganking wants a sandbox, yet they fail to realize every successful mainstream MMO needs to reduce travel time. One of great things about WoW and one of the reasons of its success is that they pioneered LFG tool, so you can queue from the trade hub or while questing, while other MMOs required you to make groups from chat channel, and waste hours in doing so. And you just cant have open world pvp with dungeon/battleground queue! That open world pvp requires people to be outside of the trade hub, and that's where sandbox conflicts with mainstream MMO design. Those that have the time to camp a gate for hours just to have ten minutes of entertainment are a minority."
This should not be an issue for the WODMMO - they're not putting in dungeons or battlegrounds. There are plenty of ways they can reduce travel time (subways, taxis, etc), but even if they didn't, then vampire factions could band together like corporations in EVE Online and stake out domain. There should also be no problems for communication, with the added benefit that you might not NEED a "Looking For Group" tool, if there are no dungeons or raids to group up for. You'll need a contacts list and a slightly-more-useful Contacts List (a.k.a., a Friends List).
Vampires are much more solitary than anything you'd see in a WoW-paradigm game, so I expect we'll be able to succeed even if we spent 90% of our time alone. It would just be a lot slower than if you had somebody working with you. This is as true in EVE Online, I believe.
There are servers in WoW that are Open PvP, and they still have battlegrounds and dungeons on those servers. If they were to do such a thing for the WODMMO, it's definitely possible.


"And I don't think CCP can pull off that social PVP stuff, no way. Every character will be too one-dimensional, bent on acquiring as much power as possible, and given enough knowledge of the game, very hard to trick."
What you describe here is an elder. There are many elders in the World of Darkness. They provide lots of content for roleplaying. Nobody should be able to master every Ability or Discipline, so there's always a weakness or flaw. The burden of sandbox is that you have to discover what those flaws are yourself.
Title: Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
Post by: xxbxx on July 03, 2013, 05:38:13 am
I sincerely hope CCP will not make the game the way you describe it, Rick.

Without dungeons group game play will be limited to PVP, so the game will end like Eve Online, in fact. That will make, basically, a PVP game with very weak PVE.

Second, because interactions in MMO between players are superficial, and rules of the game are simple, don't you mind that, actually, WOD MMO vampires would be like Eve capsuleers, and a neonate will be as proficient as an elder in defending himself? That I had in mind, in a PnP game you have much more freedom to play to a weakness of an adversary simply because relation between players isn't superficial. Also, by "having to find weaknesses by ourselves", haven't you, by chance, had in mind the meta-gaming, which is completely incompatible with immersion in a game? That's one of the reasons I didn't like Eve.

Third, sandbox and theme park are two completely different concepts. I see you're defending the merits of a sandbox, but you don't see that sandbox can't substitute for theme park game play, or vice versa.
Title: Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
Post by: Rick Gentle on July 03, 2013, 07:45:01 am
Just because a game doesn't have dungeons doesn't mean it doesn't have PvE. EVE Online doesn't have dungeons, but it has PvE. (Admittedly not the focus of the game, but you can play your whole experience in EVE in PvE. I did up until a friend of mine invited me to his corp. EVE has some extended PvE quests that take you through multiple "rooms", but people can jump in and out of those at will and pick up where they left off.) SWG didn't have many formal dungeons (that one cave on Dathomir and the Tusken Raider fortress are the only two that spring immediately to mind), but PvE was a powerful part of that game. In fact, half of PvP was PvE, because you had to take out NPC guards in order to take control of a city or planet.

I don't know how you've interacted with people in MMOs, but I've found my relationships with them to be much more lasting and impactful than any relation with any NPC. (Even if she was really hot!) If you're having a deeper relationship with a computer-controlled avatar than you are with a player-controlled avatar... That better be some damn good programming.
Sure, I care about computer-controlled characters. Christof Romuald makes me laugh, and Pisha was damn hot, and I really, REALLY HATED LaCroix - but playing with my friends is just... better. I'd rather play a stupid game with a friend than a good game alone. ESPECIALLY if it's an MMO, the whole premise of which is having lots of human-controlled avatars around.

Not sure how you're equating neonate defense with elder defense... That might be the case if the game was full free-targeting (i.e., reliant on player skill instead of character stats). Certainly, if they kept the scale from tabletop (in a 1-5 range for any given Ability or Discipline), then the scale is noticeably more equitable, but if your neonate character tries to take on an elder in single combat, I'm going to sit there and giggle like a Malkavian.

I hadn't had meta-gaming in mind when I was thinking about having to find out weaknesses, actually - but that depends on the developers making the game complex enough so that where we would otherwise meta-game, we could instead do it in-game. (I.e., Nossies spying, tapping cell phones, having a wide range of contacts, etc.) The developers have mentioned that they're planning on players using social networks and out-of-game apps to keep up with the game... Not sure I consider this meta-gaming, since it should theoretically be possible in the game itself. (It's just not technically supported.) Using knowledge about a player to influence a character is a bit mega-gamingful, but if emergent roleplay holds it shouldn't much matter.

If you define a "theme park" as being made up all quest-giving NPCs with faction alignments and "go-here-do-this" quests, then no, sandbox can't replace that... but only to the degree that it would use PCs instead of NPCs. EVE Online has a thriving contracts system, which is in effect one player giving another player a quest. in any game there are plenty of faction alignments that will want to favor their members over non-members (perhaps even to the point of attacking non-members like we see in most theme park locations).

It's not like games based solely on PvP can't do well, either. Take a look at Team Fortress or All Points Bulletin or even, if you like, EVE Online or a dedicated PvP guild in WoW. I personally like my games to be challenging, and human players are much better at delivering that than a computer.
Title: Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
Post by: Valamyr on July 03, 2013, 08:39:29 am
Quote
Without dungeons group game play will be limited to PVP, so the game will end like Eve Online, in fact. That will make, basically, a PVP game with very weak PVE.

Yeah... welcome to Vampire-Planet :) Gonna save you a few years of figuring-it-out...

This is what this crowd is buying for the most part, although incredibly enough, half of them don't even realize it. :p

I like alot of people in this crowd, but many don't fully realize what the pure sandbox some are clamoring for leads to. The few people with extensive EVE experience who still hope WOD to be an intensively sandbox setting do know what they're asking for, though - it's not a strictly bad ideal, it's just a very narrow niche, and to this day despite the enthusiasm I've witnessed these last few years, I still seriously doubt it's truly something to aim for if CCP wants to broaden it's appeal.

As for me, I love the setting enough to try whatever they come up with, but I'd rather see it being a marketing success rather than being designed to please the most hardcore crowd. I think that's best achieved through a balance, where traditional content is every bit as prevalent and supported, but it seems the focus is squarely placed on 'sandbox first' since Black October.
Title: Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
Post by: Radical21 on July 03, 2013, 09:40:39 am
Quote
Without dungeons group game play will be limited to PVP, so the game will end like Eve Online, in fact. That will make, basically, a PVP game with very weak PVE.

Yeah... welcome to Vampire-Planet :) Gonna save you a few years of figuring-it-out...

This is what this crowd is buying for the most part, although incredibly enough, half of them don't even realize it. :p

Or maybe they realize it but they also realize what a PVE game means: Interaction between players is superficial at best, no interesting emergent roleplay because 95% of the players couldn't care less and only want to grind for better gear or vanity items.
Evidence: Every PvE focused MMO I ever tried.

There are "Roleplaying guilds" in some of these but they fall into the category of very soft RP since they typically do not follow a rule system and thus cannot really form interesting stories without 'god-modding' through these at pivotal points.

The game can definitely have some fun tomfoolery in these cases but it doesn't take long for it to grow old then, at least for me.
If you really wanted to play that kind of game you don't have to wait for CCP, you already have TSW.(which I admittedly have not tried)
Title: Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
Post by: xxbxx on July 03, 2013, 10:16:19 am
Rick, if you mean that all PVE in Eve is repeatable (missions, epic arcs, incursions, complexes), and that's completely devoid of meaning, being just an ISK grind, then you're right.

That kind of PVE I have in every Korean MMO, and that's just an excuse for quality PVE.

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?

Valamyr, you're right, pure sandbox will invariably lead to a niche PVP game, as there's not much beside other players, and will appeal to those that want as little interaction with NPCs as possible. Eve is an excellent example, all PVE is only an ISK grind and NPCs are devoid of personality and without any discernible motives whatsoever.
Title: Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
Post by: Valamyr on July 03, 2013, 10:28:53 am
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.

Its possible to break that mold, and to some extent, EVE did it - but I still think its foolish to just brush aside past lessons.
Quote
If you really wanted to play that kind of game you don't have to wait for CCP, you already have TSW.(which I admittedly have not tried)


Heh, well Ive tried it. Preordered it even; and reported on it (quite negatively) after just a few days here. Having a broad formula thats meant to be inclusive isn't a guarantee of success, you still need a dozen other ingredients. Story, combat systems, fluidity, 'polish', general fun factor, to name only a few. TSW failed pretty solidly in several of these categories, and even an hardcore sandbox gamer will be seriously put off by an hardcore sandbox that doesn't get the basics right, too. Attention to detail is paramount, and actually, it is probably moreso than what we usually argue about.
Title: Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
Post by: Radical21 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.
Title: Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
Post by: xxbxx 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.
Title: Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
Post by: Nigama 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
Title: Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
Post by: xxbxx 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?
Title: Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
Post by: Radical21 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.

Title: Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
Post by: xxbxx 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?
Title: Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
Post by: Radical21 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 (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
Title: Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
Post by: xxbxx 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?
Title: Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
Post by: Valamyr 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.
Title: Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
Post by: Radical21 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.
Title: Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
Post by: Valamyr 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.
Title: Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
Post by: Radical21 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.
Title: Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
Post by: Nosferatu Numbers Station 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.

Title: Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
Post by: Nigama 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
Title: Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
Post by: Rick Gentle 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.
Title: Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
Post by: xxbxx on July 04, 2013, 08:27:46 am
Look, if there's a problem with WoW because you can't be the only one with max level, how is that different from Eve, where you can't be the only one with a Nyx? I don't get it, as for me it's the same.

And I don't think player housing or even your Elysium example, very similar to WoW capital cities on a PvP server, full with guards, but raidable, really qualifies as player influence on the game world.

All I can think of is unique gear or unique items given to the players for participating in a rare event, or commemorating said event, like Jita monument? Various unique mounts, titles or gear given for extremely hard WoW achievements, like Field Marshal PVP set, Invincible's reins, Mimiron's head mounts?

Title: Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
Post by: Radical21 on July 04, 2013, 06:53:16 pm
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.

What are you talking about? STO doesn't have any PvP to speak of, all of its PvP content compressed into 3-4 poor instances of team battles that are barely worth mentioning.

Its PvE content doesn't really affect anything either because it is all instanced and even though some of it is kind of cute and flashy it doesn't really relate to your character so it becomes very linear and not nearly as interesting as WoD.

As for RP, it suffers from a severe lack of RP system so all RP is exclusively unofficial sessions of player's make believe: it is kind of funny because when joining some of the RP community there and bringing my WoDish and VTMRish ideals to the storytelling, Many were really amazed because they didn't know an RP could be as involving and interesting, even though most of what I did is just a fraction of what the actual storytelling games like VTMR or V20 can accomplish for player experience.

And in general I think trying to adopt more of the WoD P&P organic approach is better than sticking to something so formulative and repetitive as what you witness in STO PvE.
Sure you could say its not playing it safe enough but I think it is better than finding more of what is already out there.

And Yes EVE Online is a better example than STO and I would like to see them take what they do with EVE Online to the next level.

And for the sake of Valamyr who would say its again me looking down at everything: I'm not saying this to bash STO, I think its great for what it is(A Star Trek themed WoW adaptation)  but I'd hate to see WoDMMO ending up like STO.
Technically I think what is holding STO together is mainly the fact that Star Trek is over and there is no other way for Trekkies to get their Star Trek fix (2009 movies are not really star trek)
Title: Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
Post by: Nosferatu Numbers Station on July 04, 2013, 10:00:28 pm
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.

What are you talking about? STO doesn't have any PvP to speak of, all of its PvP content compressed into 3-4 poor instances of team battles that are barely worth mentioning.

Its PvE content doesn't really affect anything either because it is all instanced and even though some of it is kind of cute and flashy it doesn't really relate to your character so it becomes very linear and not nearly as interesting as WoD.

As for RP, it suffers from a severe lack of RP system so all RP is exclusively unofficial sessions of player's make believe: it is kind of funny because when joining some of the RP community there and bringing my WoDish and VTMRish ideals to the storytelling, Many were really amazed because they didn't know an RP could be as involving and interesting, even though most of what I did is just a fraction of what the actual storytelling games like VTMR or V20 can accomplish for player experience.

And in general I think trying to adopt more of the WoD P&P organic approach is better than sticking to something so formulative and repetitive as what you witness in STO PvE.
Sure you could say its not playing it safe enough but I think it is better than finding more of what is already out there.

And Yes EVE Online is a better example than STO and I would like to see them take what they do with EVE Online to the next level.


TSW wasn't very big on RPing either, though they have a whole section in the forums that indulges in that instead.  I think most of the roleplaying occurs off the game, I'm guessing because it's works better outside the boundries of the mechanics given to them, I'd check if they have a /roll mechanic but I'm not wasting 2-5 hours reinstalling the game (it's the 4th of july after all).  Plus again, the stotic personality of the PC really ruins the immersion.

Though I will admit you are right about the PvP (heck I haven't gotten to that point yet), the game is mainly PvE material though it does space combat in a decent way that it's easy to learn, hard to master.  I imagine EVE is hard to learn and master, and lots of new things to learn from what I've read in the emergent thread.  I believe that is what your after?

It's that line again, the one that separates those who want to just play a game, and those who want to be a part of the game itself.  And it's a hard one to erase without sacrifice from both sides.  People hate the sacrifice aspect because to make either work you got to find what you have to replace yet keep both sides intact, and it's nigh impossible to pinpoint the ones that work for everyone (can't please them all).  And before you tell me that EVE Online has no line in that regard, it's a game that requires a lot of time (and effort) for one to progress, and one large group of people just don't have that kind of time.
Title: Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
Post by: Radical21 on July 04, 2013, 11:27:52 pm

Though I will admit you are right about the PvP (heck I haven't gotten to that point yet), the game is mainly PvE material though it does space combat in a decent way that it's easy to learn, hard to master.  I imagine EVE is hard to learn and master, and lots of new things to learn from what I've read in the emergent thread.  I believe that is what your after?

STO has good game-play for what it is, a mostly arcade adaptation of star trek and it can be fun in the arcade sense but in no way does it even begin to scrape the immersion and epicness that _Username or R&K describe and demonstrate in EVE Online and even if it did, since its a PvE mostly game, most players do not become interested enough in that sort of inconsequential PvP to delve into developing tactic.

The learning curve may be a side effect depending how deep the players want to get involved but I think its worth it.

I'm not saying WoDMMO should be EVE since I envision WoD Tactics happen more on a personal/smaller group level and extending further into the social aspects of gameplay while EVE's Tactics come into play mostly on Fleet/corporation level so far.
https://www.youtube.com/user/Rooksandkings (https://www.youtube.com/user/Rooksandkings)
In other words, in WoD since a single Vampire may wield several abilities simultaneously and enact several tactics, Vampires are chess players moving smaller pieces that are their own abilities or are also chess players(ghouls, other Vampires) in a composed fractalized chess game of intrigue over multiple boards (social, physical, esoteric, information, logistic) .
So it ends up being an advanced version of EVE that way.


Title: Re: What was said in 2010 is now "false"
Post by: Rick Gentle on July 05, 2013, 05:34:39 am
Look, if there's a problem with WoW because you can't be the only one with max level, how is that different from Eve, where you can't be the only one with a Nyx? I don't get it, as for me it's the same.

And I don't think player housing or even your Elysium example, very similar to WoW capital cities on a PvP server, full with guards, but raidable, really qualifies as player influence on the game world.

All I can think of is unique gear or unique items given to the players for participating in a rare event, or commemorating said event, like Jita monument? Various unique mounts, titles or gear given for extremely hard WoW achievements, like Field Marshal PVP set, Invincible's reins, Mimiron's head mounts?

There... isn't a problem with not being the only one with max level. That's just the progression mechanics. It was good for the gnome that he got to level 80 first, but obviously not the only one. The non-influential part of it is that is the ONLY way you can have influence in WoW - to do something first. And that's only social influence, which is quickly trumped by somebody who learned from your example. (Beating a raid boss faster, or with fewer healers, whatever.)

I don't see how giving out titles constitutes influence. You can earn oodles of titles in most games, but it usually doesn't come with any actual impact or influence. It usually just means you completed some sort of PvE task that is MEANT to be beaten (ex: titles and cosmetic items in Warhammer Online). In WoW, you could be the Grand Master General of Kicking Ass in title... but you're just another (really good) PvPer on the server. Whereas in EVE Online, being named a CEO comes with some actual control and benefits, at least over the other players in your corporation. Your policies and decisions could have important influence over the people you do business with. Going pirate and being good at it means you can scare off people from a section of space, or control whether or not another player has to recoup heavy losses in materiele and progress points if you pod 'em. (The shoot-'em-up in Elysium example would probably serve the same purpose as being a good pirate.) No, it's not taking over the galaxy, but it's a hell of a lot more than the WoW paradigm gives.
Giving out unique weapons for accomplishing an important task (first or best) is better, but it primarily falls under the category of social influence. I don't think I've ever seen a game do this, though, and for the WODMMO it smacks too much of the "items of power" than I wish to avoid seeing put in the game. To date, I've only seen this happen with player-run RP events such as a race or story-driven PvP exercise, where you get a fancy hat for winning, or money, or some such. Again, this is mostly social influence, which usually doesn't matter for a frak in a WoW paradigm.

For player housing, it gives players several points of influence: first of all, it's a physical spot in the world (usually) over which you have direct control. Nobody can go in or out without your say-so. Secondly, that makes it your base of operations - you can hang around that zone and use your house as a safe haven if you are attacked (a pretty frequent occurrence in SWG).thirdly, it lets you customize a game environment to suit your own desires - pretty cosmetic influence, usually, but it's stronger than a title. If you took this to the scale of player cities like SWG did, then your influence grows exponentially, as everyone near your settlement increases your area of influence, potentially controlling important/valuable resources, blocking off a useful section of the world map (like the entrance to the Krayt Dragon Graveyard, where you could get Epic Lootz).
This positioning of player buildings and cities has influence over the PvE section of the game - controlling sedentary resources, giving access to good grinding spots to preferred players, literally changing the landscape of the game - as well as other players - creating a faction base for PvP where there was none before, setting up handy fast-travel points to make other areas of the map more accessible, taxing players and providing them useful services that they would not otherwise have had access to in return. This is the kind of impact on the game I speak of when I speak of "influence".
SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2020, SimplePortal