Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Much of the MMO gameplay is not massive

1234579

Comments

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Member CommonPosts: 10,910


    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by lizardbones  
    I haven't claimed that any particular thing is more or less important than anything else. I'm saying I agree that the virtual world bit isn't necessary for games to be fun. It's entirely possible to have just as much fun in a lobby game (like D3) as a virtual world game (like WoW), just not for everyone. Given a choice between hanging around in a game lobby and hanging around in a virtual world, there are people who prefer to hang around in a virtual world, even if the entire rest of the game is exactly the same.  
    That is fair. I suppose some will want a different lobby .. since that is, no matter how small, still a part of the experience. But i guess we are in agreement that much of the gameplay in MMOs are not massive (and i am not going to repeat which parts) and they resemble the experience of online SP games.


    Oh, come on. I'm sure you can argue with something in there. This is MMORPG.com after all. :-)

    But, yes.

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • AeliousAelious Member RarePosts: 3,521
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Aelious
    From a PvE aspect other than world bosses there never really has been a specific combat related activity that is "massive". This has always been the case though, nothing has changed except that the easy button. Groups and raids are not the "massive" aspect. That is for the potential that a persistent world provides.

    Luckily there are still games like Vanguard and EQ that have open area group places that keep you in the world. Don't get me wrong, I've used dungeon finder and it's very convenient. 9/10 however it's also lonely as people hardly ever say anything since in 30 mins you could be with another set of people. Someone invests a lot more into making their own groups, especially if it means going through a public dungeon where there could be other groups.

    That is my point. Most of the PvE content in MMO is never massive. I think it is a response to player desire. Obviously you do not share that desire. However, it does not change the fact that much of the game play options (again dungeons, raids ...) in many MMOs are not massive.

    And as i have discussed before, the persistent world matter very little in many MMOs. It serves as nothing but a 3D lobby. Surely some may like a 3D lobby better than a menu ... but i highly doubt that would be the focal point of their attention if they spend 90% of the time in small group instanced content.

     

    It's not the activities that were or are being refered to as massive so that's a moot point.  It's the potential for open interaction between virtual avatars (world) that makes an MMO massive and since you don't care about there being a world it makes sense you would draw these conclusions.  To YOU a world is just a 3D lobby and the fact you see max level characters in WoW loitering around Stormwind waiting for DF to pop doesn't mean x amount of people agree with you.  It means they are advancing in the mannor Blizzard put in front of them.

     

    If Blizzard had group content out in the world then there could be some form of comparison but they don't... but they actually did.  They were smart enough to do one or the other: either place groups in instances or out in the world.  Why did all the world hard content get taken out? It wouldn't be because it was splitting the playerbase was it? This is just assumption on my part but no different than you assuming that because you see people in cities that none of them care about having a world outside the city.

  • BanaghranBanaghran Member Posts: 869
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Banaghran
    Originally posted by nariusseldon

     The most popular gameplay seems to be small group dungeons, and raids for pve, and BG for pvp. All  of those are mulitplayer.

    Based on what? Mobas and other single purpose games that offer nothing else? Wow that has these as the only way of aquiring certain items?

    Until people can buy the latest tier on the ah for gold gained in a broad spectrum of activities, there is no overall reference.

    Flame on!

    :)

    Oh .. based on observations in games like WOW? I am talking about games like WOW, and other pve MMOs like STO, and DDO (may be i should be clear about that). Obviously MOBA does not apply because it is 100% pvp.

    What i mean is NOT that small group dungeon is most popular amongst all online games (the most popular game, by xfire number is LOL), but that in WOW, or DDO, or LOTRO, most players spend most time in either dungeons, or raids, but not the open world.

    But the point is that these are all multiplayer activities. So there isn't "less multiplayer" in these MMOs.

    My point was, that if suddenly a singleplayer activity would give you last tier or tokens, people would do these.

    So you cannot just say "it is popular because people do it" if they have no other choice.

    The results are mixed, since wow sidetracked all other activities (quests, reps, crafting, other forms of pve and pvp), the population did not go up as we would expect if dungeons, raids and bgs were the preferred choice, and i had 130k hks, wery much liked bgs.

    And i was just arguing about this statement, not lack or not of multiplayer, but what you have to keep in mind is that many people see multiplayer and player interaction as connected, whether that is wrong or not (which i think it is, i play tf2 but rarely speak to anyone there), and this is the angle they are arguing from, they are actually arguing against less player interaction. (Apart of the swtor singleplayer experience :) )

    Flame on!

    :)

  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 22,741

    Whether WoW is a real MMO or not is irrelevant, likewise with any MMO you care to name and question. What is undeniable is the direction the genre is being taken in. So WoW at launch is not the same as WoW today. A MMO launched six years ago, even two years ago will not be designed the same as a MMO today.

    So the real question is what sort of MMO genre do you want. One where every “MMO” is a dumbed down, streamlined, solo lobby of a game? Or an open world sandbox with no pathway, no story to follow? Or like me, if you are hoping for something in-between. I am not that big a sand box fan, but I look at how awful themepark MMO’s have become and the way they are still heading. Would sandbox MMO’s have gone of the rails if they had been the dominant MMO type these last ten years? Quite possibly.

    So for me this is about better quality MMO’s, moving away from the trashy place we find ourselves in now. Bring back some of those old themepark values and sandbox design, rather than continue on this downward spiral where MMO’s all seem to want the Idiot of the Year award.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by Banaghran
     

    My point was, that if suddenly a singleplayer activity would give you last tier or tokens, people would do these.

    You forget about the fact that people do not have to stay with the game. If SP activity is not what they like, and they want last-tier of tokens, they will go choose a game that will give out the tokens in other ways.

    In fact, only 2% of the players raided Sunwell. That is what gives the last tier of token when it was the newest raid. So no ... people won't do the activity just because it gives the last tier of tokens.

    So you cannot just say "it is popular because people do it" if they have no other choice.

    They do have choices. They can do hardmode raid, normal or LFR. They can choose to do dailies. And lastly, they can choose to play another game.

    The results are mixed, since wow sidetracked all other activities (quests, reps, crafting, other forms of pve and pvp), the population did not go up as we would expect if dungeons, raids and bgs were the preferred choice, and i had 130k hks, wery much liked bgs.

    If you look at player base growth, LOL & WOT are the latest success. Even D3 can be count as one, if you look at its sales + xfire ranking. All involve non-massive, but multi-player gameplay. Minecraft is another success, and it is not massive at all. The only massive ones ar Day Z and PS2 (PS2 ranking is not that high, only #27 .. but i will count that just to be lenient). Note that both Day Z & PS2 are pvp. So once again, most pve content is not massive.

    And i was just arguing about this statement, not lack or not of multiplayer, but what you have to keep in mind is that many people see multiplayer and player interaction as connected, whether that is wrong or not (which i think it is, i play tf2 but rarely speak to anyone there), and this is the angle they are arguing from, they are actually arguing against less player interaction. (Apart of the swtor singleplayer experience :) )

    Oh i know .. but that is not what multiplayer is defined, right? MP is defined way before MMO, and even DOOM is a MP game.
    Lastly, think about it, aside from world boss, there is no massive pve gameplay, unless you count a 3D lobby where people can stare at each other. And you certainly can't argue world boss is as popular as 5-man dungeon or raid.
     

     

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by Scot

    Whether WoW is a real MMO or not is irrelevant, likewise with any MMO you care to name and question. What is undeniable is the direction the genre is being taken in. So WoW at launch is not the same as WoW today. A MMO launched six years ago, even two years ago will not be designed the same as a MMO today.

    So the real question is what sort of MMO genre do you want. One where every “MMO” is a dumbed down, streamlined, solo lobby of a game? Or an open world sandbox with no pathway, no story to follow? Or like me, if you are hoping for something in-between. I am not that big a sand box fan, but I look at how awful themepark MMO’s have become and the way they are still heading. Would sandbox MMO’s have gone of the rails if they had been the dominant MMO type these last ten years? Quite possibly.

    So for me this is about better quality MMO’s, moving away from the trashy place we find ourselves in now. Bring back some of those old themepark values and sandbox design, rather than continue on this downward spiral where MMO’s all seem to want the Idiot of the Year award.

    This post, of course, is beyond the scope of this post, which is to discuss the small group co-op aspect of gameplay in MANY mmos.

    Personally, your question "what sort of MMO genre do you want" .. is quite irrelevant to me. I want fun games, and genre label matter nil to me. I evalute gameplay experience independent of the genre designation. So i like STO with SP style stories, and lobby pve because the missions are fun, and the space ship combat is fun. I don't like Eve because its combat is not well design, and the pve missions have lousy content. OTOH, i do like PS2's large battle.

    And i really don't care where MMO genre is heading because ... if the genre produces game i like, i will play, otherwise i won't. Don't confuse that with liking some of the SP aspects that in put in some specific MMOs. So if a MMO can do SP story better than other SP games, i will play it as such.

    For example, you can't find a modern story-based Star Trek RPG .... if you like ST RPG, STO is it. And so i will play the story mission as a SP game .. no apologies. The MP aspect is just gravy.

    And of course "downward", "dumbed down" .. is just your preference. In fact, i found MORE MMOs that i am interested in playing than 5-10 years ago, and certainly more catch my attention than the UO/EQ days. So from that perspective, it is progress.

  • ice-vortexice-vortex Member UncommonPosts: 960
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Aelious
    From a PvE aspect other than world bosses there never really has been a specific combat related activity that is "massive". This has always been the case though, nothing has changed except that the easy button. Groups and raids are not the "massive" aspect. That is for the potential that a persistent world provides.

    Luckily there are still games like Vanguard and EQ that have open area group places that keep you in the world. Don't get me wrong, I've used dungeon finder and it's very convenient. 9/10 however it's also lonely as people hardly ever say anything since in 30 mins you could be with another set of people. Someone invests a lot more into making their own groups, especially if it means going through a public dungeon where there could be other groups.

    That is my point. Most of the PvE content in MMO is never massive. I think it is a response to player desire. Obviously you do not share that desire. However, it does not change the fact that much of the game play options (again dungeons, raids ...) in many MMOs are not massive.

    And as i have discussed before, the persistent world matter very little in many MMOs. It serves as nothing but a 3D lobby. Surely some may like a 3D lobby better than a menu ... but i highly doubt that would be the focal point of their attention if they spend 90% of the time in small group instanced content.

     


    I am not so sure they designed that content based on player desire. Before it was ever implemented, they had no clue if players wanted it or not and now most of the players today have never played an MMO without it. So I doubt it is implemented simply because that's what the players want. I think it was designed because it is easier to develop than similar content for a massive scale.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by ice-vortex

    I am not so sure they designed that content based on player desire. Before it was ever implemented, they had no clue if players wanted it or not and now most of the players today have never played an MMO without it. So I doubt it is implemented simply because that's what the players want. I think it was designed because it is easier to develop than similar content for a massive scale.

    If players don't want it, why do they put in more and more instanced small group content? It is not like they don't tweak content.

    In fact, in the beginning, there are world bosses, and open world pvp. Those are taken away because they are not popular. Why else?

    Don't tell me it is more difficult to do a world boss than putting in a dedicated dungeon.

  • ice-vortexice-vortex Member UncommonPosts: 960
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by ice-vortex

    I am not so sure they designed that content based on player desire. Before it was ever implemented, they had no clue if players wanted it or not and now most of the players today have never played an MMO without it. So I doubt it is implemented simply because that's what the players want. I think it was designed because it is easier to develop than similar content for a massive scale.

    If players don't want it, why do they put in more and more instanced small group content? It is not like they don't tweak content.

    In fact, in the beginning, there are world bosses, and open world pvp. Those are taken away because they are not popular. Why else?

    Don't tell me it is more difficult to do a world boss than putting in a dedicated dungeon.

    World bosses aren't exactly replacements for dungeons, they never have been, not even in Everquest. You can't exactly take out all dungeons and give them some world bosses.

  • BanaghranBanaghran Member Posts: 869
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Banaghran
     

    My point was, that if suddenly a singleplayer activity would give you last tier or tokens, people would do these.

    You forget about the fact that people do not have to stay with the game. If SP activity is not what they like, and they want last-tier of tokens, they will go choose a game that will give out the tokens in other ways.

    In fact, only 2% of the players raided Sunwell. That is what gives the last tier of token when it was the newest raid. So no ... people won't do the activity just because it gives the last tier of tokens.

    So you cannot just say "it is popular because people do it" if they have no other choice.

    They do have choices. They can do hardmode raid, normal or LFR. They can choose to do dailies. And lastly, they can choose to play another game.

    I am not forgetting that players may choose another game, that was my whole point.

    Is there any situation you are unable to twist your thinking into giving the sunwell argument relevancy?

    Despite being repeatedly told it is inaccurate (its +- the number of people who beat sunwell, not were attempting to), and completely missing the point that it was not the players choice not to run it at that time.

    Tell you what, change "last tier" to "tier gear" in my post and try again, thanks, im sorry that i confused you.

    The results are mixed, since wow sidetracked all other activities (quests, reps, crafting, other forms of pve and pvp), the population did not go up as we would expect if dungeons, raids and bgs were the preferred choice, and i had 130k hks, wery much liked bgs.

    If you look at player base growth, LOL & WOT are the latest success. Even D3 can be count as one, if you look at its sales + xfire ranking. All involve non-massive, but multi-player gameplay. Minecraft is another success, and it is not massive at all. The only massive ones ar Day Z and PS2 (PS2 ranking is not that high, only #27 .. but i will count that just to be lenient). Note that both Day Z & PS2 are pvp. So once again, most pve content is not massive.

    Which is quite the opposite of what you have claimed before:

    "What i mean is NOT that small group dungeon is most popular amongst all online games (the most popular game, by xfire number is LOL), but that in WOW, or DDO, or LOTRO, most players spend most time in either dungeons, or raids, but not the open world."

    :)

    Lastly, think about it, aside from world boss, there is no massive pve gameplay, unless you count a 3D lobby where people can stare at each other. And you certainly can't argue world boss is as popular as 5-man dungeon or raid.

    But you can neither argue that it isnt, because world event bosses even in rift didnt give raid gear (to my knowledge, someone might correct me), but those events were still very popular till they made them meaningless, you would have a hard time grouping for dungeons, but once a event started there were suddenly 80-100 players of your level range there.

     

    Flame on!

    :)

  • BanaghranBanaghran Member Posts: 869
    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    In fact, in the beginning, there are world bosses, and open world pvp. Those are taken away because they are not popular. Why else?

     

    Because they are easyer to create, maintain and balance.

    If you dont have instances, you have to create much more dungeons and zones to spread out players, same thing goes to raid bosses on respawn timer.

    The same thing with pvp, incidental pvp has different rules and much more factors that influence the figt than in a strict XvX arena.

    Its the ol' McDonalds vs restaurant thing, prefabricated (frozen) stuff is more easy to handle than cooking it on the spot.

    And you can use school dropouts, err, outsorcing :)

    Flame on!

    :)

  • sanshi44sanshi44 Member UncommonPosts: 1,187
    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    small group dungeons (like in DDO, WOW, LOTRO, DCUO, .....)

    arena/battleground pvp (some smaller than BF3)

    raids (biggest in WOW is 25 man ... even at 40 man .. it is smaller than BF3 battles)

    and not to mention SINGLE PLAYER quests and daily quests.

    In fact, the only massive part is the city where people wait for their dungeons/pvp to pop .. and that is just a massive lobby with a massive AH.

    So much of the gameplay experience that many players spend most of their time on are not "massive" (like a PS2 hundreds on hundreds battle) in *many* MMOs, may be it is time for MMOs to abandon its roots, and embrace a broader definition. In fact, the texas holden online game i just played is as massive as a MMO. YOu can gamble with 8 people, which has more players than heroic dungeons ... and the lobby is as massive as orgrimmar in WOW.

     

    The genre been this way since the relase of World of warcraft which drew alot of players in from single player games and heavaly advertisments now all company try and follow WoW making a new reskined WoW with 1-2 extra feature but same cire concept, its only now that dev are relising after 8 years people have grown tired of this rubbish and is looking at making MMORPG an MMO again i think SoE gonna lead the charge again with everquest next quickly followed by Blizzard if it takes off.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by Banaghran
    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    In fact, in the beginning, there are world bosses, and open world pvp. Those are taken away because they are not popular. Why else?

     

    Because they are easyer to create, maintain and balance.

    If you dont have instances, you have to create much more dungeons and zones to spread out players, same thing goes to raid bosses on respawn timer.

    The same thing with pvp, incidental pvp has different rules and much more factors that influence the figt than in a strict XvX arena.

    Its the ol' McDonalds vs restaurant thing, prefabricated (frozen) stuff is more easy to handle than cooking it on the spot.

    And you can use school dropouts, err, outsorcing :)

    Flame on!

    :)

    How easy it is to drop in a world boss? In fact, it is CHEAPER and easy than creating a new dungeon, because you only need the mob, and its mechanics, and not the zone (cause it is in an already created zone).

    So no, i don't believe cost is the reason.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by sanshi44

     

    The genre been this way since the relase of World of warcraft which drew alot of players in from single player games and heavaly advertisments now all company try and follow WoW making a new reskined WoW with 1-2 extra feature but same cire concept, its only now that dev are relising after 8 years people have grown tired of this rubbish and is looking at making MMORPG an MMO again i think SoE gonna lead the charge again with everquest next quickly followed by Blizzard if it takes off.

    If it takes off .. that is a big if. Look at what took off in online games in the last 1-2 years. LOL, WOT, may be also minecraft .. none involves massive gameplay.

    In fact, is there actual massive pve gameplay aside from world boss? I have yet to see a big pve battle like that in PS2 (which is pvp). Isn't most pve gameply focus in raids & dungeons?

  • RaysheRayshe Member UncommonPosts: 1,279

    Here is the thing about massive. Massive need to fit within the universe. Some like World of Warcraft - Everquest - GW2 - hell anything with a created world should be that way. Now there are other games, where it is not quite as required. One of the examples i bring for this is TSW. imagine if TSW had been massive instead of using the agartha system. Yup time to Drive/Fly from Maine to Egypt. Could you imagine

     

    A) the file size requirement

    B) The sheer amount of useless space that doesnt hold anything

    C) how long it would take to get there.

    ETC

     

    So while i love massive seemless world, I do also believe that its better for some and worse for others.

    Because i can.
    I'm Hopeful For Every Game, Until the Fan Boys Attack My Games. Then the Knives Come Out.
    Logic every gamers worst enemy.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by Rayshe

    Here is the thing about massive. Massive need to fit within the universe. Some like World of Warcraft - Everquest - GW2 - hell anything with a created world should be that way. Now there are other games, where it is not quite as required. One of the examples i bring for this is TSW. imagine if TSW had been massive instead of using the agartha system. Yup time to Drive/Fly from Maine to Egypt. Could you imagine

     

    A) the file size requirement

    B) The sheer amount of useless space that doesnt hold anything

    C) how long it would take to get there.

    ETC

     

    So while i love massive seemless world, I do also believe that its better for some and worse for others.

    The thread was originally created to discuss the massive-ness (or lack of) with respect to number of players you can interact with simultaneously. However, i suppose it also applies to space in the world/zone.

    Certainly few walk to walk 2 hours before anything interesting is happening, or have to take a plane ride in real time. Imagine the horrible of stuck to a little seat for hours.

  • RaysheRayshe Member UncommonPosts: 1,279
    There is a upside and a downside to that aswell. I remember the 40man raids in WoW when the game first came out. Getting enough people to run them was like pulling teeth. Atleast with TSW your chat goes across all servers, and what server you are on doesnt matter since you can just jump to a new one of your friend is there.

    Because i can.
    I'm Hopeful For Every Game, Until the Fan Boys Attack My Games. Then the Knives Come Out.
    Logic every gamers worst enemy.

  • BanaghranBanaghran Member Posts: 869
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Banaghran
    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    In fact, in the beginning, there are world bosses, and open world pvp. Those are taken away because they are not popular. Why else?

     

    Because they are easyer to create, maintain and balance.

    If you dont have instances, you have to create much more dungeons and zones to spread out players, same thing goes to raid bosses on respawn timer.

    The same thing with pvp, incidental pvp has different rules and much more factors that influence the figt than in a strict XvX arena.

    Its the ol' McDonalds vs restaurant thing, prefabricated (frozen) stuff is more easy to handle than cooking it on the spot.

    And you can use school dropouts, err, outsorcing :)

    Flame on!

    :)

    How easy it is to drop in a world boss? In fact, it is CHEAPER and easy than creating a new dungeon, because you only need the mob, and its mechanics, and not the zone (cause it is in an already created zone).

    So no, i don't believe cost is the reason.

    Because you have made up for your self this cozy situation where a non instanced dev just drops a mob into the world, the space is empty, there are a no logistical impacts and the zone already exists, while the poor instanced dev has to create this whole dungeon for the mob.

    It is all in your head.

    Flame on!

    :)

  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 22,741

    In fact, i found MORE MMOs that i am interested in playing than 5-10 years ago"

    Thats because there are what 100 times as many MMO's out now? You are going to find more IP's covered as there are simply more MMO's so if you are a ST fan, more hope for you that there will be at least one ST MMO.

    But you could have had a ST MMO where you helped build the Federation, with Romulan and Klingon three way faction warfare, thats what I mean by making a better MMO.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by Rayshe
    There is a upside and a downside to that aswell. I remember the 40man raids in WoW when the game first came out. Getting enough people to run them was like pulling teeth. Atleast with TSW your chat goes across all servers, and what server you are on doesnt matter since you can just jump to a new one of your friend is there.

    That is why WOW is also putting in cross-realm grouping. Being on a particular server is an artificial restriction .. and not very conducive to playing with friends.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by Scot

    In fact, i found MORE MMOs that i am interested in playing than 5-10 years ago"

    Thats because there are what 100 times as many MMO's out now? You are going to find more IP's covered as there are simply more MMO's so if you are a ST fan, more hope for you that there will be at least one ST MMO.

    But you could have had a ST MMO where you helped build the Federation, with Romulan and Klingon three way faction warfare, thats what I mean by making a better MMO.

    Having 3-way war does not make a "better" game. It just make it different. How do you know i like pvp war, instead of playing a story mission in the trek universe?

     

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by Banaghran
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Banaghran
    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    In fact, in the beginning, there are world bosses, and open world pvp. Those are taken away because they are not popular. Why else?

     

    Because they are easyer to create, maintain and balance.

    If you dont have instances, you have to create much more dungeons and zones to spread out players, same thing goes to raid bosses on respawn timer.

    The same thing with pvp, incidental pvp has different rules and much more factors that influence the figt than in a strict XvX arena.

    Its the ol' McDonalds vs restaurant thing, prefabricated (frozen) stuff is more easy to handle than cooking it on the spot.

    And you can use school dropouts, err, outsorcing :)

    Flame on!

    :)

    How easy it is to drop in a world boss? In fact, it is CHEAPER and easy than creating a new dungeon, because you only need the mob, and its mechanics, and not the zone (cause it is in an already created zone).

    So no, i don't believe cost is the reason.

    Because you have made up for your self this cozy situation where a non instanced dev just drops a mob into the world, the space is empty, there are a no logistical impacts and the zone already exists, while the poor instanced dev has to create this whole dungeon for the mob.

    It is all in your head.

    Flame on!

    :)

    That is almost always true. Take WOW, or any MMO .. tell me you cannot always find a zone with some empty space to add a world boss.

    Now also tell me which dungeon is not full of boss already that you can just insert another one without creating at least another room.

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Member CommonPosts: 10,910


    Originally posted by Banaghran
    Originally posted by nariusseldon Originally posted by Banaghran Originally posted by nariusseldon In fact, in the beginning, there are world bosses, and open world pvp. Those are taken away because they are not popular. Why else?  
    Because they are easyer to create, maintain and balance. If you dont have instances, you have to create much more dungeons and zones to spread out players, same thing goes to raid bosses on respawn timer. The same thing with pvp, incidental pvp has different rules and much more factors that influence the figt than in a strict XvX arena. Its the ol' McDonalds vs restaurant thing, prefabricated (frozen) stuff is more easy to handle than cooking it on the spot. And you can use school dropouts, err, outsorcing :) Flame on! :)
    How easy it is to drop in a world boss? In fact, it is CHEAPER and easy than creating a new dungeon, because you only need the mob, and its mechanics, and not the zone (cause it is in an already created zone). So no, i don't believe cost is the reason.
    Because you have made up for your self this cozy situation where a non instanced dev just drops a mob into the world, the space is empty, there are a no logistical impacts and the zone already exists, while the poor instanced dev has to create this whole dungeon for the mob.

    It is all in your head.

    Flame on!

    :)




    It's not in his head. World bosses are easier to implement than a raid boss. The impact on the world is minimal. It's the reason that Rift cr@ps out world bosses on a regular basis. Because they can send them out in the world and not have to worry about it over much.

    A raid boss isn't just a raid boss, it's an entire instance, sometimes hours of content all designed and tuned around players of a certain power level killing the boss in a certain amount of time. The world boss scripts are much simpler than raid boss scripts and the player interactions are much simpler. World bosses are a tank and spank affair. Raid bosses are scripted to be more complex, which takes more effort.

    The only reason there are more raids than world bosses is because players prefer the raid bosses. The same thing applies to world versus instanced PvP, except I don't think the difference between world pvp and instanced pvp is nearly as pronounced. But again, players just preferred the instanced PvP.

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by lizardbones

     


    The only reason there are more raids than world bosses is because players prefer the raid bosses. The same thing applies to world versus instanced PvP, except I don't think the difference between world pvp and instanced pvp is nearly as pronounced. But again, players just preferred the instanced PvP.

     

    I agreed. This is particular true for pvp. World pvp is trivial to "add". Just turn on pvp flag on your toons, and every world zone is a pvp zone. In fact, that is what pvp servers are doing.

    Instanced pvp is much more expensive, and often involve specific mechanics and vehicles (in WOW case, at least) in the instance. In fact, those additional mechanics probably are the extra draw to players.

  • BanaghranBanaghran Member Posts: 869
    Originally posted by lizardbones

     


    Originally posted by Banaghran

    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    Originally posted by Banaghran

    Originally posted by nariusseldon In fact, in the beginning, there are world bosses, and open world pvp. Those are taken away because they are not popular. Why else?  
    Because they are easyer to create, maintain and balance. If you dont have instances, you have to create much more dungeons and zones to spread out players, same thing goes to raid bosses on respawn timer. The same thing with pvp, incidental pvp has different rules and much more factors that influence the figt than in a strict XvX arena. Its the ol' McDonalds vs restaurant thing, prefabricated (frozen) stuff is more easy to handle than cooking it on the spot. And you can use school dropouts, err, outsorcing :) Flame on! :)
    How easy it is to drop in a world boss? In fact, it is CHEAPER and easy than creating a new dungeon, because you only need the mob, and its mechanics, and not the zone (cause it is in an already created zone). So no, i don't believe cost is the reason.
    Because you have made up for your self this cozy situation where a non instanced dev just drops a mob into the world, the space is empty, there are a no logistical impacts and the zone already exists, while the poor instanced dev has to create this whole dungeon for the mob.

     

    It is all in your head.

    Flame on!

    :)



    It's not in his head. World bosses are easier to implement than a raid boss. The impact on the world is minimal. It's the reason that Rift cr@ps out world bosses on a regular basis. Because they can send them out in the world and not have to worry about it over much.

    A raid boss isn't just a raid boss, it's an entire instance, sometimes hours of content all designed and tuned around players of a certain power level killing the boss in a certain amount of time. The world boss scripts are much simpler than raid boss scripts and the player interactions are much simpler. World bosses are a tank and spank affair. Raid bosses are scripted to be more complex, which takes more effort.

    The only reason there are more raids than world bosses is because players prefer the raid bosses. The same thing applies to world versus instanced PvP, except I don't think the difference between world pvp and instanced pvp is nearly as pronounced. But again, players just preferred the instanced PvP.

     

    By this logic a world boss is not just the mob but the zone, the quests in the zone, the mobs, the "city", the whole world.

    Rift does crap them out at a regular basis, but these invasions also more often than not stop all life in the zone (as they are designed to), so it does not matter if they overrun quest hubs and other stuff, yet it is not something we expect from a wold boss (or atleast not all of them).

    World bosses can also be scripted, and you are kinda making it a self validating argument:

    "If we assume there is already a fitting zone, empty space in that zone and we also do not want to make the fight complex, the world boss is easy to make. Thus world bosses are easy to make!"

    Why shouldnt "I" assume then that the work on the instance is already finished, or just featuring one room?

    Tell me.

    As for pvp players preferred rewards, as they always do, unfortunately, that is why season 4 (or what was the last tbc one) was so dire even in the arena, you know, with the new rating requirements on arena gear... And i am not even mentioning wintergrasp and its impact on bgs.

    If we would get bg tokens for X world kills, people would have more motivation to do world pvp, and ONLY THEN we would really see what is more popular.

    You cannot strangle a guy and then say "he's just dying" :)

    Flame on!

    :)

Sign In or Register to comment.