Originally posted by UsualSuspect And back on topic... those 40 players will need buffs to be able to deal with the encounter. Buffs to speed up the return of their mana, to heal them over time, to increase their ac, to increase the amount of damage they can take, as well as proactive buffs that stop all damage for a few seconds to allow heals to go through, thus keeping the tank alive against the main boss, or instant mana regeneration so the healer can cast that heal that keeps the tank alive.
None of which add any challenge or interest to the encounter. You go through your mindless buff macro, you get a bunch of stat boosts, and then what? The battle plays out EXACTLY THE SAME as if there were no buffs and the enemies were simply balanced proportionally to the players to begin with. The numbers just got inflated, that's the ONLY difference. Bards are such a joke of a class, they only exist because MMO devs can't figure out how to make a functional support class other than healers that can actually participate in battle.
The above is something. I haven't seen since original EQ. Modern MMO's are just laughable in their difficulty and complexity.
That's because they're awful game mechanics from games which test your ability to tolerate grinding rather than intelligent planning and executing strategy
That's like saying TES: Skyrim is not a RPG because you basically play it like FPS, your success is not only determined by your gear and level but more with your aim, ability to actively dodge and so on. The truth is, Skyrim is roleplaying game, one of the finest examples, and if it had multiplayer, skill would determine the outcome of the battle of two players because of all the aim, dodge, etc ACTIVE gameplay instead of just passive numbers in char sheet with auto-target.
Okay dude, please fight the end game boss by running to his lair straight from character creation. Oh wait, you can't. The game IS NOT DRIVEN PRIMARILY BY "ACTIVE" COMBAT.
You need spells and items and abilities.
As for PvP, if you equalize the gear than skill would determine the winner, well maybe some blind luck too, but since when in a virtual world do all characters have identical gear?
Indeed, people dont run around in exact same gear in virtual worlds, and in games where aim and dodge matters a person with less powerful gear can still win, in a game where you just press "Let the battle begin" button, the one with more gameplay hours and loot gathered will win.
Those are different kinds of games, both of them still being RPG's. You are basically verifying your self that there can be vastly different RPG's out there, with different kinds of game mechanics, now the next step is to accept that fact your self.
You dont need 15 year old game mechanics for RPG to be a RPG. Skyrim and Dragon Age are both RPG's at the same time with very different game mechanics, other having more old school, passive system with "target lock" and hit chances, pause, and all that stuff, while the other is having more active system, basically FPS/TPS where you need to actually aim yours self, being able to dodge arrows by movement and so on. Heck, Mass Effect games are roleplaying games.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_QhN_pAvYw i was looking at a vanguard vid.on how to kill Akande .mainly because he's an absolute bastard..well he was back a year or 2 ago.this post reminded me of the buffs this guy had..take a look going down on his left hand side screen..and it still was'nt enough lol
I prefer tactical buffs which are generally shorter but have a more profound effect during combat. Long buffs, like Age of Conan's ½-2h buffs, made me think why don't they just add this amount to my attributes permanently, or why arent these buffs automatic and constant?
Shorter, more powerful buffs can potentially bring more depth to combat since players are required to think when to cast them, how will they use them and does your enemy have the capability to perhaps interrupt your casting or dispel your buff mid-combat.
Buff-bots are a thing of the past - good riddens.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Neither of these games allows you to control combat, you can only give orders before it starts.
You are wrong wrong wrong. You don't even understand the point.
Let me fix it for you:
"Games which involve both character building and mid combat tactical decisions are better games."
Those are not RPGs though. In RPGs you make decisions about what spells to cast, or to auto attack, and many other things. But If I have the sword of epic destruction that makes my character more powerful than yours with the stage prop knife of useless plastic and you should lose 99.99% of the time.
So every videogame RPG people have actually heard of involves both strategy and tactics, but you're going to use a couple RPGs nobody's heard of as "proof" that RPGs should only involve strategy?
You're completely ridiculous.
Think back to every major videogame RPG release over the past 25 years. Virtually none of them remove player choice from the combat system. All of the best ones (the ones that did almost everything right) involve a fun combat system which involves meaningful player choice.
You're completely ridiculous.
Those two games I named aren't RPGs. In any case your argument is weird. Every MMO has similar combat. So which one has both good combat and bad combat? Weird for a game to have both at the same time.
Those two games I named aren't RPGs. In any case your argument is weird. Every MMO has similar combat. So which one has both good combat and bad combat? Weird for a game to have both at the same time.
Ask any player what MMORPG has the best combat, or even good combat. They'll give you an answer. The answer won't be "they're all the same".
What makes one better? Well obviously: the quality of the decisions and the game's ability to facilitate that decisionmaking in a deep way.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I'm going to take the unpopular voice. I'll say that buffs just don't need to be in.
The reason I say this is that buffs can possibly have far reaching effects into the game, especially if it becomes mandatory to even play. But most importantly, if buffs are good enough that they bypass and ignore originally placed mechanics that balance the game. If it allows characters to plow through stuff that they originally couldn't without the buffs, they're too powerful and game breaking. Imagine what a buffed set of characters can do.
I can go on, especially the nasty implementation of Buffs as implemented even from my favorite old MMORPG back in the day, SWG.
But again, I say no to Buffs.
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
I love buffs myself. However, devs usually handle buffs rather poorly. Too many buffs, buffs don't last long enough, buffs consuming too many resources, balancing around maximal buffs, balancing class desirability with critical buffs, limited supply buffs causing group conflicts, etc.
Forever looking for employment. Life is rather dull without it.
You've always had the option of seeking people out for buffs. The way things are now we might as well eliminate buffs completely since they have lost all meaning
Yes. I'm well aware of this or having dozens waiting like fiends for a group buff to be performed. I just don't care for it or having to be that reliant on a particular class.
I'll pass on the old kei days. No thank you. I personally found that incredibly annoying.
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
Those two games I named aren't RPGs. In any case your argument is weird. Every MMO has similar combat. So which one has both good combat and bad combat? Weird for a game to have both at the same time.
Ask any player what MMORPG has the best combat, or even good combat. They'll give you an answer. The answer won't be "they're all the same".
What makes one better? Well obviously: the quality of the decisions and the game's ability to facilitate that decisionmaking in a deep way.
That would only make sense if people almost universally cited the same MMO as the one with the best combat.
I'm going to take the unpopular voice. I'll say that buffs just don't need to be in.
The reason I say this is that buffs can possibly have far reaching effects into the game, especially if it becomes mandatory to even play. But most importantly, if buffs are good enough that they bypass and ignore originally placed mechanics that balance the game. If it allows characters to plow through stuff that they originally couldn't without the buffs, they're too powerful and game breaking. Imagine what a buffed set of characters can do.
I can go on, especially the nasty implementation of Buffs as implemented even from my favorite old MMORPG back in the day, SWG.
But again, I say no to Buffs.
Hmm, we could search and replace every occurence of "buffs" in your post for "quest rewards", "skill builds", "item sets"...
I'm going to take the unpopular voice. I'll say that buffs just don't need to be in.
The reason I say this is that buffs can possibly have far reaching effects into the game, especially if it becomes mandatory to even play. But most importantly, if buffs are good enough that they bypass and ignore originally placed mechanics that balance the game. If it allows characters to plow through stuff that they originally couldn't without the buffs, they're too powerful and game breaking. Imagine what a buffed set of characters can do.
I can go on, especially the nasty implementation of Buffs as implemented even from my favorite old MMORPG back in the day, SWG.
But again, I say no to Buffs.
Hmm, we could search and replace every occurence of "buffs" in your post for "quest rewards", "skill builds", "item sets"...
Flame on!
We could, and we probably have in some other post around here
But Buffs is just another major loophole that unbalances a game, IMO.
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
You've always had the option of seeking people out for buffs. The way things are now we might as well eliminate buffs completely since they have lost all meaning
Yes. I'm well aware of this or having dozens waiting like fiends for a group buff to be performed. I just don't care for it or having to be that reliant on a particular class.
I'll pass on the old kei days. No thank you. I personally found that incredibly annoying.
Kei wasn't even the most powerful or most useful part of the enchanter class. Plus, there were other options to deal with mana regen even if they were seldom used and perhaps even unknown to the majority of the population.
Forever looking for employment. Life is rather dull without it.
I'm going to take the unpopular voice. I'll say that buffs just don't need to be in.
The reason I say this is that buffs can possibly have far reaching effects into the game, especially if it becomes mandatory to even play. But most importantly, if buffs are good enough that they bypass and ignore originally placed mechanics that balance the game. If it allows characters to plow through stuff that they originally couldn't without the buffs, they're too powerful and game breaking. Imagine what a buffed set of characters can do.
I can go on, especially the nasty implementation of Buffs as implemented even from my favorite old MMORPG back in the day, SWG.
But again, I say no to Buffs.
Hmm, we could search and replace every occurence of "buffs" in your post for "quest rewards", "skill builds", "item sets"...
Flame on!
We could, and we probably have in some other post around here
But Buffs is just another major loophole that unbalances a game, IMO.
Buffs only imbalance the game if we have level gated content.
Dynamic open virtual world games cannot be imbalanced by buffs.
I'm going to take the unpopular voice. I'll say that buffs just don't need to be in.
The reason I say this is that buffs can possibly have far reaching effects into the game, especially if it becomes mandatory to even play. But most importantly, if buffs are good enough that they bypass and ignore originally placed mechanics that balance the game. If it allows characters to plow through stuff that they originally couldn't without the buffs, they're too powerful and game breaking. Imagine what a buffed set of characters can do.
I can go on, especially the nasty implementation of Buffs as implemented even from my favorite old MMORPG back in the day, SWG.
But again, I say no to Buffs.
Hmm, we could search and replace every occurence of "buffs" in your post for "quest rewards", "skill builds", "item sets"...
Flame on!
We could, and we probably have in some other post around here
But Buffs is just another major loophole that unbalances a game, IMO.
Buffs only imbalance the game if we have level gated content.
Dynamic open virtual world games cannot be imbalanced by buffs.
It is the common implemtation of a buff system that allows buffs to be applied in lower tier content rather than the style of the game design.
Forever looking for employment. Life is rather dull without it.
Kei wasn't even the most powerful or most useful part of the enchanter class. Plus, there were other options to deal with mana regen even if they were seldom used and perhaps even unknown to the majority of the population.
I was simply giving an example that most are familiar with is all. My point is while I don't mind buffs I don't care for the days where for many it can feel having a particular buff or buffs is more a necessity than something utilized to simply give a player a slight "edge".
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
I'm going to take the unpopular voice. I'll say that buffs just don't need to be in.
The reason I say this is that buffs can possibly have far reaching effects into the game, especially if it becomes mandatory to even play. But most importantly, if buffs are good enough that they bypass and ignore originally placed mechanics that balance the game. If it allows characters to plow through stuff that they originally couldn't without the buffs, they're too powerful and game breaking. Imagine what a buffed set of characters can do.
I can go on, especially the nasty implementation of Buffs as implemented even from my favorite old MMORPG back in the day, SWG.
But again, I say no to Buffs.
Hmm, we could search and replace every occurence of "buffs" in your post for "quest rewards", "skill builds", "item sets"...
Flame on!
We could, and we probably have in some other post around here
But Buffs is just another major loophole that unbalances a game, IMO.
Buffs only imbalance the game if we have level gated content.
Dynamic open virtual world games cannot be imbalanced by buffs.
It is the common implemtation of a buff system that allows buffs to be applied in lower tier content rather than the style of the game design.
Again with no level gating there IS no lower tier content. Problem solved.
That would only make sense if people almost universally cited the same MMO as the one with the best combat.
Let's put it this way: no MMORPG or RPG exists which is considered excellent by a lot of people which didn't have a fairly significant amount of mid-fight tactical decisionmaking.
Your assertion that the combat side of RPGs is only be about strategic character building is wrong.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I'm going to take the unpopular voice. I'll say that buffs just don't need to be in.
The reason I say this is that buffs can possibly have far reaching effects into the game, especially if it becomes mandatory to even play. But most importantly, if buffs are good enough that they bypass and ignore originally placed mechanics that balance the game. If it allows characters to plow through stuff that they originally couldn't without the buffs, they're too powerful and game breaking. Imagine what a buffed set of characters can do.
I can go on, especially the nasty implementation of Buffs as implemented even from my favorite old MMORPG back in the day, SWG.
But again, I say no to Buffs.
Hmm, we could search and replace every occurence of "buffs" in your post for "quest rewards", "skill builds", "item sets"...
Flame on!
We could, and we probably have in some other post around here
But Buffs is just another major loophole that unbalances a game, IMO.
Everything is a loophole in a broken system, is that reason to remove everything?
I'm going to take the unpopular voice. I'll say that buffs just don't need to be in.
The reason I say this is that buffs can possibly have far reaching effects into the game, especially if it becomes mandatory to even play. But most importantly, if buffs are good enough that they bypass and ignore originally placed mechanics that balance the game. If it allows characters to plow through stuff that they originally couldn't without the buffs, they're too powerful and game breaking. Imagine what a buffed set of characters can do.
I can go on, especially the nasty implementation of Buffs as implemented even from my favorite old MMORPG back in the day, SWG.
But again, I say no to Buffs.
Hmm, we could search and replace every occurence of "buffs" in your post for "quest rewards", "skill builds", "item sets"...
Flame on!
We could, and we probably have in some other post around here
But Buffs is just another major loophole that unbalances a game, IMO.
Buffs only imbalance the game if we have level gated content.
Dynamic open virtual world games cannot be imbalanced by buffs.
It is the common implemtation of a buff system that allows buffs to be applied in lower tier content rather than the style of the game design.
Again with no level gating there IS no lower tier content. Problem solved.
Even lateral progression systems (if you've got a way to design a system with zero progression that will be popular, then go make some cash as this would solve so many issues and drastically lower costs) have a concept of difficult "tiers" even if limited.
You've stated a possible way to solve the problem but the idea would need to be expanded on. I can easily design a system without levels that would still have issues with buffs trivializing lower "tier" (for lack a better word atm) content. Another solution is to prevent buffs from escaping into lower tierd content. Yet another solution is to not have buffs at all.
Forever looking for employment. Life is rather dull without it.
That would only make sense if people almost universally cited the same MMO as the one with the best combat.
Let's put it this way: no MMORPG or RPG exists which is considered excellent by a lot of people which didn't have a fairly significant amount of mid-fight tactical decisionmaking.
Your assertion that the combat side of RPGs is only be about strategic character building is wrong.
Ugh. Stop being dense.
Combat ability, magic ability, traps/poisons ability, crafting ability. None of these things is based on player's ability to actually do these things. They are based on exp and character skills. In almost every RPG including WoW, the most popular RPG ever.
Decision making is the only "skill" that the player utilizes. What character skills to use.
If you have a shit character you will lose to someone who doesn't in the majority of cases. Time investment has always been the primary determiner of success, followed by how you invested it. And it still is.
Do you not understand what character skill means? The character knows how to use magic, the character knows how to craft, the character knows how to fight.
The PRIMARY focus in RPGs is character skills. Because you are playing a ROLE. You are not YOU.
I am arguing against people who want player decisions to be the PRIMARY factor. Who want to remove vertical progression and equalize skills and gear.
I didn't say you can have players amount to nothing.
RPGs are about the character learning and growing in his talents. If 2 equal characters fight, the player determines the winner yes. But then what is the point of the character? All you have is an FPS style game. And FPS games are incedibly popular and mainstream, but they aren't MMOs.
I'm going to take the unpopular voice. I'll say that buffs just don't need to be in.
The reason I say this is that buffs can possibly have far reaching effects into the game, especially if it becomes mandatory to even play. But most importantly, if buffs are good enough that they bypass and ignore originally placed mechanics that balance the game. If it allows characters to plow through stuff that they originally couldn't without the buffs, they're too powerful and game breaking. Imagine what a buffed set of characters can do.
I can go on, especially the nasty implementation of Buffs as implemented even from my favorite old MMORPG back in the day, SWG.
But again, I say no to Buffs.
Hmm, we could search and replace every occurence of "buffs" in your post for "quest rewards", "skill builds", "item sets"...
Flame on!
We could, and we probably have in some other post around here
But Buffs is just another major loophole that unbalances a game, IMO.
Buffs only imbalance the game if we have level gated content.
Dynamic open virtual world games cannot be imbalanced by buffs.
It is the common implemtation of a buff system that allows buffs to be applied in lower tier content rather than the style of the game design.
Again with no level gating there IS no lower tier content. Problem solved.
You've stated a possible way to solve the problem but the idea would need to be expanded on. I can easily design a system without levels that would still have issues with buffs trivializing lower "tier" (for lack a better word atm) content. Another solution is to prevent buffs from escaping into lower tierd content. Yet another solution is to not have buffs at all.
Or we could just NOT HAVE lower tier content. We could have a game that is social and persistent and wordly.
When we got automation did people whine because they didn't have to hand sew clothes any more? Fuck no.
Again themeparks and static spawns are the problem, not buffs. If the same creatures don't spawn forever over and over in the same spot we don't have a problem.
I'm going to take the unpopular voice. I'll say that buffs just don't need to be in.
The reason I say this is that buffs can possibly have far reaching effects into the game, especially if it becomes mandatory to even play. But most importantly, if buffs are good enough that they bypass and ignore originally placed mechanics that balance the game. If it allows characters to plow through stuff that they originally couldn't without the buffs, they're too powerful and game breaking. Imagine what a buffed set of characters can do.
I can go on, especially the nasty implementation of Buffs as implemented even from my favorite old MMORPG back in the day, SWG.
But again, I say no to Buffs.
Hmm, we could search and replace every occurence of "buffs" in your post for "quest rewards", "skill builds", "item sets"...
Flame on!
We could, and we probably have in some other post around here
But Buffs is just another major loophole that unbalances a game, IMO.
Buffs only imbalance the game if we have level gated content.
Dynamic open virtual world games cannot be imbalanced by buffs.
It is the common implemtation of a buff system that allows buffs to be applied in lower tier content rather than the style of the game design.
Again with no level gating there IS no lower tier content. Problem solved.
You've stated a possible way to solve the problem but the idea would need to be expanded on. I can easily design a system without levels that would still have issues with buffs trivializing lower "tier" (for lack a better word atm) content. Another solution is to prevent buffs from escaping into lower tierd content. Yet another solution is to not have buffs at all.
Or we could just NOT HAVE lower tier content. We could have a game that is social and persistent and wordly.
When we got automation did people whine because they didn't have to hand sew clothes any more? Fuck no.
Again themeparks and static spawns are the problem, not buffs. If the same creatures don't spawn forever over and over in the same spot we don't have a problem.
Yes, I supposed we could design a game with zero vertical progression to avoid the possibility of buffs trivializing lower end content. That is fine and there are successful examples of such games. However, that does not solve the issue for people that like themeparks, vertical progresion, and static spawns.
You are proposing a radical change, when a simple solution is possible, in the thinking of the way most MMOs are designed. Vertical progression is pervasive even in lateral progression games. Why should such a change be supported? Does it lower initial development costs? Does it increase profits? Does it lower content development time? Does it increase subscribers or revenues? What are the justifactions as to why this choice is better than others?
Forever looking for employment. Life is rather dull without it.
I'm going to take the unpopular voice. I'll say that buffs just don't need to be in.
The reason I say this is that buffs can possibly have far reaching effects into the game, especially if it becomes mandatory to even play. But most importantly, if buffs are good enough that they bypass and ignore originally placed mechanics that balance the game. If it allows characters to plow through stuff that they originally couldn't without the buffs, they're too powerful and game breaking. Imagine what a buffed set of characters can do.
I can go on, especially the nasty implementation of Buffs as implemented even from my favorite old MMORPG back in the day, SWG.
But again, I say no to Buffs.
Hmm, we could search and replace every occurence of "buffs" in your post for "quest rewards", "skill builds", "item sets"...
Flame on!
We could, and we probably have in some other post around here
But Buffs is just another major loophole that unbalances a game, IMO.
Buffs only imbalance the game if we have level gated content.
Dynamic open virtual world games cannot be imbalanced by buffs.
It is the common implemtation of a buff system that allows buffs to be applied in lower tier content rather than the style of the game design.
Again with no level gating there IS no lower tier content. Problem solved.
You've stated a possible way to solve the problem but the idea would need to be expanded on. I can easily design a system without levels that would still have issues with buffs trivializing lower "tier" (for lack a better word atm) content. Another solution is to prevent buffs from escaping into lower tierd content. Yet another solution is to not have buffs at all.
Or we could just NOT HAVE lower tier content. We could have a game that is social and persistent and wordly.
When we got automation did people whine because they didn't have to hand sew clothes any more? Fuck no.
Again themeparks and static spawns are the problem, not buffs. If the same creatures don't spawn forever over and over in the same spot we don't have a problem.
Yes, I supposed we could design a game with zero vertical progression to avoid the possibility of buffs trivializing lower end content. That is fine and there are successful examples of such games. However, that does not solve the issue for people that like themeparks, vertical progresion, and static spawns.
You are proposing a radical change, when a simple solution is possible, in the thinking of the way most MMOs are designed. Vertical progression is pervasive even in lateral progression games. Why should such a change be supported? Does it lower initial development costs? Does it increase profits? Does it lower content development time? Does it increase subscribers or revenues? What are the justifactions as to why this choice is better than others?
What? I said nothing about vertical progression. In TTS, the MMO I am designing you have effectively limitless vertical progression. I just said that you should not limit where people can do and you should not use static creature spawning. That has nothing to do with vertical progression.
For people that primarily enjoy themeparks my suggestion is to ask someone who gives a crap about trying to patch massive logic fail wounds that infest themepark games.
Comments
None of which add any challenge or interest to the encounter. You go through your mindless buff macro, you get a bunch of stat boosts, and then what? The battle plays out EXACTLY THE SAME as if there were no buffs and the enemies were simply balanced proportionally to the players to begin with. The numbers just got inflated, that's the ONLY difference. Bards are such a joke of a class, they only exist because MMO devs can't figure out how to make a functional support class other than healers that can actually participate in battle.
That's because they're awful game mechanics from games which test your ability to tolerate grinding rather than intelligent planning and executing strategy
Indeed, people dont run around in exact same gear in virtual worlds, and in games where aim and dodge matters a person with less powerful gear can still win, in a game where you just press "Let the battle begin" button, the one with more gameplay hours and loot gathered will win.
Those are different kinds of games, both of them still being RPG's. You are basically verifying your self that there can be vastly different RPG's out there, with different kinds of game mechanics, now the next step is to accept that fact your self.
You dont need 15 year old game mechanics for RPG to be a RPG. Skyrim and Dragon Age are both RPG's at the same time with very different game mechanics, other having more old school, passive system with "target lock" and hit chances, pause, and all that stuff, while the other is having more active system, basically FPS/TPS where you need to actually aim yours self, being able to dodge arrows by movement and so on. Heck, Mass Effect games are roleplaying games.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_QhN_pAvYw i was looking at a vanguard vid.on how to kill Akande .mainly because he's an absolute bastard..well he was back a year or 2 ago.this post reminded me of the buffs this guy had..take a look going down on his left hand side screen..and it still was'nt enough lol
I prefer tactical buffs which are generally shorter but have a more profound effect during combat. Long buffs, like Age of Conan's ½-2h buffs, made me think why don't they just add this amount to my attributes permanently, or why arent these buffs automatic and constant?
Shorter, more powerful buffs can potentially bring more depth to combat since players are required to think when to cast them, how will they use them and does your enemy have the capability to perhaps interrupt your casting or dispel your buff mid-combat.
Buff-bots are a thing of the past - good riddens.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Those two games I named aren't RPGs. In any case your argument is weird. Every MMO has similar combat. So which one has both good combat and bad combat? Weird for a game to have both at the same time.
Ask any player what MMORPG has the best combat, or even good combat. They'll give you an answer. The answer won't be "they're all the same".
What makes one better? Well obviously: the quality of the decisions and the game's ability to facilitate that decisionmaking in a deep way.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I'm going to take the unpopular voice. I'll say that buffs just don't need to be in.
The reason I say this is that buffs can possibly have far reaching effects into the game, especially if it becomes mandatory to even play. But most importantly, if buffs are good enough that they bypass and ignore originally placed mechanics that balance the game. If it allows characters to plow through stuff that they originally couldn't without the buffs, they're too powerful and game breaking. Imagine what a buffed set of characters can do.
I can go on, especially the nasty implementation of Buffs as implemented even from my favorite old MMORPG back in the day, SWG.
But again, I say no to Buffs.
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
I love buffs myself. However, devs usually handle buffs rather poorly. Too many buffs, buffs don't last long enough, buffs consuming too many resources, balancing around maximal buffs, balancing class desirability with critical buffs, limited supply buffs causing group conflicts, etc.
Forever looking for employment. Life is rather dull without it.
Yes. I'm well aware of this or having dozens waiting like fiends for a group buff to be performed. I just don't care for it or having to be that reliant on a particular class.
I'll pass on the old kei days. No thank you. I personally found that incredibly annoying.
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
That would only make sense if people almost universally cited the same MMO as the one with the best combat.
Hmm, we could search and replace every occurence of "buffs" in your post for "quest rewards", "skill builds", "item sets"...
Flame on!
We could, and we probably have in some other post around here
But Buffs is just another major loophole that unbalances a game, IMO.
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
Kei wasn't even the most powerful or most useful part of the enchanter class. Plus, there were other options to deal with mana regen even if they were seldom used and perhaps even unknown to the majority of the population.
Forever looking for employment. Life is rather dull without it.
Buffs only imbalance the game if we have level gated content.
Dynamic open virtual world games cannot be imbalanced by buffs.
It is the common implemtation of a buff system that allows buffs to be applied in lower tier content rather than the style of the game design.
Forever looking for employment. Life is rather dull without it.
I was simply giving an example that most are familiar with is all. My point is while I don't mind buffs I don't care for the days where for many it can feel having a particular buff or buffs is more a necessity than something utilized to simply give a player a slight "edge".
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
Again with no level gating there IS no lower tier content. Problem solved.
Let's put it this way: no MMORPG or RPG exists which is considered excellent by a lot of people which didn't have a fairly significant amount of mid-fight tactical decisionmaking.
Your assertion that the combat side of RPGs is only be about strategic character building is wrong.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Everything is a loophole in a broken system, is that reason to remove everything?
Flame on!
Even lateral progression systems (if you've got a way to design a system with zero progression that will be popular, then go make some cash as this would solve so many issues and drastically lower costs) have a concept of difficult "tiers" even if limited.
You've stated a possible way to solve the problem but the idea would need to be expanded on. I can easily design a system without levels that would still have issues with buffs trivializing lower "tier" (for lack a better word atm) content. Another solution is to prevent buffs from escaping into lower tierd content. Yet another solution is to not have buffs at all.
Forever looking for employment. Life is rather dull without it.
Ugh. Stop being dense.
Combat ability, magic ability, traps/poisons ability, crafting ability. None of these things is based on player's ability to actually do these things. They are based on exp and character skills. In almost every RPG including WoW, the most popular RPG ever.
Decision making is the only "skill" that the player utilizes. What character skills to use.
If you have a shit character you will lose to someone who doesn't in the majority of cases. Time investment has always been the primary determiner of success, followed by how you invested it. And it still is.
Do you not understand what character skill means? The character knows how to use magic, the character knows how to craft, the character knows how to fight.
The PRIMARY focus in RPGs is character skills. Because you are playing a ROLE. You are not YOU.
I am arguing against people who want player decisions to be the PRIMARY factor. Who want to remove vertical progression and equalize skills and gear.
I didn't say you can have players amount to nothing.
RPGs are about the character learning and growing in his talents. If 2 equal characters fight, the player determines the winner yes. But then what is the point of the character? All you have is an FPS style game. And FPS games are incedibly popular and mainstream, but they aren't MMOs.
Or we could just NOT HAVE lower tier content. We could have a game that is social and persistent and wordly.
When we got automation did people whine because they didn't have to hand sew clothes any more? Fuck no.
Again themeparks and static spawns are the problem, not buffs. If the same creatures don't spawn forever over and over in the same spot we don't have a problem.
I don't miss buffs at all. I mean, in DAOC, my first MMORPG, RvR was ruined by buffbots, which made Classic so popular.
I'd rather see more utility classes. Add a class in each game whose sole purpose is buffing, debuffing, and crowd control.
Yes, I supposed we could design a game with zero vertical progression to avoid the possibility of buffs trivializing lower end content. That is fine and there are successful examples of such games. However, that does not solve the issue for people that like themeparks, vertical progresion, and static spawns.
You are proposing a radical change, when a simple solution is possible, in the thinking of the way most MMOs are designed. Vertical progression is pervasive even in lateral progression games. Why should such a change be supported? Does it lower initial development costs? Does it increase profits? Does it lower content development time? Does it increase subscribers or revenues? What are the justifactions as to why this choice is better than others?
Forever looking for employment. Life is rather dull without it.
What? I said nothing about vertical progression. In TTS, the MMO I am designing you have effectively limitless vertical progression. I just said that you should not limit where people can do and you should not use static creature spawning. That has nothing to do with vertical progression.
For people that primarily enjoy themeparks my suggestion is to ask someone who gives a crap about trying to patch massive logic fail wounds that infest themepark games.