It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Originally posted by GrumpyMel2
I could be wrong, but I believe he was speaking from the perspective of the Developer. If the primary thing you are going to feature in your game is MOBA style combat...why go through all the difficulty and expense of building and operating an MMO...build a MOBA instead.... it's much cheaper. If it's just one of a laundry list of features...that's fine. However if that's the full extenet of your PvP play (as opposed to one of a number of options) you are not neccesarly taking full extent of your abilities as an MMO.
Sure .. but i don't care about what the devs think. If they put good pvp instanced in a MMO, and i like it, and charge me nothing, i will play.
And i doubt anyone is "taking full extent of your abilities as an MMO". MMO has so much stuff. Some people never raid. Should devs take out raids because of that? Of course not.
There are pet collection, crafting and a thousand other systems. MMOs are essentially collection of games under one setting. Heck, the new WOW expansion even has pokemon. Are you telling me i shouldn't play it even if it is fun?
Originally posted by nariusseldon Originally posted by Apraxis Originally posted by nariusseldon Originally posted by Tibernicus Originally posted by nariusseldon Originally posted by Apraxis But i would like a MMO with First Person View and real time.. i could witness it with DayZ again. I played it only in First Person View, and a good melee combat in first person and real time combat(improved upon Mount & Blade) would be a joy to play.
Play Borderland 2. FPS, RPG elements, real time and online. If it adds crafting and AH, it is practically a MMO.
It is absolutely nothing like an MMO. It is limited to 4 players. How is that massively multiplayer?
Oh wait, I'm talking to narius, who is delusional and doesn't know what an MMO is.
Anyway, to the guy with the prototype, check out Darkfall. Your idea has been done, I hate to say. And done damn well. But maybe there's room for a purely PvE Darkfall.
Limited to 4 players.
WOW dungeon is limited to 5 playres. Raid limited to 10 or 25. DCUO mission is limited to 4 players. Almost all instanced dungeons in MMO limit the number of players.
In D3, you can match with millions of players into group of 4. In WOW you can match millions of players into group of 5.
How is this any different?
Well.. then i better stay with mount&blade or DayZ.. at least a few more players.
What is the obsession with "more players"? I would much rather have a small group game that i find the combat engaging, then one that allows for more players but the combat is meh.
In fact, small group is also better to coordinate. Have you ever played a large FPS batter? There is zero coordination aside from "zerg point A". More != better.
Well. about FPS i played BF with 64 players. Not really a zerg, but a few more. But i also played Shadowbane with battles involved a few hundreds each side. More players make a more living world. Combat is good and all, but the combat(aka pvp) should have a purpose. You should fight over something, you should have targets, fullfill it and benefit from it. Like conquering a territory, and gain so and so much tax income, recource spots(another source of taxes and resources for war material and so on). With other words, you should have something to fight, something on the line. Risk vs. reward. Darkfall was not that bad in that regard. Although it was more or less a empty world, a tremendous grind, and the combat was not that great(but at least the right direction), and it was for zerg only in most cases.
A mmo should have almost all kind of battles in the open world, from small scale(a few ppl down to 1vs1) to huge battles with hundreds of players involved. Ok, granted, a lot of player with twitched based combat and in the best case more hitboxes is rather hard to accomplish, but not entirely impossible nowadays.
PS: And it is rather fun to kill with a few friends a horde of enemies. Shadowbane, DAoC were 1 group smashed 3 or 4 groups all together. It is just a rush to look after the fight over the battlefield and see all your dead enemies. Good old times, and with a good twitched based combat it would be even better.
BUT.. just because i want more twitched based dont mean i dont like a lot of tactical options, too. Rather often a lot of games lack one or the other.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar While dodging/parrying etc may be nice at certain times, in certain games many don't want those. I don't think I've played an MMO that had turn based combat.
didnt FFXI have a turn based combat system?
Originally posted by Adamantine MMOs are played over a potentially slow internet connection. Thus any reasonable design of a MMO takes this fact into consideration. If not, then the guy with the better connection always wins.
Not always. But it is a significant advantage resting outside of the player's hands, and one that requires a distinct skill (or gear or level) advantage to overcome - minor edges will not suffice, as they would if connections were equal or a less lag-sensitive system were in use instead.
Originally posted by Quirhid Its mad to drop succesful and popular features because someone somewhere arbitrarily decides it doesn't belong there. You've lost your touch with reality. Nobody gives a f*** if it doesn't fulfil your personal criteria for an MMO - the only thing matters if its entertaining or not. You can have whatever opinion on the matter, but what you can't do is to dictate how other people should enjoy their games. Furthermore, It is completely anal to say what the games should and shouldn't have by invoking to what the acronym MMORPG stands for. It doesn't have to be massive, people don't need to RP. They can enjoy their games exactly how they want to and you shouldn't have word in it. If you don't like it, just quit.
I suppose it would be "completely anal" to object if someone called Gran Tourismo a turn-based strategy game as well?
If it's not massive, you don't call it massive. If it's single-player, you don't call it multi-player. If it's played offline, you don't say that it's online.
And if it's not RPG, you don't call it an RPG (though I'll admit this one is murky, due to differing opinions on what actually constitutes an RPG.) You call it what it really is, whether that's FPS or RTS or whatever. Otherwise, you're giving people the wrong impression on what to expect from the game.
This is not a slight against the game itself, or those who play and enjoy the game. It's just an attempt to make sure we don't talk past each other by using the same jargon in referring to different things. If that's considered "anal," then oh well; I'll accept the charge.
Originally posted by Tibernicus Anyway, to the guy with the prototype, check out Darkfall. Your idea has been done, I hate to say. And done damn well. But maybe there's room for a purely PvE Darkfall.
Yep, I've followed DF since beta (favorite video). MO also. I don't want pure PVE, just the ability to un-flag. Something more along the lines of WoW PVP when overland battles were still common back in Vanilla days. Anyone flagged is looking for a fight. I think twitch would bring a different feel to the game, many don't like it, but some might.
Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now working in Network Security. I don't Forum PVP. If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident. When I don't understand, I ask. Such is not intended as criticism.
More players allows for a different (for many people fun) set of dynamics to develop that you really can't get with something small like 5 x 5. I'll disagree that larger FPS battles neccesarly turn into "zergs" while that certainly can happen, it doesn't always. Alot depends upon the game and the people playing it. Especialy if you see some of the better FPS clans/guilds... those guys are DEFINATELY alot more nuanced then "zerg".
What is the obsession with "more players"? I would much rather have a small group game
Yeah, because you're a fan of MOBAs, not MMOs. More players is kind of what MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER games are about. Please, just leave. You always derail every thread youre in.
Originally posted by nariusseldon Originally posted by GrumpyMel2
I think what he's saying is why buy a car if all you are interested in is the stereo system, why not just buy the stereo system? There is nothing neccesarly wrong with an MMO featuring that sort of combat...but it's not really utilizing the full potential of what an MMO can do. Hopefully such a feature is just one of many that the MMO offers...otherwise it's kinda like buying a car without wheels. Sure it may have a great stereo...but can you drive it anywhere?
This analogy is only correct if you have to play a lot for the car. If the car is free, why shouldn't i get it if the only thing i like is the stereo system?
Because a standalone stereo system will always be better.
Originally posted by Tibernicus Originally posted by nariusseldon Originally posted by GrumpyMel2
The analogy is a very bad one. Just drop it.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Originally posted by Tibernicus Originally posted by nariusseldon
Stop mis-using the term MOBA. You and Grumpy both.
I think narius' point is that, depending on map and combat mechanics, after a certain point the numbers matter very little. It doesn't matter if there's 30 or 60 guys focus-firing one guy, because he dies instantly anyway. And with high player numbers you are unlikely to perceive the additional amount say from 100 to 150. So going for higher and higher player numbers gives you diminishing returns at the cost twitch-like combat mechanics, very expensive optimization and poor performance if that optimization is not good enough.
More is not better. You could probably have over 10k players in the same area if the game had simple graphics and a limited draw distance, was turn-based and resolved combat entirely through dicerolls, but that wouldn't go well with the majority of players, now would it?
Originally posted by Quirhid Originally posted by Loke666 Originally posted by VengeSunsoar While dodging/parrying etc may be nice at certain times, in certain games many don't want those. I don't think I've played an MMO that had turn based combat.
No, but OP means semi turned base systems.
The game mechanics really have a turn based pen and paper system behind it. This is most obvious in DDO where you can see the rolls but most MMOs have it in the background.
Many MMOs have given up to-hit rolls atleast. Can you remember which was the last one to used them?
Hit rolls are another layer to combat and it adds depth.
Originally posted by waynejr2 Originally posted by Quirhid
You might aswell adjust damage and make every swing hit: 30% hit chance with 10 damage is 3 damage with an automatic hit. It does not add depth, it adds a randomness.
Dicerolls are a relic from P&P RPGs and turn-based combat.
Originally posted by Quirhid Originally posted by Tibernicus Originally posted by nariusseldon
First, I'm not misusing the term MOBA. Narius has said numerous times he wants MMOs to be more like LoL. And you're misunderstanding his point, not me. He prefers small teams of 5v5. I say that's not what MMOs do best.
And you've clearly never played a game like Eve, Darkfall, or Dark Age of Camelot if you think more does not equal better. It brings infitely more tactics into a combat and simulates a true war.
That's a point I actualy (shockingly) agreed with Narius on and I'll agree with you on as well. After a certain point you don't get alot more in terms of gameplay dynamics for having more people on the map/same area. I just happen to believe that point is ALOT higher then the small instanced PvP that most of the e-sports crowd tends to prefer. From my perspective 32 vs 32 (pretty standard for most FPS games) is where those dynamics START to develop and get fun... north of that it's more a factor of map size compared with number of players so you get the right density..... 64 vs 64 or 128 vs 128 even better. When you start getting into numbers around that range and higher...you are (IMO) effectively playing a game that player pretty much like "open world" combat even though technicaly it might be instanced. However, that's a radicaly different number of players then I hear the e-sport guys typicaly talking about which seems to max out at maybe 10 vs 10 or 12 vs 12. Which (IMO) is just far too small to allow for the gameplay dynamics I'm talking about to really develop.
Note, I'm more used to PvP in FPS games...so "Focus Fire" doesn't really mean squat to me...usualy in those games more then 2-3 shots (max) and you are done anyway. It's more about who has the OPPORTUNITY to fire at who. Who's defending/attacking what points on the map.....what resources are getting thrown in what direction.
Originally posted by Quirhid Originally posted by waynejr2 Originally posted by Quirhid
Disagree with you there. Having "To Hit" and "Damage" be seperate allow for ALOT more Depth and complexity to combat systems.
For example, it allows for Heavy Armored targets that are easy to hit but take little or no damage on each attack unless special weapons with high penetration values (but maybe other downsides, like short range, limited ammo, etc) are deployed against them. At the same time you could have targets that are hard to heat, but easy to kill once they get hit.
Lets take it out of the fantasy realm for a second and think about modern or sci-fi. You could have a Tank ( AFV) or Armored Exoskeleten Infantry that is easy to hit but hard to penetrate/kill because of it's armor.
Fire all the highly accurate small arms weapons you want at it all day....it doesn't matter because nothing is penetrating it. Fire an RPG at it, which is far less accurate (over range) but does enough damage to penetrate it...you've got a threat. Yet at the same time, you DON'T want to target a soft target (infantry) with that RPG because even though it does enough damage to kill the infantry several times over....small arms does enough damage to kill infantry too, and is far more likely to hit.
So lets try an example with numbers: Infantry Target = + 0 to hit, 2 points of damage to penetrate, 4 points to kill
AFV Target = +50 to hit, 20 points of damage to penetrate, 40 points to kill.
Rifle Weapon= Base 60 percent chance to hit, base 4 points of damage delivered
RPG Weapon= Base 10 percent chance to hit, base 40 points of damage delivered.
So under a system with seperate to hit and damage rolls
- A soldier can fire a Rifle at an AFV and hit it on pretty much every shot (110 percent chance to hit) but never do enough damage to harm it. Tacticaly a Rifle is a crappy weapon to use against and AFV.
- A soldier can fire a Rifle at an Infantry target and hit it more then half the time (60 percent) and on average does enough damage (4 pts) to kill it with one shot. Tacticaly a Rifle is a decent weapon to use against an infantry target.
- A soldier can fire an RPG at an AFV and hit it more then half the time (60 percent) and on average does enough damage (40 pts) to kill it with one shot. Tacticaly an RPG is a decent weapon to use against an AFV target.
- A soldier can fire an RPG at an Infantry target and hit it only 1 in 10 times (10 percent) and on average does enough damage (40 pts) to kill it with one shot, if he hits. Tacticaly an RPG is a crappy weapon to use against an Infantry target.
By seperating out To Hit and Damage we get a far more nuanced system that allows for greater tactical options. With just Damage we are left with the RPG doing 40 and the Rifle doing 4...making the RPG ALWAYS the better weapon to use....which is far less interesting in terms of tactics.
Originally posted by Tibernicus Originally posted by Quirhid Originally posted by Tibernicus
I've played Eve for 2 years, 3/4 of that in null-sec, 1/2 as a co-ceo of a PvP corporation, 1/4 of my time was in Black Legion, you might have heard of it. You can be damn sure that I didn't spend my time by shooting rocks. I quit because it offered no challenge and the combat was boring.
The more people are involved the less tactics, the less effect you yourself have on the outcome. The battles are often predetermined because of player numbers or group composition. Overwhelming majority of times the side which has more players wins. You cannot simulate true war in a video game, furthermore I think it is laughable to claim so. Politics is childish bickering and warfare is "zerg-management". If you can get your guys to log in, chances are you'll win.
Especially in Eve the small to medium-sized (less than 50 ships involved) are the most interesting engagements. Sadly the combat is optimized to handle the big fights. And there is nothing more mindnumbing than to
Originally posted by GrumpyMel2 Originally posted by Quirhid
Even if you had a hard-to-hit, squishy target, you can deduce that certain amount of hits are sure to kill that target, therefore you can reduce the damage so that that many hits are needed to kill said target. There is no difference in the outcome, however, with to-hit rolls you add more variance, hence I said "adds randomness".
If you say there's a difference which character would you rather play?
Competitive players hate random effects. They are a factor which they can't affect with their skill. You wouldn't enjoy playing a chess game where you had to flip a coin after X amount of turns to see who wins whatever the situation was on the board. Even in TF 2's tournaments the critical hits are turned OFF.
Anyway, you don't need to rely on dicerolls anymore because you can add that variance through twitch-like mechanics which put emphasis on player skill but do not add randomness.
Originally posted by Quirhid Originally posted by GrumpyMel2 Originally posted by Quirhid
No..... there is a HUGE difference in outcome as I directly illustrated with my examples above... the Rifle (which does less damage) is a better weapon against Infantry because it has higher accuracy and does enough damage to get the job done. The RPG (which does much greater damage) is a worse weapon against infantry because it has poor accuracy but is a better weapon against AFV's because they are easy to hit and they require alot of damage to hurt. With your system you just can't do that...you are left with the RPG is a better weapon then the Rifle, period. It's entirely beside the point....but you could fire a rifle at an AFV all day...you aren't going to hurt it, because you can't do enough damage to penetrate it's armor. If you dislike my use of modern terms....you could could substitute the terms "Halberd" and "Foil" for the weapons and "Plate" and "Cloth" for the targets.
Secondly just because there is a random factor involved does not mean that a game is completely divorced from strategy, tactics and skill. If you believe that, lets you and I sit down and play Advanced Squad Leader or World in Flames (both of which are certainly played competitively) and see if the distribution of wins/losses is different then 50/50 which is what it would be if it were random.
News flash....even FPS games introduce a random factor with weapons into the game. The bullet doesn't always go exactly where you are pointing the cursor (at least in half-way decent ones). The bullet is RANDOMLY displaced a certain degree from the aim-point (or an equivalent mechanism) depending upon the ACCURACY of the weapon you are firing. That's why you can't plug someone with a pistol from 50 yds as easly as you can with a battle-rifle.
This even holds true in Real Life shooting. Skill will get you alot, but at a certain point skill meets up with the practical limitations of the weapons accuracy. Firing the weapon, even screwed in to a bench rest won't get you completely consistant results from shot to shot past a certain distance. Firing a pistol or shotgun (with a slug) ...no matter how skilled you are...won't get you as accurate results as a 7mm Weatherby.
Such results in real life aren't actualy completely random...but their as random as rolling a die or using the RNG in a game. In other words, the factors which determine the actual result are so far beyond the actors ability to predict/control that they are effectively random.
In answer to your direct question...
"If you say there's a difference which character would you rather play? One who can take 10 hits One who can take just 5 but also has 50% chance to avoid incoming damage."
It all depends upon what I'm being TARGETED by....
- If I'm being targeted by something that does 20 points of damage, I'd much rather take the guy that has 50% chance to avoid incoming damage.
- If I'm being targeted by something that has only one shot and does 6 points of damage, I'd much rather be the guy with 10 hit points.
I can't believe this isn't apparent to you, if you are actualy into combat tactics.....
Originally posted by MrReality Nevermind the combat, people need to stop making mmos because they can't even make a good mmo first.
Not since WOW came out. Only a handful of decent ones since then, Vanguard, Darkfall, Fallen Earth, and GW2.
"Censorship is never over for those who have experienced it. It is a brand on the imagination that affects the individual who has suffered it, forever." - Noam Chomsky
Originally posted by GrumpyMel2 Originally posted by Quirhid
You forget, the same effect can be had with dmg bonuses. For example, "RPG does bonus damage against armor". Essentially to-hit rolls modify the damage being done and you can always play with modifiers to achieve the same outcome.
To me it doesn't costitute as depth because to add depth, each option should have offer a different outcome. For example, if you have 3 doors which all lead to the same room, there is no depth. It adds complexity - and complexity is not the same as depth. Both choices...
You'd be surprised how little randomness was involved in FPS in the past. To my understanding (and I'm discussing with a CS vet while writing this) every first shot hit exactly what you were aiming, but the recoil was different for every gun. For example, AK-47 had a strong recoil straigh up, with first shot hitting exactly where you aimed and the following two in a close group above that, M4 didn't have as strong recoil up etc.
Its been only the more recent games like BF3 where some guns haven't "shot straight" so to speak.
Originally posted by GrumpyMel2 @Quirhid In answer to your direct question... "If you say there's a difference which character would you rather play? One who can take 10 hits One who can take just 5 but also has 50% chance to avoid incoming damage." It all depends upon what I'm being TARGETED by.... - If I'm being targeted by something that does 20 points of damage, I'd much rather take the guy that has 50% chance to avoid incoming damage. - If I'm being targeted by something that has only one shot and does 6 points of damage, I'd much rather be the guy with 10 hit points. I can't believe this isn't apparent to you, if you are actualy into combat tactics.....
OK, I take it back. In practice there's a difference.