"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.
NO WAIT! There is no difference.
If one guy (A) had 100hp and the other (B) had 50hp and 50% evade chance. When encountering a mob that does 10 dmg per hit, A dies from 10 hits, but B dies on average of 10 hits. It doesn't matter what the incoming damage per hit is. If the damage is 50, A dies from 2 hits, B dies on average of 2 hits aswell. The variance is greater.
Your latter example, of "has only one shot" confused me a little, but it doesn't change anything in the long run.
EDIT: That is the sort of variance is that competitive players hate. In LoL the critical hits during early laning can decide the outcome of that lane completely and there's practically no skill involved. A lucky shot that gives you an edge. A very stupid mechanic.
You can certainly create a scenario where the 2 are equivalent (e.g. a creature that does 1 hit per attack...will kill both under the origional example you gave on average in 5 shots).... the thing I'm trying to impress on you is that once you run it accross a variety of scenario's....the equivalency no longer holds up. I'm going to assume that decent MMO (or similar game system) is going to present the user with a variety of scenario's to deal with in combat.
Time is MOST certainly a factor in most combat situations (in games and otherwise)....as the target isn't likely to just sit there passively for an infinite length of time and take attacks. The "has one shot" example is certainly a valid combat scenario....and I picked it specificaly to illustrate the difference between the 2 examples you gave me.
Lets assume we're in a combat situation where the enemy has one shot at you before you can neutralize it.....
If the enemy is doing 20 points damage...then you have a 100 percent certainity of being knocked out if you have 10 hit points and no chance to avoid the damage. If you have only a 5 hit points but a 50 percent chance to avoid the damage, then you have a 50 percent chance of surviving the encounter, obviously a better situation.
If the enemy is doing only 6 points damage....then you have a 0 percent chance of being knocked out if you have 10 hit points, you'll take some damage but you'll survive. If you have only 5 hit points but a 50 percent chance to avoid the damage, there is a 50 percent chance you'll be hit and knocked out, clearly worse then the guy who knows he's going to be able to take the hit.
The armor penetration thing I described above with the infantryman and the AFV is another scenario which illustrates the difference. I can describe alot of different combat situations/scenerario's where there is a big difference between the 2 hypothetical characters you posted....even though there are other situations where they are equivalent. The simple fact that they are equivalent under certain circumstances doesn't mean they are equivalent accross the board.
Note... there are, of course other mechanisms you can utilize to achieve similar effects. For example in our Infantryman & AFV situation....you COULD apply damage bonuses & penatlies for the weapon depending upon the target to achieve roughly the same probablities of effect.... and if you were sure that those were going to be the ONLY TWO types of targets you would ever introduce in your game, and the only other factors involved...that might work ok....but it leaves far less room for efficiency and growth.
For example under our system where To Hit and Damage are seperate factors. The system simply has to do 2 calls to the RNG and a simple comparison to the targets values to determine the results. Under the system where you are simply adjusting damage to simulate the results.... you have to do a search of a matrix/table that contains every possible target type against every possible weapon type to determine what the damage modifier should be in that case....and that search gets bigger/longer the more weapons and targets you add into the system. Now computers are pretty good at performing operations...but it's not like the cost of operations has zero impact....especialy in more twitch based play.
P.S. I don't no specificaly about CS...but I kinda doubt most older games had no random variance for bullets... I know for a fact WWII-Online has it...and that's a 10+ year old game. Any game that even attempts a semi-physics engine is going to have some mechanism for that (or that simulates that). Most (good ones) ALSO have recoil factors.... but they typicaly either do offset or something like percentage miss when on target, along with bullet drop and other factors.... otherwise you run into situations where something like a .22 pistol or even a 9MM pistol (very little recoil) is as accurate over distance as a 7MM sniper rifle.....something that most players just wouldn't accept.
Note also that a degree of varience, again doesn't imply there is no skill involved in the results. In fact, introducing varience can be a mechanism for INCREASING the skill required in a game....as it forces players to adapt thier play to the results rather then having something things be completely deterministic. It all depends upon the degree and manner of the introduction of varience. A simple coin toss determining the winner....yeah no skill allowed for in that..... die rolls in a game like ASL or World in Flames....or the computer game Combat Mission: Beyond Normandy....try to tell me there is no skill involved in those games.
I'm sitting here playing Batman Arkham City and thinking to myself, "Why can't MMOs be like this?" That game has so much depth in it's combat and gameplay, and it's still very simple to play. I know the MMO industry only plays follow the leader, but it's time for a new leader. The genre is beyond boring now, and something like this would bring it back to life.
Just throw away the turn-based, stand there trading hits until someone dies game design and implement a real game. Dodging/parrying attacks, aiming your gun/bow/sword/axe/spell/whatever should be done by the player, not a RNG. PvP would not just be who has the better gear, which really all PvP in modern games has come to.
I know this won't ever happen because no one has already created a popular MMO like this for other MMO designers to copy, but I can dream.
Arkham City isn't an RPG. RPGs have always been about character progression and obtaining new items.
If you want to create a game doesn't emphasize gear over player skill, you're better off just looking for an arena-based PvP game or perhaps an FPS. Skill-based gameplay works in those genres, but it won't work for an MMORPG -- at least not one that hopes to achieve any sort of longevity.
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.
And yet, games like poker or back-gammon are played professionaly, by highly competitive individuals, despite the random element. So it's erroneous to claim all competitive players hate random effects. (Unless there's an unspoken narrowing-down of the field that I missed, but even then I'd be somewhat skeptical.)
(Also, I wouldn't enjoy playing a chess match where we had to throw a round of darts after X turns to see who wins whatever situation either.)
Originally posted by Zekiah I'd love to see more combat like in Darkfall, the archery alone is phenomenal.
We all would.. but that would mean straying from making WoW clones so that they can fail within 3 months of launch! Why do publishers keep trying...
So many say its impossible, but if a 20 man team in Greece could do it...
Darkfall .. really? How many subs does it have?[mod edit]
Enough to have allowed the devs to hire 30 new people, move into a bigger office, expand the game into two new continents, open a second server, and fund a full remake of the game.
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.
Just felt like I needed to respond to this.
Every so often, a thread comes up like any MMOs on mobile/PC? or moar real-time combat! ...and part of me dies inside.
One of Vendetta Online's core design principles is "no dice rolling"... it's all physics-based. The only randomness comes from human reactions and internet latency (which usually isn't bad at all). They have been doing this since 2002.
VO also has the honor of being the first PC MMO to be ported to mobile. One universe, one galaxy; PC users playing alongside Mac/Linux users playing alongside people on their mobile phones. It is a game that is way ahead of its time.
It is real, though. I know players who have been playing for longer than me; the game itself has been running since April 2002. I've met people who have spent over four solid months logged in, players who have earned hundreds of millions of credits, players who have accrued thousands of PKs, and players who have manufactured capital vessels appraised at 8000 USD opportunity cost. I say this as one having been born in Tokyo, owning the original famicom NES, growing up in arcades, and later playing original classics such as Lucasart's X-Wing, Ambrosia's Escape Velocity, Sid Meier's Civilization, and Master of Orion 1 and 2; Ride This Wave.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
Last thing I want to play is a "twitch" game, need to be a 15 year old on meth to play those things
Not really; in my experience all you need is observation based learning. If you can learn how to catch a ball, then you can learn how to play Vendetta. Knowing how a battle flows is more important than having lightning fast reactions. As stated in the post linked to below, you could have the fastest reaction times in the world but if you don't understand some fundamentals you aren't going to win fights. I started Vendetta when I was 22, now I am 31 and I am a far better pilot than I was back then. This is partially because my reactions have toned-down somewhat; I am more cool-handed today.
Knowing how to control my reactions was a big part of my growth in combat. Sorry you think youth and drugs will help you with twitch games; they won't, but a little understanding will.
(edit: I was 22, not 23 when I first started VO...)
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
You can certainly create a scenario where the 2 are equivalent (e.g. a creature that does 1 hit per attack...will kill both under the origional example you gave on average in 5 shots).... the thing I'm trying to impress on you is that once you run it accross a variety of scenario's....the equivalency no longer holds up. I'm going to assume that decent MMO (or similar game system) is going to present the user with a variety of scenario's to deal with in combat.
Time is MOST certainly a factor in most combat situations (in games and otherwise)....as the target isn't likely to just sit there passively for an infinite length of time and take attacks. The "has one shot" example is certainly a valid combat scenario....and I picked it specificaly to illustrate the difference between the 2 examples you gave me.
Lets assume we're in a combat situation where the enemy has one shot at you before you can neutralize it.....
If the enemy is doing 20 points damage...then you have a 100 percent certainity of being knocked out if you have 10 hit points and no chance to avoid the damage. If you have only a 5 hit points but a 50 percent chance to avoid the damage, then you have a 50 percent chance of surviving the encounter, obviously a better situation.
If the enemy is doing only 6 points damage....then you have a 0 percent chance of being knocked out if you have 10 hit points, you'll take some damage but you'll survive. If you have only 5 hit points but a 50 percent chance to avoid the damage, there is a 50 percent chance you'll be hit and knocked out, clearly worse then the guy who knows he's going to be able to take the hit.
The armor penetration thing I described above with the infantryman and the AFV is another scenario which illustrates the difference. I can describe alot of different combat situations/scenerario's where there is a big difference between the 2 hypothetical characters you posted....even though there are other situations where they are equivalent. The simple fact that they are equivalent under certain circumstances doesn't mean they are equivalent accross the board.
Note... there are, of course other mechanisms you can utilize to achieve similar effects. For example in our Infantryman & AFV situation....you COULD apply damage bonuses & penatlies for the weapon depending upon the target to achieve roughly the same probablities of effect.... and if you were sure that those were going to be the ONLY TWO types of targets you would ever introduce in your game, and the only other factors involved...that might work ok....but it leaves far less room for efficiency and growth.
For example under our system where To Hit and Damage are seperate factors. The system simply has to do 2 calls to the RNG and a simple comparison to the targets values to determine the results. Under the system where you are simply adjusting damage to simulate the results.... you have to do a search of a matrix/table that contains every possible target type against every possible weapon type to determine what the damage modifier should be in that case....and that search gets bigger/longer the more weapons and targets you add into the system. Now computers are pretty good at performing operations...but it's not like the cost of operations has zero impact....especialy in more twitch based play.
P.S. I don't no specificaly about CS...but I kinda doubt most older games had no random variance for bullets... I know for a fact WWII-Online has it...and that's a 10+ year old game. Any game that even attempts a semi-physics engine is going to have some mechanism for that (or that simulates that). Most (good ones) ALSO have recoil factors.... but they typicaly either do offset or something like percentage miss when on target, along with bullet drop and other factors.... otherwise you run into situations where something like a .22 pistol or even a 9MM pistol (very little recoil) is as accurate over distance as a 7MM sniper rifle.....something that most players just wouldn't accept.
Note also that a degree of varience, again doesn't imply there is no skill involved in the results. In fact, introducing varience can be a mechanism for INCREASING the skill required in a game....as it forces players to adapt thier play to the results rather then having something things be completely deterministic. It all depends upon the degree and manner of the introduction of varience. A simple coin toss determining the winner....yeah no skill allowed for in that..... die rolls in a game like ASL or World in Flames....or the computer game Combat Mission: Beyond Normandy....try to tell me there is no skill involved in those games.
I see what you mean, but such variance is not always desirable, and I am firmly against that variance would increase the skill required in the game. Like the LoL example, it is an obnoxious feature that of all things, luck can determine whether you engage or not, whether you press or not. For example in the example I gave you: if you get that coin flip right, you should continue pressing on since essentially you start the following engagement with a significant HP advantage.
At that point, all maneuvering and tactics becomes void, because you have to press on with that advantage no matter what. Variance lessens the impact of player skill on the outcome. Such lucky shots are a way of giving even the unskilled the occasional taste of victory, but they are always shunned by competitive players. Adaptation is skill, but adapting to to-hit rolls is hardly one that said players like to adapt.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
And yet, games like poker or back-gammon are played professionaly, by highly competitive individuals, despite the random element. So it's erroneous to claim all competitive players hate random effects. (Unless there's an unspoken narrowing-down of the field that I missed, but even then I'd be somewhat skeptical.)
(Also, I wouldn't enjoy playing a chess match where we had to throw a round of darts after X turns to see who wins whatever situation either.)
Some poker pro (I can't remember which) said that the most common mistake a rookie can make in poker is to play his/her cards. It is mostly about playing and reading your opponent.
You can go and play 6 tables* simultaneously on the internet purely by playing your cards and numbers (I've done it), but only because most other players don't know shit about cards, numbers - or poker for that matter. They may get a lucky break, but I win in the long run. And if someone with half-a-brain can spot what I'm doing, he can trap and clean me in that table. Luckily those are fairly rare.
*(A friend of mine played with a whopping 16 on two screens.)
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
MMORPG's would probably become chaotic if 100 people were fighing real time. I don't know how many servers could handle that. Also it could drasticly change the way a mmorpg feels and play.
They don't need real time combat. You simply would like them to have it.
THe same could be said about any idea proposed here or any guy that say that some some feature mmorps usually have.
No. There is a difference between saying, "I need" and "I would like to have".
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own. -- Herman Melville
Originally posted by Zekiah I'd love to see more combat like in Darkfall, the archery alone is phenomenal.
We all would.. but that would mean straying from making WoW clones so that they can fail within 3 months of launch! Why do publishers keep trying...
So many say its impossible, but if a 20 man team in Greece could do it...
Darkfall .. really? How many subs does it have?
Enough to keep it running, and put money in the coffers to fund a sequel on top of that.
Many themepark F2P MMOs are adding new content too ... so what?
First off, go back to that other thread and apologize for lying when you said you didn't care about the existence of games you don't like. Because your comments here prove that yes, you were lying when you said that.
Second, the "so what" is that Darkfall's survival and profitability despite it's niche nature and low population is clear evidence that the model is viable from a business standpoint. Which is the point that was under debate.
You can certainly create a scenario where the 2 are equivalent (e.g. a creature that does 1 hit per attack...will kill both under the origional example you gave on average in 5 shots).... the thing I'm trying to impress on you is that once you run it accross a variety of scenario's....the equivalency no longer holds up. I'm going to assume that decent MMO (or similar game system) is going to present the user with a variety of scenario's to deal with in combat.
Time is MOST certainly a factor in most combat situations (in games and otherwise)....as the target isn't likely to just sit there passively for an infinite length of time and take attacks. The "has one shot" example is certainly a valid combat scenario....and I picked it specificaly to illustrate the difference between the 2 examples you gave me.
Lets assume we're in a combat situation where the enemy has one shot at you before you can neutralize it.....
If the enemy is doing 20 points damage...then you have a 100 percent certainity of being knocked out if you have 10 hit points and no chance to avoid the damage. If you have only a 5 hit points but a 50 percent chance to avoid the damage, then you have a 50 percent chance of surviving the encounter, obviously a better situation.
If the enemy is doing only 6 points damage....then you have a 0 percent chance of being knocked out if you have 10 hit points, you'll take some damage but you'll survive. If you have only 5 hit points but a 50 percent chance to avoid the damage, there is a 50 percent chance you'll be hit and knocked out, clearly worse then the guy who knows he's going to be able to take the hit.
The armor penetration thing I described above with the infantryman and the AFV is another scenario which illustrates the difference. I can describe alot of different combat situations/scenerario's where there is a big difference between the 2 hypothetical characters you posted....even though there are other situations where they are equivalent. The simple fact that they are equivalent under certain circumstances doesn't mean they are equivalent accross the board.
Note... there are, of course other mechanisms you can utilize to achieve similar effects. For example in our Infantryman & AFV situation....you COULD apply damage bonuses & penatlies for the weapon depending upon the target to achieve roughly the same probablities of effect.... and if you were sure that those were going to be the ONLY TWO types of targets you would ever introduce in your game, and the only other factors involved...that might work ok....but it leaves far less room for efficiency and growth.
For example under our system where To Hit and Damage are seperate factors. The system simply has to do 2 calls to the RNG and a simple comparison to the targets values to determine the results. Under the system where you are simply adjusting damage to simulate the results.... you have to do a search of a matrix/table that contains every possible target type against every possible weapon type to determine what the damage modifier should be in that case....and that search gets bigger/longer the more weapons and targets you add into the system. Now computers are pretty good at performing operations...but it's not like the cost of operations has zero impact....especialy in more twitch based play.
P.S. I don't no specificaly about CS...but I kinda doubt most older games had no random variance for bullets... I know for a fact WWII-Online has it...and that's a 10+ year old game. Any game that even attempts a semi-physics engine is going to have some mechanism for that (or that simulates that). Most (good ones) ALSO have recoil factors.... but they typicaly either do offset or something like percentage miss when on target, along with bullet drop and other factors.... otherwise you run into situations where something like a .22 pistol or even a 9MM pistol (very little recoil) is as accurate over distance as a 7MM sniper rifle.....something that most players just wouldn't accept.
Note also that a degree of varience, again doesn't imply there is no skill involved in the results. In fact, introducing varience can be a mechanism for INCREASING the skill required in a game....as it forces players to adapt thier play to the results rather then having something things be completely deterministic. It all depends upon the degree and manner of the introduction of varience. A simple coin toss determining the winner....yeah no skill allowed for in that..... die rolls in a game like ASL or World in Flames....or the computer game Combat Mission: Beyond Normandy....try to tell me there is no skill involved in those games.
I see what you mean, but such variance is not always desirable, and I am firmly against that variance would increase the skill required in the game. Like the LoL example, it is an obnoxious feature that of all things, luck can determine whether you engage or not, whether you press or not. For example in the example I gave you: if you get that coin flip right, you should continue pressing on since essentially you start the following engagement with a significant HP advantage.
At that point, all maneuvering and tactics becomes void, because you have to press on with that advantage no matter what. Variance lessens the impact of player skill on the outcome. Such lucky shots are a way of giving even the unskilled the occasional taste of victory, but they are always shunned by competitive players. Adaptation is skill, but adapting to to-hit rolls is hardly one that said players like to adapt.
Variance is not "always" desirable and does not "always" increase the skill required in a game....but neither, I contend, is it "always" undesirable in games, nor does it "always" decrease the level of skill required in a game, sometimes it shifts the type of skills required (adaptabillity) and de-emphasizes one type of skill while introducing new ones. It's natural that players who have specialized in one particular type of skill set can some times get frustrated when game conditions shift so that particular skill set isn't as important any more....but that doesn't mean the game required any less skill then it did without the varience and often it required more.
For example, if we look at the older days of US football, where teams used to play primarly outdoors and usualy on natural grass stadiums. Teams that practiced only playing in perfect conditions might develop highly skilled play under those conditions but when they tried to play in a stadium where conditions were difficult (say Green Bay in the snow), they would often get thrown completely off thier game....while teams that practiced playing in varrying conditions (e.g. Green Bay Packers) took advantage of that and were often able to defeat the other team. The weather was a variable.... you didn't KNOW just because you were playing in Green Bay that it would be snowing...it could be a beautifull sunny day. Nor was the fact that it was snowing make the game any less skillfull.... it just emphasized a different set of skills (e.g. being able to hold onto the ball and being able to keep your footing) to a different degree then were normaly present. Teams that were able to adapt thier style of play to the different conditions....and maintain multiple skill sets...therefore did better....nothing less skillfull about thier play because of that.
Originally posted by Zekiah I'd love to see more combat like in Darkfall, the archery alone is phenomenal.
We all would.. but that would mean straying from making WoW clones so that they can fail within 3 months of launch! Why do publishers keep trying...
So many say its impossible, but if a 20 man team in Greece could do it...
Darkfall .. really? How many subs does it have?
Enough to keep it running, and put money in the coffers to fund a sequel on top of that.
Many themepark F2P MMOs are adding new content too ... so what?
First off, go back to that other thread and apologize for lying when you said you didn't care about the existence of games you don't like. Because your comments here prove that yes, you were lying when you said that.
Second, the "so what" is that Darkfall's survival and profitability despite it's niche nature and low population is clear evidence that the model is viable from a business standpoint. Which is the point that was under debate.
uh? you think i care about Darkfall? that is absurb .. however, why shouldn't i be talking about it, wehther i care or not?
So it survives .. but so do many other themepark games. The discussion is about the market .. not a single game. A single game surviving on a shoe string budget is not indication that there is a mass market out there.
Last thing I want to play is a "twitch" game, need to be a 15 year old on meth to play those things
Not really; in my experience all you need is observation based learning.
My experience differs. Saker is definately guilty of drastic hyperbole, but even still: all the 'observation based learning' won't do squat if you've got a tremor on the mouse.
10+ years of trying various shooters, and I still struggle with bots. 'Spray and pray' is literally the only way I can hit a moving target, and only the incompetent aren't moving long enough for me to take a shot. After a while, it stops being a fun challenge and shifts into non-fun frustration.
Though, oddly, I do fine in bullet-hell type scrollers or flight sims.
I'm sitting here playing Batman Arkham City and thinking to myself, "Why can't MMOs be like this?" That game has so much depth in it's combat and gameplay, and it's still very simple to play. I know the MMO industry only plays follow the leader, but it's time for a new leader. The genre is beyond boring now, and something like this would bring it back to life.
Just throw away the turn-based, stand there trading hits until someone dies game design and implement a real game. Dodging/parrying attacks, aiming your gun/bow/sword/axe/spell/whatever should be done by the player, not a RNG. PvP would not just be who has the better gear, which really all PvP in modern games has come to.
I know this won't ever happen because no one has already created a popular MMO like this for other MMO designers to copy, but I can dream.
There's plenty of room and have been many calls for there to be an Action MMO. Whether or not there's the actual numbers to support such a game...well...the few games that have tried suffered other issues as well, so it's hard to tell.
The thing is, many of us like to play MMORPGs...and...what you describe has no place in them.
Sounds great for those looking for an Action MMO...there would have to be multiple games to cover the other things those looking for an Action MMO would disagree over - so again it comes back to the market being there for it.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Originally posted by Zekiah I'd love to see more combat like in Darkfall, the archery alone is phenomenal.
We all would.. but that would mean straying from making WoW clones so that they can fail within 3 months of launch! Why do publishers keep trying...
So many say its impossible, but if a 20 man team in Greece could do it...
Darkfall .. really? How many subs does it have?
Enough to keep it running, and put money in the coffers to fund a sequel on top of that.
Many themepark F2P MMOs are adding new content too ... so what?
First off, go back to that other thread and apologize for lying when you said you didn't care about the existence of games you don't like. Because your comments here prove that yes, you were lying when you said that.
Second, the "so what" is that Darkfall's survival and profitability despite it's niche nature and low population is clear evidence that the model is viable from a business standpoint. Which is the point that was under debate.
uh? you think i care about Darkfall? that is absurb .. however, why shouldn't i be talking about it, wehther i care or not?
Talking about things you don't care about makes as much logical sense as playing games you don't find fun, or hanging out with people you find dull.
There's nothing stopping you from doing so, but... why would you? Unless you're lying about not caring, or just flat-out trolling.
So it survives .. but so do many other themepark games.
Whether other themeparks survive or not is beside the point. The question was whether or not a sandbox can be profitable. Darkfall proves that it can be.
The discussion is about the market .. not a single game. A single game surviving on a shoe string budget is not indication that there is a mass market out there.
Who said 'mass market'? Stop putting words in people's mouths.
Neocron did this right, ten years ago. The very very first real time combat MMO, and it was implemented exceptionally well.
Oh, and it just went free to play.
Look just because there was a game where someone could fly you in a transport vehicle onto a plateau and let you use your sniper rifle which required actual aiming from a superior vantage point to secure an open world pvp capture point that was fortfitable. And being able to fly someone up there was significant point investment that would impact other aspects such that is was essentially your characters profession.
And that game had first person view, a separate hacker world, and was released as part of the first generation of MMOs in 2002 ove a decade.
All that does not mean that these other games are bunch weak, scared, wusses who won't innovate worth a crap. Of course Neocron was buggy and poorly balanced but that is what you expect from a small german company without much funding.
Of course most of the people who cry about various sorts of innovation don't reward the people who really do it anyway. And are not prepared for the trade off in quality that invariably happens. Instead they demand both, which is incredibly rare and then cry about not getting one.
uh? you think i care about Darkfall? that is absurb .. however, why shouldn't i be talking about it, wehther i care or not?
Talking about things you don't care about makes as much logical sense as playing games you don't find fun, or hanging out with people you find dull.
There's nothing stopping you from doing so, but... why would you? Unless you're lying about not caring, or just flat-out trolling.
Not really. It is amusing to discuss failed, or niche games. I don't have to care about whether it exists or not, to discuss issues around it, right? The point is that the discussion is fun, not the game.
And of course i won't stop.
So it survives .. but so do many other themepark games.
Whether other themeparks survive or not is beside the point. The question was whether or not a sandbox can be profitable. Darkfall proves that it can be.
The discussion is about the market .. not a single game. A single game surviving on a shoe string budget is not indication that there is a mass market out there.
Who said 'mass market'? Stop putting words in people's mouths.
Comments
@Quirhid....
You can certainly create a scenario where the 2 are equivalent (e.g. a creature that does 1 hit per attack...will kill both under the origional example you gave on average in 5 shots).... the thing I'm trying to impress on you is that once you run it accross a variety of scenario's....the equivalency no longer holds up. I'm going to assume that decent MMO (or similar game system) is going to present the user with a variety of scenario's to deal with in combat.
Time is MOST certainly a factor in most combat situations (in games and otherwise)....as the target isn't likely to just sit there passively for an infinite length of time and take attacks. The "has one shot" example is certainly a valid combat scenario....and I picked it specificaly to illustrate the difference between the 2 examples you gave me.
Lets assume we're in a combat situation where the enemy has one shot at you before you can neutralize it.....
If the enemy is doing 20 points damage...then you have a 100 percent certainity of being knocked out if you have 10 hit points and no chance to avoid the damage. If you have only a 5 hit points but a 50 percent chance to avoid the damage, then you have a 50 percent chance of surviving the encounter, obviously a better situation.
If the enemy is doing only 6 points damage....then you have a 0 percent chance of being knocked out if you have 10 hit points, you'll take some damage but you'll survive. If you have only 5 hit points but a 50 percent chance to avoid the damage, there is a 50 percent chance you'll be hit and knocked out, clearly worse then the guy who knows he's going to be able to take the hit.
The armor penetration thing I described above with the infantryman and the AFV is another scenario which illustrates the difference. I can describe alot of different combat situations/scenerario's where there is a big difference between the 2 hypothetical characters you posted....even though there are other situations where they are equivalent. The simple fact that they are equivalent under certain circumstances doesn't mean they are equivalent accross the board.
Note... there are, of course other mechanisms you can utilize to achieve similar effects. For example in our Infantryman & AFV situation....you COULD apply damage bonuses & penatlies for the weapon depending upon the target to achieve roughly the same probablities of effect.... and if you were sure that those were going to be the ONLY TWO types of targets you would ever introduce in your game, and the only other factors involved...that might work ok....but it leaves far less room for efficiency and growth.
For example under our system where To Hit and Damage are seperate factors. The system simply has to do 2 calls to the RNG and a simple comparison to the targets values to determine the results. Under the system where you are simply adjusting damage to simulate the results.... you have to do a search of a matrix/table that contains every possible target type against every possible weapon type to determine what the damage modifier should be in that case....and that search gets bigger/longer the more weapons and targets you add into the system. Now computers are pretty good at performing operations...but it's not like the cost of operations has zero impact....especialy in more twitch based play.
P.S. I don't no specificaly about CS...but I kinda doubt most older games had no random variance for bullets... I know for a fact WWII-Online has it...and that's a 10+ year old game. Any game that even attempts a semi-physics engine is going to have some mechanism for that (or that simulates that). Most (good ones) ALSO have recoil factors.... but they typicaly either do offset or something like percentage miss when on target, along with bullet drop and other factors.... otherwise you run into situations where something like a .22 pistol or even a 9MM pistol (very little recoil) is as accurate over distance as a 7MM sniper rifle.....something that most players just wouldn't accept.
Note also that a degree of varience, again doesn't imply there is no skill involved in the results. In fact, introducing varience can be a mechanism for INCREASING the skill required in a game....as it forces players to adapt thier play to the results rather then having something things be completely deterministic. It all depends upon the degree and manner of the introduction of varience. A simple coin toss determining the winner....yeah no skill allowed for in that..... die rolls in a game like ASL or World in Flames....or the computer game Combat Mission: Beyond Normandy....try to tell me there is no skill involved in those games.
Arkham City isn't an RPG. RPGs have always been about character progression and obtaining new items.
If you want to create a game doesn't emphasize gear over player skill, you're better off just looking for an arena-based PvP game or perhaps an FPS. Skill-based gameplay works in those genres, but it won't work for an MMORPG -- at least not one that hopes to achieve any sort of longevity.
We all would.. but that would mean straying from making WoW clones so that they can fail within 3 months of launch! Why do publishers keep trying...
So many say its impossible, but if a 20 man team in Greece could do it...
And yet, games like poker or back-gammon are played professionaly, by highly competitive individuals, despite the random element. So it's erroneous to claim all competitive players hate random effects. (Unless there's an unspoken narrowing-down of the field that I missed, but even then I'd be somewhat skeptical.)
(Also, I wouldn't enjoy playing a chess match where we had to throw a round of darts after X turns to see who wins whatever situation either.)
Enough to keep it running, and put money in the coffers to fund a sequel on top of that.
Enough to have allowed the devs to hire 30 new people, move into a bigger office, expand the game into two new continents, open a second server, and fund a full remake of the game.
Just felt like I needed to respond to this.
Every so often, a thread comes up like any MMOs on mobile/PC? or moar real-time combat! ...and part of me dies inside.
One of Vendetta Online's core design principles is "no dice rolling"... it's all physics-based. The only randomness comes from human reactions and internet latency (which usually isn't bad at all). They have been doing this since 2002.
VO also has the honor of being the first PC MMO to be ported to mobile. One universe, one galaxy; PC users playing alongside Mac/Linux users playing alongside people on their mobile phones. It is a game that is way ahead of its time.
It is real, though. I know players who have been playing for longer than me; the game itself has been running since April 2002. I've met people who have spent over four solid months logged in, players who have earned hundreds of millions of credits, players who have accrued thousands of PKs, and players who have manufactured capital vessels appraised at 8000 USD opportunity cost. I say this as one having been born in Tokyo, owning the original famicom NES, growing up in arcades, and later playing original classics such as Lucasart's X-Wing, Ambrosia's Escape Velocity, Sid Meier's Civilization, and Master of Orion 1 and 2; Ride This Wave.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
Last thing I want to play is a "twitch" game, need to be a 15 year old on meth to play those things, I don't need or want that.
Not really; in my experience all you need is observation based learning. If you can learn how to catch a ball, then you can learn how to play Vendetta. Knowing how a battle flows is more important than having lightning fast reactions. As stated in the post linked to below, you could have the fastest reaction times in the world but if you don't understand some fundamentals you aren't going to win fights. I started Vendetta when I was 22, now I am 31 and I am a far better pilot than I was back then. This is partially because my reactions have toned-down somewhat; I am more cool-handed today.
Knowing how to control my reactions was a big part of my growth in combat. Sorry you think youth and drugs will help you with twitch games; they won't, but a little understanding will.
(edit: I was 22, not 23 when I first started VO...)
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
I see what you mean, but such variance is not always desirable, and I am firmly against that variance would increase the skill required in the game. Like the LoL example, it is an obnoxious feature that of all things, luck can determine whether you engage or not, whether you press or not. For example in the example I gave you: if you get that coin flip right, you should continue pressing on since essentially you start the following engagement with a significant HP advantage.
At that point, all maneuvering and tactics becomes void, because you have to press on with that advantage no matter what. Variance lessens the impact of player skill on the outcome. Such lucky shots are a way of giving even the unskilled the occasional taste of victory, but they are always shunned by competitive players. Adaptation is skill, but adapting to to-hit rolls is hardly one that said players like to adapt.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Some poker pro (I can't remember which) said that the most common mistake a rookie can make in poker is to play his/her cards. It is mostly about playing and reading your opponent.
You can go and play 6 tables* simultaneously on the internet purely by playing your cards and numbers (I've done it), but only because most other players don't know shit about cards, numbers - or poker for that matter. They may get a lucky break, but I win in the long run. And if someone with half-a-brain can spot what I'm doing, he can trap and clean me in that table. Luckily those are fairly rare.
*(A friend of mine played with a whopping 16 on two screens.)
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Many themepark F2P MMOs are adding new content too ... so what?
THe same could be said about any idea proposed here or any guy that say that some some feature mmorps usually have.
No. There is a difference between saying, "I need" and "I would like to have".
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own.
-- Herman Melville
Care to explain? Im pretty sure we don't need video games. But We "like to have" them.
First off, go back to that other thread and apologize for lying when you said you didn't care about the existence of games you don't like. Because your comments here prove that yes, you were lying when you said that.
Second, the "so what" is that Darkfall's survival and profitability despite it's niche nature and low population is clear evidence that the model is viable from a business standpoint. Which is the point that was under debate.
Variance is not "always" desirable and does not "always" increase the skill required in a game....but neither, I contend, is it "always" undesirable in games, nor does it "always" decrease the level of skill required in a game, sometimes it shifts the type of skills required (adaptabillity) and de-emphasizes one type of skill while introducing new ones. It's natural that players who have specialized in one particular type of skill set can some times get frustrated when game conditions shift so that particular skill set isn't as important any more....but that doesn't mean the game required any less skill then it did without the varience and often it required more.
For example, if we look at the older days of US football, where teams used to play primarly outdoors and usualy on natural grass stadiums. Teams that practiced only playing in perfect conditions might develop highly skilled play under those conditions but when they tried to play in a stadium where conditions were difficult (say Green Bay in the snow), they would often get thrown completely off thier game....while teams that practiced playing in varrying conditions (e.g. Green Bay Packers) took advantage of that and were often able to defeat the other team. The weather was a variable.... you didn't KNOW just because you were playing in Green Bay that it would be snowing...it could be a beautifull sunny day. Nor was the fact that it was snowing make the game any less skillfull.... it just emphasized a different set of skills (e.g. being able to hold onto the ball and being able to keep your footing) to a different degree then were normaly present. Teams that were able to adapt thier style of play to the different conditions....and maintain multiple skill sets...therefore did better....nothing less skillfull about thier play because of that.
uh? you think i care about Darkfall? that is absurb .. however, why shouldn't i be talking about it, wehther i care or not?
So it survives .. but so do many other themepark games. The discussion is about the market .. not a single game. A single game surviving on a shoe string budget is not indication that there is a mass market out there.
Now 10 games surviving, that is another story.
My experience differs. Saker is definately guilty of drastic hyperbole, but even still: all the 'observation based learning' won't do squat if you've got a tremor on the mouse.
10+ years of trying various shooters, and I still struggle with bots. 'Spray and pray' is literally the only way I can hit a moving target, and only the incompetent aren't moving long enough for me to take a shot. After a while, it stops being a fun challenge and shifts into non-fun frustration.
Though, oddly, I do fine in bullet-hell type scrollers or flight sims.
Neocron did this right, ten years ago. The very very first real time combat MMO, and it was implemented exceptionally well.
Oh, and it just went free to play.
There's plenty of room and have been many calls for there to be an Action MMO. Whether or not there's the actual numbers to support such a game...well...the few games that have tried suffered other issues as well, so it's hard to tell.
The thing is, many of us like to play MMORPGs...and...what you describe has no place in them.
Sounds great for those looking for an Action MMO...there would have to be multiple games to cover the other things those looking for an Action MMO would disagree over - so again it comes back to the market being there for it.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
Talking about things you don't care about makes as much logical sense as playing games you don't find fun, or hanging out with people you find dull.
There's nothing stopping you from doing so, but... why would you? Unless you're lying about not caring, or just flat-out trolling.
Whether other themeparks survive or not is beside the point. The question was whether or not a sandbox can be profitable. Darkfall proves that it can be.
Who said 'mass market'? Stop putting words in people's mouths.
<shrug>
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/349518/page/1
I count 22 still going, and though I'll admit some of them are of dubious long term survivability this doesn't touch on ones coming up.
Look just because there was a game where someone could fly you in a transport vehicle onto a plateau and let you use your sniper rifle which required actual aiming from a superior vantage point to secure an open world pvp capture point that was fortfitable. And being able to fly someone up there was significant point investment that would impact other aspects such that is was essentially your characters profession.
And that game had first person view, a separate hacker world, and was released as part of the first generation of MMOs in 2002 ove a decade.
All that does not mean that these other games are bunch weak, scared, wusses who won't innovate worth a crap. Of course Neocron was buggy and poorly balanced but that is what you expect from a small german company without much funding.
Of course most of the people who cry about various sorts of innovation don't reward the people who really do it anyway. And are not prepared for the trade off in quality that invariably happens. Instead they demand both, which is incredibly rare and then cry about not getting one.
Have you count themepark games a a point of comparison?