Originally posted by VengeSunsoar When I have said time is not the most important. You have repeatedly said no.
In truth what you said is that time doesn't matter. I've said it does matter.
Again, show me where I said that time is the most important factor. And by the way, I'm sure you'll take me saying this as an opportunity to slip away from answering the previous question but I'm gonna say it anyway, time probably is the most important factor because nothing else matters without time. You will literally learn ZERO without time.
Is the following bit of math a true statement?
3x + t < 4x + t
If you think so then take the next step with the math to prove it.
3x + t - t < 4x + t - t
3x < 4x
3x/x < 4x/x
3 < 4
Remove the factor that is going to be the same on both sides of the equation to see what really matters. "t" is time by the way. Let "x" be the cognitive reaction time for humans.
This equation, just like Venge's examples, isn't measuring time. You're assuming the same level of time for each person, but differing levels of cognitive reaction time. How about this?
x + 3t < x +4t
Now all of a sudden it looks like time is "what really matters."
Yes, in general more time equals better skill relative to a single person, but when comparing more than one person, the level of effort, desire to learn and built in priming to learn whatever is being learned take precedence. It is just far more likely that the amount of time spent will be comparable or negligible than it will be that two people have the same desire to play, learn the game and will have the same amount of priming to learn a game's mechanics.
None of the above matters though. We're not talking about rocket science here, or even driving a car at a moderately fast speed. There are stories, on the internet, of eight year olds playing MMORPGs as far back as UO. These games aren't that hard and they never have been. The biggest barrier to advancement and success has been the amount of time a person is willing to put into the games, doing the same thing over and over again to get bigger numbers. It's not about skill or cognitive abilities and it never has been. A sixth grade education is enough to excel at all of them, except maybe TSW, but then you'd only need like an 8th grade education. It's about a willingness to ignore everything else because it takes so much time to complete the arbitrary tasks, convincing yourself after awhile that you couldn't possibly sink all this effort into something that wasn't worthwhile, so this must be an awesome thing you are doing. Much like posting on these forums.
To be honest I'm not sure how any of this contradicts what I said. It doesn't matter if things like level of effort take precedence because we don't know how much effort each person is putting into the game. That's why I've said so many times that holding all things constant, games made for hardcore gamers will tend to be harder than games made for casual players. If we somehow knew how much effort each person was putting into learning the game, we could come to a different conclusion about casual games vs hardcore games.
Not only that, just because MMORPGs in general don't take much skill, doesn't make my statement any less true. Some MMORPGs take more skill than others, and they tend to be the hardcore ones. The more casual MMORPGs will tend to be the easier ones.
I believe MMORPGs required the skill of social interaction at least to advance. As you pointed out they are not that hard, but require a lot of time. They require even more time if there are things like needing a certain class to complete a certain area. Having to wait for and compete over a mob that takes a long time to spawn, or something as simple as asking people for help to get buffs/ports to another place/help recovering a corpse. To me if you are willing to spend the time it takes to learn the game mechanics, create things that purely your own and not the developers intentions, and in general expend a lot of effort in game that is something difficult in a sense. It means you have to give up a lot to get something or you have to do things over a longer period of time with a lot less reward. To me the question is not weather or not the game is hard or easy, but weather people are actually willing to put the effort/time in required to make the game a worthwhile experience. To me the answer to that question is no because most people don't want to interact short of grouping up to kill some mobs in an instance. Most don't care about the RPG or the setting. They have little attachment to it. They have little attachment to the game in general. IMO their time would be better spent doing something else then spending only a few hours on an MMO once in a while like the ones today. You don't really get anything out of the experience. It seems difficult to place a difficulty level on something like a MMO. Lets just say it required more patience, tolerance of others, and a love for the setting your are playing in.
Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by lizardbones Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by VengeSunsoar When I have said time is not the most important. You have repeatedly said no.
In truth what you said is that time doesn't matter. I've said it does matter.
Again, show me where I said that time is the most important factor. And by the way, I'm sure you'll take me saying this as an opportunity to slip away from answering the previous question but I'm gonna say it anyway, time probably is the most important factor because nothing else matters without time. You will literally learn ZERO without time.
Is the following bit of math a true statement?
3x + t < 4x + t
If you think so then take the next step with the math to prove it.
3x + t - t < 4x + t - t
3x < 4x
3x/x < 4x/x
3 < 4
Remove the factor that is going to be the same on both sides of the equation to see what really matters. "t" is time by the way. Let "x" be the cognitive reaction time for humans.
This equation, just like Venge's examples, isn't measuring time. You're assuming the same level of time for each person, but differing levels of cognitive reaction time. How about this?
x + 3t < x +4t
Now all of a sudden it looks like time is "what really matters."
Yes, in general more time equals better skill relative to a single person, but when comparing more than one person, the level of effort, desire to learn and built in priming to learn whatever is being learned take precedence. It is just far more likely that the amount of time spent will be comparable or negligible than it will be that two people have the same desire to play, learn the game and will have the same amount of priming to learn a game's mechanics.
None of the above matters though. We're not talking about rocket science here, or even driving a car at a moderately fast speed. There are stories, on the internet, of eight year olds playing MMORPGs as far back as UO. These games aren't that hard and they never have been. The biggest barrier to advancement and success has been the amount of time a person is willing to put into the games, doing the same thing over and over again to get bigger numbers. It's not about skill or cognitive abilities and it never has been. A sixth grade education is enough to excel at all of them, except maybe TSW, but then you'd only need like an 8th grade education. It's about a willingness to ignore everything else because it takes so much time to complete the arbitrary tasks, convincing yourself after awhile that you couldn't possibly sink all this effort into something that wasn't worthwhile, so this must be an awesome thing you are doing. Much like posting on these forums.
To be honest I'm not sure how any of this contradicts what I said. It doesn't matter if things like level of effort take precedence because we don't know how much effort each person is putting into the game. That's why I've said so many times that holding all things constant, games made for hardcore gamers will tend to be harder than games made for casual players. If we somehow knew how much effort each person was putting into learning the game, we could come to a different conclusion about casual games vs hardcore games.
Not only that, just because MMORPGs in general don't take much skill, doesn't make my statement any less true. Some MMORPGs take more skill than others, and they tend to be the hardcore ones. The more casual MMORPGs will tend to be the easier ones.
I believe MMORPGs required the skill of social interaction at least to advance. As you pointed out they are not that hard, but require a lot of time. They require even more time if there are things like needing a certain class to complete a certain area. Having to wait for and compete over a mob that takes a long time to spawn, or something as simple as asking people for help to get buffs/ports to another place/help recovering a corpse. To me if you are willing to spend the time it takes to learn the game mechanics, create things that purely your own and not the developers intentions, and in general expend a lot of effort in game that is something difficult in a sense. It means you have to give up a lot to get something or you have to do things over a longer period of time with a lot less reward. To me the question is not weather or not the game is hard or easy, but weather people are actually willing to put the effort/time in required to make the game a worthwhile experience. To me the answer to that question is no because most people don't want to interact short of grouping up to kill some mobs in an instance. Most don't care about the RPG or the setting. They have little attachment to it. They have little attachment to the game in general. IMO their time would be better spent doing something else then spending only a few hours on an MMO once in a while like the ones today. You don't really get anything out of the experience. It seems difficult to place a difficulty level on something like a MMO. Lets just say it required more patience, tolerance of others, and a love for the setting your are playing in.
I agree with the overall sentiment regarding the social aspect in MMOs. Why would you make MMOs less social and more of a single player or co-op experience? What's the point of being in the same world as everybody else if there is such little/limited interaction?
I believe MMORPGs required the skill of social interaction at least to advance. As you pointed out they are not that hard, but require a lot of time. They require even more time if there are things like needing a certain class to complete a certain area. Having to wait for and compete over a mob that takes a long time to spawn, or something as simple as asking people for help to get buffs/ports to another place/help recovering a corpse. To me if you are willing to spend the time it takes to learn the game mechanics, create things that purely your own and not the developers intentions, and in general expend a lot of effort in game that is something difficult in a sense. It means you have to give up a lot to get something or you have to do things over a longer period of time with a lot less reward. To me the question is not weather or not the game is hard or easy, but weather people are actually willing to put the effort/time in required to make the game a worthwhile experience. To me the answer to that question is no because most people don't want to interact short of grouping up to kill some mobs in an instance. Most don't care about the RPG or the setting. They have little attachment to it. They have little attachment to the game in general. IMO their time would be better spent doing something else then spending only a few hours on an MMO once in a while like the ones today. You don't really get anything out of the experience. It seems difficult to place a difficulty level on something like a MMO. Lets just say it required more patience, tolerance of others, and a love for the setting your are playing in.
I agree with the overall sentiment regarding the social aspect in MMOs. Why would you make MMOs less social and more of a single player or co-op experience? What's the point of being in the same world as everybody else if there is such little/limited interaction?
Small scale stuff demands more skill from any one member. Your mistake in a group of 5 is likely to be much more severe than your mistake in a group of 10, 20 or 30. I'd imagine that is also the appeal of large scale content for some people. They can feel they've achieved something or contributed to something even if that something is not much. And if you happen to make a mistake, it won't be "all your fault" if things go bad.
In a large zerg, you can just hang around and soak the atmosphere. Some of us want more though. We want to have an impact on the outcome. And tactical group-sizes serves us best in this. It all depends on whether you want to be a faceless soldier in a mass rather than somebody who takes his fate on his own hands.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by Flyte27 Originally posted by Holophonist
I believe MMORPGs required the skill of social interaction at least to advance. As you pointed out they are not that hard, but require a lot of time. They require even more time if there are things like needing a certain class to complete a certain area. Having to wait for and compete over a mob that takes a long time to spawn, or something as simple as asking people for help to get buffs/ports to another place/help recovering a corpse. To me if you are willing to spend the time it takes to learn the game mechanics, create things that purely your own and not the developers intentions, and in general expend a lot of effort in game that is something difficult in a sense. It means you have to give up a lot to get something or you have to do things over a longer period of time with a lot less reward. To me the question is not weather or not the game is hard or easy, but weather people are actually willing to put the effort/time in required to make the game a worthwhile experience. To me the answer to that question is no because most people don't want to interact short of grouping up to kill some mobs in an instance. Most don't care about the RPG or the setting. They have little attachment to it. They have little attachment to the game in general. IMO their time would be better spent doing something else then spending only a few hours on an MMO once in a while like the ones today. You don't really get anything out of the experience. It seems difficult to place a difficulty level on something like a MMO. Lets just say it required more patience, tolerance of others, and a love for the setting your are playing in.
I agree with the overall sentiment regarding the social aspect in MMOs. Why would you make MMOs less social and more of a single player or co-op experience? What's the point of being in the same world as everybody else if there is such little/limited interaction?
Small scale stuff demands more skill from any one member. Your mistake in a group of 5 is likely to be much more severe than your mistake in a group of 10, 20 or 30. I'd imagine that is also the appeal of large scale content for some people. They can feel they've achieved something or contributed to something even if that something is not much. And if you happen to make a mistake, it won't be "all your fault" if things go bad.
In a large zerg, you can just hang around and soak the atmosphere. Some of us want more though. We want to have an impact on the outcome. And tactical group-sizes serves us best in this. It all depends on whether you want to be a faceless soldier in a mass rather than somebody who takes his fate on his own hands.
When I talk about the social aspect, I'm definitely not talking about zerging. I'm talking about interacting with other players. That can be a small scale thing. In fact the least social mmos seem to be the largest, though I haven't thought about that too much.
what I'm talking about is removing the social aspect with things like LFG, auction houses, instance queuing, etc. For instance, darkfall unholy wars has a good deal of zerging, but it's still a social game. In order to get a large number of players in one place so that you CAN zerg means you have to find somebody to port you to that town, or you have to hoof it over there on foot, which often means grouping up with people in case you get jumped, etc.
I believe MMORPGs required the skill of social interaction at least to advance. As you pointed out they are not that hard, but require a lot of time. They require even more time if there are things like needing a certain class to complete a certain area. Having to wait for and compete over a mob that takes a long time to spawn, or something as simple as asking people for help to get buffs/ports to another place/help recovering a corpse. To me if you are willing to spend the time it takes to learn the game mechanics, create things that purely your own and not the developers intentions, and in general expend a lot of effort in game that is something difficult in a sense. It means you have to give up a lot to get something or you have to do things over a longer period of time with a lot less reward. To me the question is not weather or not the game is hard or easy, but weather people are actually willing to put the effort/time in required to make the game a worthwhile experience. To me the answer to that question is no because most people don't want to interact short of grouping up to kill some mobs in an instance. Most don't care about the RPG or the setting. They have little attachment to it. They have little attachment to the game in general. IMO their time would be better spent doing something else then spending only a few hours on an MMO once in a while like the ones today. You don't really get anything out of the experience. It seems difficult to place a difficulty level on something like a MMO. Lets just say it required more patience, tolerance of others, and a love for the setting your are playing in.
I agree with the overall sentiment regarding the social aspect in MMOs. Why would you make MMOs less social and more of a single player or co-op experience? What's the point of being in the same world as everybody else if there is such little/limited interaction?
Small scale stuff demands more skill from any one member. Your mistake in a group of 5 is likely to be much more severe than your mistake in a group of 10, 20 or 30. I'd imagine that is also the appeal of large scale content for some people. They can feel they've achieved something or contributed to something even if that something is not much. And if you happen to make a mistake, it won't be "all your fault" if things go bad.
In a large zerg, you can just hang around and soak the atmosphere. Some of us want more though. We want to have an impact on the outcome. And tactical group-sizes serves us best in this. It all depends on whether you want to be a faceless soldier in a mass rather than somebody who takes his fate on his own hands.
When I talk about the social aspect, I'm definitely not talking about zerging. I'm talking about interacting with other players. That can be a small scale thing. In fact the least social mmos seem to be the largest, though I haven't thought about that too much.
what I'm talking about is removing the social aspect with things like LFG, auction houses, instance queuing, etc. For instance, darkfall unholy wars has a good deal of zerging, but it's still a social game. In order to get a large number of players in one place so that you CAN zerg means you have to find somebody to port you to that town, or you have to hoof it over there on foot, which often means grouping up with people in case you get jumped, etc.
Also things like helping someone to find and retrieve their corpse, teleporting them to different places, giving buffs and items to other people to be nice, helping them out when they are in trouble.
I believe MMORPGs required the skill of social interaction at least to advance. As you pointed out they are not that hard, but require a lot of time. They require even more time if there are things like needing a certain class to complete a certain area. Having to wait for and compete over a mob that takes a long time to spawn, or something as simple as asking people for help to get buffs/ports to another place/help recovering a corpse. To me if you are willing to spend the time it takes to learn the game mechanics, create things that purely your own and not the developers intentions, and in general expend a lot of effort in game that is something difficult in a sense. It means you have to give up a lot to get something or you have to do things over a longer period of time with a lot less reward. To me the question is not weather or not the game is hard or easy, but weather people are actually willing to put the effort/time in required to make the game a worthwhile experience. To me the answer to that question is no because most people don't want to interact short of grouping up to kill some mobs in an instance. Most don't care about the RPG or the setting. They have little attachment to it. They have little attachment to the game in general. IMO their time would be better spent doing something else then spending only a few hours on an MMO once in a while like the ones today. You don't really get anything out of the experience. It seems difficult to place a difficulty level on something like a MMO. Lets just say it required more patience, tolerance of others, and a love for the setting your are playing in.
I agree with the overall sentiment regarding the social aspect in MMOs. Why would you make MMOs less social and more of a single player or co-op experience? What's the point of being in the same world as everybody else if there is such little/limited interaction?
Small scale stuff demands more skill from any one member. Your mistake in a group of 5 is likely to be much more severe than your mistake in a group of 10, 20 or 30. I'd imagine that is also the appeal of large scale content for some people. They can feel they've achieved something or contributed to something even if that something is not much. And if you happen to make a mistake, it won't be "all your fault" if things go bad.
In a large zerg, you can just hang around and soak the atmosphere. Some of us want more though. We want to have an impact on the outcome. And tactical group-sizes serves us best in this. It all depends on whether you want to be a faceless soldier in a mass rather than somebody who takes his fate on his own hands.
It's generally harder for a larger group of people to work together. It's why I never raided. I never enjoyed having one person make a mistake or worse that person being yourself and then everyone is made at you. Raiding was fun before it was raiding. When people just had nothing to do at end game and grouped up to try to beat impossible to beat mobs. When it became commonplace and developers starting making raids it wasn't that much fun anymore. I didn't begrudge the people who did enjoy it though. It took a lot of time and effort to get everyone on the same page. That is definitely not the type of socializing I'm interested in seeing in MMOs. I'm pretty sure it still exist in a lesser form though. Most games have it in instances. I never felt MMOs should be about raiding in the way it is done now where it is the purpose of the game.
MMOS have never been hard and I've been playing since MUDS. They just had rougher edges and were a lot less streamlined. Your nostalgia is blinding you.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar When I have said time is not the most important. You have repeatedly said no.
In truth what you said is that time doesn't matter. I've said it does matter.
Again, show me where I said that time is the most important factor. And by the way, I'm sure you'll take me saying this as an opportunity to slip away from answering the previous question but I'm gonna say it anyway, time probably is the most important factor because nothing else matters without time. You will literally learn ZERO without time.
Is the following bit of math a true statement?
3x + t < 4x + t
If you think so then take the next step with the math to prove it.
3x + t - t < 4x + t - t
3x < 4x
3x/x < 4x/x
3 < 4
Remove the factor that is going to be the same on both sides of the equation to see what really matters. "t" is time by the way. Let "x" be the cognitive reaction time for humans.
This equation, just like Venge's examples, isn't measuring time. You're assuming the same level of time for each person, but differing levels of cognitive reaction time. How about this?
x + 3t < x +4t
Now all of a sudden it looks like time is "what really matters."
Yes, in general more time equals better skill relative to a single person, but when comparing more than one person, the level of effort, desire to learn and built in priming to learn whatever is being learned take precedence. It is just far more likely that the amount of time spent will be comparable or negligible than it will be that two people have the same desire to play, learn the game and will have the same amount of priming to learn a game's mechanics.
None of the above matters though. We're not talking about rocket science here, or even driving a car at a moderately fast speed. There are stories, on the internet, of eight year olds playing MMORPGs as far back as UO. These games aren't that hard and they never have been. The biggest barrier to advancement and success has been the amount of time a person is willing to put into the games, doing the same thing over and over again to get bigger numbers. It's not about skill or cognitive abilities and it never has been. A sixth grade education is enough to excel at all of them, except maybe TSW, but then you'd only need like an 8th grade education. It's about a willingness to ignore everything else because it takes so much time to complete the arbitrary tasks, convincing yourself after awhile that you couldn't possibly sink all this effort into something that wasn't worthwhile, so this must be an awesome thing you are doing. Much like posting on these forums.
To be honest I'm not sure how any of this contradicts what I said. It doesn't matter if things like level of effort take precedence because we don't know how much effort each person is putting into the game. That's why I've said so many times that holding all things constant, games made for hardcore gamers will tend to be harder than games made for casual players. If we somehow knew how much effort each person was putting into learning the game, we could come to a different conclusion about casual games vs hardcore games.
Not only that, just because MMORPGs in general don't take much skill, doesn't make my statement any less true. Some MMORPGs take more skill than others, and they tend to be the hardcore ones. The more casual MMORPGs will tend to be the easier ones.
Time is a factor when comparing an individual to themselves. Over time a person will learn more and accumulate more skill. When looking at two or more people, time gets factored out. It just doesn't matter. As someone mentioned earlier, someone who has invested 3 months of time in something that measures skill can defeat someone that has invested 3 years of time. That's how you know something is a measure of skill. Two people meet and "all other things are equal" and the only determinant of success is how well the players perform.
In MMORPGs especially. It takes a short period of time to master a game's mechanics. At that point I would say it's up to the execution that determines success, but then there are all the other factors that come into play. The biggest being the avatar's numbers relative to the numbers in the environment. If the avatar's numbers are higher, then success is assured. If the avatar's numbers are low relative to the numbers in the environment, then failure is assured. Very rarely are "all other things equal" such that only the player's skill determines success. Even or especially in MMORPG PvP players do not face "all other things being equal". It's the numbers that determine success. Sometimes it's the RNG that determines success.
Time accumulating numbers will certainly lead to success, but that's not skill. That's just investing a bunch of time into something to collect more numbers and hopefully having fun. Now, I do agree that it is harder to collect numbers for six months rather than two weeks to achieve a goal. In that regard, yes, older games are harder than newer games. But that's not a measure of skill, that's a measure determination.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by lizardbones Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by VengeSunsoar When I have said time is not the most important. You have repeatedly said no.
In truth what you said is that time doesn't matter. I've said it does matter.
Again, show me where I said that time is the most important factor. And by the way, I'm sure you'll take me saying this as an opportunity to slip away from answering the previous question but I'm gonna say it anyway, time probably is the most important factor because nothing else matters without time. You will literally learn ZERO without time.
Is the following bit of math a true statement?
3x + t < 4x + t
If you think so then take the next step with the math to prove it.
3x + t - t < 4x + t - t
3x < 4x
3x/x < 4x/x
3 < 4
Remove the factor that is going to be the same on both sides of the equation to see what really matters. "t" is time by the way. Let "x" be the cognitive reaction time for humans.
This equation, just like Venge's examples, isn't measuring time. You're assuming the same level of time for each person, but differing levels of cognitive reaction time. How about this?
x + 3t < x +4t
Now all of a sudden it looks like time is "what really matters."
Yes, in general more time equals better skill relative to a single person, but when comparing more than one person, the level of effort, desire to learn and built in priming to learn whatever is being learned take precedence. It is just far more likely that the amount of time spent will be comparable or negligible than it will be that two people have the same desire to play, learn the game and will have the same amount of priming to learn a game's mechanics.
None of the above matters though. We're not talking about rocket science here, or even driving a car at a moderately fast speed. There are stories, on the internet, of eight year olds playing MMORPGs as far back as UO. These games aren't that hard and they never have been. The biggest barrier to advancement and success has been the amount of time a person is willing to put into the games, doing the same thing over and over again to get bigger numbers. It's not about skill or cognitive abilities and it never has been. A sixth grade education is enough to excel at all of them, except maybe TSW, but then you'd only need like an 8th grade education. It's about a willingness to ignore everything else because it takes so much time to complete the arbitrary tasks, convincing yourself after awhile that you couldn't possibly sink all this effort into something that wasn't worthwhile, so this must be an awesome thing you are doing. Much like posting on these forums.
To be honest I'm not sure how any of this contradicts what I said. It doesn't matter if things like level of effort take precedence because we don't know how much effort each person is putting into the game. That's why I've said so many times that holding all things constant, games made for hardcore gamers will tend to be harder than games made for casual players. If we somehow knew how much effort each person was putting into learning the game, we could come to a different conclusion about casual games vs hardcore games.
Not only that, just because MMORPGs in general don't take much skill, doesn't make my statement any less true. Some MMORPGs take more skill than others, and they tend to be the hardcore ones. The more casual MMORPGs will tend to be the easier ones.
Time is a factor when comparing an individual to themselves. Over time a person will learn more and accumulate more skill. When looking at two or more people, time gets factored out. It just doesn't matter. As someone mentioned earlier, someone who has invested 3 months of time in something that measures skill can defeat someone that has invested 3 years of time. That's how you know something is a measure of skill. Two people meet and "all other things are equal" and the only determinant of success is how well the players perform.
In MMORPGs especially. It takes a short period of time to master a game's mechanics. At that point I would say it's up to the execution that determines success, but then there are all the other factors that come into play. The biggest being the avatar's numbers relative to the numbers in the environment. If the avatar's numbers are higher, then success is assured. If the avatar's numbers are low relative to the numbers in the environment, then failure is assured. Very rarely are "all other things equal" such that only the player's skill determines success. Even or especially in MMORPG PvP players do not face "all other things being equal". It's the numbers that determine success. Sometimes it's the RNG that determines success.
Time accumulating numbers will certainly lead to success, but that's not skill. That's just investing a bunch of time into something to collect more numbers and hopefully having fun. Now, I do agree that it is harder to collect numbers for six months rather than two weeks to achieve a goal. In that regard, yes, older games are harder than newer games. But that's not a measure of skill, that's a measure determination.
What on earth am I reading? Please explain how time "gets factored out" when comparing people. I have to ask, do you know what this discussion was about? I'm claiming that if you have two groups of players, and the only information you have about them is how much they play, then it's safe to assume that the group of players who play more will tend to be more skilled. Please, no more nebulous conversation about anything else. Just answer directly: do you agree or disagree with that?
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar When I have said time is not the most important. You have repeatedly said no.
In truth what you said is that time doesn't matter. I've said it does matter.
Again, show me where I said that time is the most important factor. And by the way, I'm sure you'll take me saying this as an opportunity to slip away from answering the previous question but I'm gonna say it anyway, time probably is the most important factor because nothing else matters without time. You will literally learn ZERO without time.
Is the following bit of math a true statement?
3x + t < 4x + t
If you think so then take the next step with the math to prove it.
3x + t - t < 4x + t - t
3x < 4x
3x/x < 4x/x
3 < 4
Remove the factor that is going to be the same on both sides of the equation to see what really matters. "t" is time by the way. Let "x" be the cognitive reaction time for humans.
This equation, just like Venge's examples, isn't measuring time. You're assuming the same level of time for each person, but differing levels of cognitive reaction time. How about this?
x + 3t < x +4t
Now all of a sudden it looks like time is "what really matters."
Yes, in general more time equals better skill relative to a single person, but when comparing more than one person, the level of effort, desire to learn and built in priming to learn whatever is being learned take precedence. It is just far more likely that the amount of time spent will be comparable or negligible than it will be that two people have the same desire to play, learn the game and will have the same amount of priming to learn a game's mechanics.
None of the above matters though. We're not talking about rocket science here, or even driving a car at a moderately fast speed. There are stories, on the internet, of eight year olds playing MMORPGs as far back as UO. These games aren't that hard and they never have been. The biggest barrier to advancement and success has been the amount of time a person is willing to put into the games, doing the same thing over and over again to get bigger numbers. It's not about skill or cognitive abilities and it never has been. A sixth grade education is enough to excel at all of them, except maybe TSW, but then you'd only need like an 8th grade education. It's about a willingness to ignore everything else because it takes so much time to complete the arbitrary tasks, convincing yourself after awhile that you couldn't possibly sink all this effort into something that wasn't worthwhile, so this must be an awesome thing you are doing. Much like posting on these forums.
To be honest I'm not sure how any of this contradicts what I said. It doesn't matter if things like level of effort take precedence because we don't know how much effort each person is putting into the game. That's why I've said so many times that holding all things constant, games made for hardcore gamers will tend to be harder than games made for casual players. If we somehow knew how much effort each person was putting into learning the game, we could come to a different conclusion about casual games vs hardcore games.
Not only that, just because MMORPGs in general don't take much skill, doesn't make my statement any less true. Some MMORPGs take more skill than others, and they tend to be the hardcore ones. The more casual MMORPGs will tend to be the easier ones.
Time is a factor when comparing an individual to themselves. Over time a person will learn more and accumulate more skill. When looking at two or more people, time gets factored out. It just doesn't matter. As someone mentioned earlier, someone who has invested 3 months of time in something that measures skill can defeat someone that has invested 3 years of time. That's how you know something is a measure of skill. Two people meet and "all other things are equal" and the only determinant of success is how well the players perform.
In MMORPGs especially. It takes a short period of time to master a game's mechanics. At that point I would say it's up to the execution that determines success, but then there are all the other factors that come into play. The biggest being the avatar's numbers relative to the numbers in the environment. If the avatar's numbers are higher, then success is assured. If the avatar's numbers are low relative to the numbers in the environment, then failure is assured. Very rarely are "all other things equal" such that only the player's skill determines success. Even or especially in MMORPG PvP players do not face "all other things being equal". It's the numbers that determine success. Sometimes it's the RNG that determines success.
Time accumulating numbers will certainly lead to success, but that's not skill. That's just investing a bunch of time into something to collect more numbers and hopefully having fun. Now, I do agree that it is harder to collect numbers for six months rather than two weeks to achieve a goal. In that regard, yes, older games are harder than newer games. But that's not a measure of skill, that's a measure determination.
What on earth am I reading? Please explain how time "gets factored out" when comparing people. I have to ask, do you know what this discussion was about? I'm claiming that if you have two groups of players, and the only information you have about them is how much they play, then it's safe to assume that the group of players who play more will tend to be more skilled. Please, no more nebulous conversation about anything else. Just answer directly: do you agree or disagree with that?
I would say that if you do something enough it almost because habit or instinctive. You react almost immediately to what needs to be done. I used to play rollerblade hockey so I could compare it to being able to react better after repeatedly doing different moves to evade people over and over again. It became more instinctive the more I did it. I guess you could argue that it is not skill, but I guess the more ingrained something is into you the faster you can react and the faster you can react the more time you have to improvise if something goes wrong.
I played SWG people spent more time sole don't there own thing until they needed to interact with others and it was often for a short time yet it's heralded as one if the greatest MMOs ever by those that loved it.
Soloing has always been a huge part of MMOs because most people don't want to log in and just use the game like a virtual chat room they want to play a game.
Crafters spent hours solo crafting in SWG all missions were done solo. A few combat classes and cookie cutter builds plagued the game at launch die to terrible balance. Crafter ran shops where a vendor sold everything not a person same thing in UO.
Social interaction was by choice the forced system and elitist players that made the solo more popular over the years.
What happen to mmo's now? I remember when a mmo where a challenge. ..
Ever considered idea that maybe after long years of gaming experience you simply become more skilled, better? :-)
Yes, but that doesn't change fact that todays mmos are easy. And with new people join the train, on 1 skilled comes thousands noobs. Games are just catered to those last ones, they're much bigger numbers than skilled ones.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar When I have said time is not the most important. You have repeatedly said no.
In truth what you said is that time doesn't matter. I've said it does matter.
Again, show me where I said that time is the most important factor. And by the way, I'm sure you'll take me saying this as an opportunity to slip away from answering the previous question but I'm gonna say it anyway, time probably is the most important factor because nothing else matters without time. You will literally learn ZERO without time.
Is the following bit of math a true statement?
3x + t < 4x + t
If you think so then take the next step with the math to prove it.
3x + t - t < 4x + t - t
3x < 4x
3x/x < 4x/x
3 < 4
Remove the factor that is going to be the same on both sides of the equation to see what really matters. "t" is time by the way. Let "x" be the cognitive reaction time for humans.
This equation, just like Venge's examples, isn't measuring time. You're assuming the same level of time for each person, but differing levels of cognitive reaction time. How about this?
x + 3t < x +4t
Now all of a sudden it looks like time is "what really matters."
Yes, in general more time equals better skill relative to a single person, but when comparing more than one person, the level of effort, desire to learn and built in priming to learn whatever is being learned take precedence. It is just far more likely that the amount of time spent will be comparable or negligible than it will be that two people have the same desire to play, learn the game and will have the same amount of priming to learn a game's mechanics.
None of the above matters though. We're not talking about rocket science here, or even driving a car at a moderately fast speed. There are stories, on the internet, of eight year olds playing MMORPGs as far back as UO. These games aren't that hard and they never have been. The biggest barrier to advancement and success has been the amount of time a person is willing to put into the games, doing the same thing over and over again to get bigger numbers. It's not about skill or cognitive abilities and it never has been. A sixth grade education is enough to excel at all of them, except maybe TSW, but then you'd only need like an 8th grade education. It's about a willingness to ignore everything else because it takes so much time to complete the arbitrary tasks, convincing yourself after awhile that you couldn't possibly sink all this effort into something that wasn't worthwhile, so this must be an awesome thing you are doing. Much like posting on these forums.
To be honest I'm not sure how any of this contradicts what I said. It doesn't matter if things like level of effort take precedence because we don't know how much effort each person is putting into the game. That's why I've said so many times that holding all things constant, games made for hardcore gamers will tend to be harder than games made for casual players. If we somehow knew how much effort each person was putting into learning the game, we could come to a different conclusion about casual games vs hardcore games.
Not only that, just because MMORPGs in general don't take much skill, doesn't make my statement any less true. Some MMORPGs take more skill than others, and they tend to be the hardcore ones. The more casual MMORPGs will tend to be the easier ones.
Time is a factor when comparing an individual to themselves. Over time a person will learn more and accumulate more skill. When looking at two or more people, time gets factored out. It just doesn't matter. As someone mentioned earlier, someone who has invested 3 months of time in something that measures skill can defeat someone that has invested 3 years of time. That's how you know something is a measure of skill. Two people meet and "all other things are equal" and the only determinant of success is how well the players perform.
In MMORPGs especially. It takes a short period of time to master a game's mechanics. At that point I would say it's up to the execution that determines success, but then there are all the other factors that come into play. The biggest being the avatar's numbers relative to the numbers in the environment. If the avatar's numbers are higher, then success is assured. If the avatar's numbers are low relative to the numbers in the environment, then failure is assured. Very rarely are "all other things equal" such that only the player's skill determines success. Even or especially in MMORPG PvP players do not face "all other things being equal". It's the numbers that determine success. Sometimes it's the RNG that determines success.
Time accumulating numbers will certainly lead to success, but that's not skill. That's just investing a bunch of time into something to collect more numbers and hopefully having fun. Now, I do agree that it is harder to collect numbers for six months rather than two weeks to achieve a goal. In that regard, yes, older games are harder than newer games. But that's not a measure of skill, that's a measure determination.
What on earth am I reading? Please explain how time "gets factored out" when comparing people. I have to ask, do you know what this discussion was about? I'm claiming that if you have two groups of players, and the only information you have about them is how much they play, then it's safe to assume that the group of players who play more will tend to be more skilled. Please, no more nebulous conversation about anything else. Just answer directly: do you agree or disagree with that?
I would say it's a dumb question because you don't have enough information to know anything about the players or the game in question. Instead of trying to contrive a scenario where you are right, why don't you work with scenarios that actually happen?
For instance, in MMORPGs that people actually play, the longer they play the bigger their avatar's numbers are. That doesn't mean they are better players, it just means their avatars are more powerful within the context of the game. A long time player will have a better grasp of the game than a new player, but that gap becomes nonexistent very quickly. It's the game's mechanics and the game's RNG that determines the winners. Not some nebulous skill based on how long someone has been playing an MMORPG.
If you have two players, and one player plays 10 hours a week, and the other player plays 5 hours a week, in two weeks the second player will pass the same number checks that the first player passed in one week. Both players are equally skilled because both are reaching the same achievements after the same amount of effort. If you decide to compare both players after one week, the only comparison you can make is that the first player has accumulated more numbers than the second player and the second player will be unable to compete with the first player. This isn't because of player skill, it's because the game's mechanics reward players for playing longer by giving them bigger numbers.
Define what you mean by "skill" within the context of an MMORPG.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by Fenrir767 I played SWG people spent more time sole don't there own thing until they needed to interact with others and it was often for a short time yet it's heralded as one if the greatest MMOs ever by those that loved it.
Soloing has always been a huge part of MMOs because most people don't want to log in and just use the game like a virtual chat room they want to play a game.
Crafters spent hours solo crafting in SWG all missions were done solo. A few combat classes and cookie cutter builds plagued the game at launch die to terrible balance. Crafter ran shops where a vendor sold everything not a person same thing in UO.
Social interaction was by choice the forced system and elitist players that made the solo more popular over the years.
This is the "MMOs Are Too Easy" thread, not the "Solo Players Destroyed MMOs" thread.
(^o^)
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by lizardbones Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by lizardbones Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by VengeSunsoar When I have said time is not the most important. You have repeatedly said no.
In truth what you said is that time doesn't matter. I've said it does matter.
Again, show me where I said that time is the most important factor. And by the way, I'm sure you'll take me saying this as an opportunity to slip away from answering the previous question but I'm gonna say it anyway, time probably is the most important factor because nothing else matters without time. You will literally learn ZERO without time.
Is the following bit of math a true statement?
3x + t < 4x + t
If you think so then take the next step with the math to prove it.
3x + t - t < 4x + t - t
3x < 4x
3x/x < 4x/x
3 < 4
Remove the factor that is going to be the same on both sides of the equation to see what really matters. "t" is time by the way. Let "x" be the cognitive reaction time for humans.
This equation, just like Venge's examples, isn't measuring time. You're assuming the same level of time for each person, but differing levels of cognitive reaction time. How about this?
x + 3t < x +4t
Now all of a sudden it looks like time is "what really matters."
Yes, in general more time equals better skill relative to a single person, but when comparing more than one person, the level of effort, desire to learn and built in priming to learn whatever is being learned take precedence. It is just far more likely that the amount of time spent will be comparable or negligible than it will be that two people have the same desire to play, learn the game and will have the same amount of priming to learn a game's mechanics.
None of the above matters though. We're not talking about rocket science here, or even driving a car at a moderately fast speed. There are stories, on the internet, of eight year olds playing MMORPGs as far back as UO. These games aren't that hard and they never have been. The biggest barrier to advancement and success has been the amount of time a person is willing to put into the games, doing the same thing over and over again to get bigger numbers. It's not about skill or cognitive abilities and it never has been. A sixth grade education is enough to excel at all of them, except maybe TSW, but then you'd only need like an 8th grade education. It's about a willingness to ignore everything else because it takes so much time to complete the arbitrary tasks, convincing yourself after awhile that you couldn't possibly sink all this effort into something that wasn't worthwhile, so this must be an awesome thing you are doing. Much like posting on these forums.
To be honest I'm not sure how any of this contradicts what I said. It doesn't matter if things like level of effort take precedence because we don't know how much effort each person is putting into the game. That's why I've said so many times that holding all things constant, games made for hardcore gamers will tend to be harder than games made for casual players. If we somehow knew how much effort each person was putting into learning the game, we could come to a different conclusion about casual games vs hardcore games.
Not only that, just because MMORPGs in general don't take much skill, doesn't make my statement any less true. Some MMORPGs take more skill than others, and they tend to be the hardcore ones. The more casual MMORPGs will tend to be the easier ones.
Time is a factor when comparing an individual to themselves. Over time a person will learn more and accumulate more skill. When looking at two or more people, time gets factored out. It just doesn't matter. As someone mentioned earlier, someone who has invested 3 months of time in something that measures skill can defeat someone that has invested 3 years of time. That's how you know something is a measure of skill. Two people meet and "all other things are equal" and the only determinant of success is how well the players perform.
In MMORPGs especially. It takes a short period of time to master a game's mechanics. At that point I would say it's up to the execution that determines success, but then there are all the other factors that come into play. The biggest being the avatar's numbers relative to the numbers in the environment. If the avatar's numbers are higher, then success is assured. If the avatar's numbers are low relative to the numbers in the environment, then failure is assured. Very rarely are "all other things equal" such that only the player's skill determines success. Even or especially in MMORPG PvP players do not face "all other things being equal". It's the numbers that determine success. Sometimes it's the RNG that determines success.
Time accumulating numbers will certainly lead to success, but that's not skill. That's just investing a bunch of time into something to collect more numbers and hopefully having fun. Now, I do agree that it is harder to collect numbers for six months rather than two weeks to achieve a goal. In that regard, yes, older games are harder than newer games. But that's not a measure of skill, that's a measure determination.
What on earth am I reading? Please explain how time "gets factored out" when comparing people. I have to ask, do you know what this discussion was about? I'm claiming that if you have two groups of players, and the only information you have about them is how much they play, then it's safe to assume that the group of players who play more will tend to be more skilled. Please, no more nebulous conversation about anything else. Just answer directly: do you agree or disagree with that?
I would say it's a dumb question because you don't have enough information to know anything about the players or the game in question. Instead of trying to contrive a scenario where you are right, why don't you work with scenarios that actually happen?
For instance, in MMORPGs that people actually play, the longer they play the bigger their avatar's numbers are. That doesn't mean they are better players, it just means their avatars are more powerful within the context of the game. A long time player will have a better grasp of the game than a new player, but that gap becomes nonexistent very quickly. It's the game's mechanics and the game's RNG that determines the winners. Not some nebulous skill based on how long someone has been playing an MMORPG.
If you have two players, and one player plays 10 hours a week, and the other player plays 5 hours a week, in two weeks the second player will pass the same number checks that the first player passed in one week. Both players are equally skilled because both are reaching the same achievements after the same amount of effort. If you decide to compare both players after one week, the only comparison you can make is that the first player has accumulated more numbers than the second player and the second player will be unable to compete with the first player. This isn't because of player skill, it's because the game's mechanics reward players for playing longer by giving them bigger numbers.
Define what you mean by "skill" within the context of an MMORPG.
It's not a stupid question. What's "enough information"? We know what defines a hardcore player and what defines a casual player. You can extrapolate from there.I'm not contriving a scenario where I'm right. You guys are bending over backwards to make me seem wrong. That includes using faulty factor analysis and bad math.
As for the entirely separate point about what determines success in an MMO, it seems like you're just trying to say that in general MMOs aren't about skill, and are much more about character progression and game knowledge. That's probably true, but that doesn't mean there is no skill at all. Skill in games is typically anything mechanical. Reaction time, aiming, etc. Some MMOs have more of an emphasis on player skill than others. You pointing out that MMOs typically aren't skill based games doesn't change my point. The hardcore ones will tend to be harder and more skill based because the average hardcore gamer will be more skilled than the average casual gamer.
Yes, but that doesn't change fact that todays mmos are easy.
Easy to you. There is no absolute level of "easiness". Look at all those who QQ about CATA H dungeons when it was first released. Obviously it was not "easy" for them.
That is why a difficult slider like D3 is perfect. No one can complain either way.
Yes, but that doesn't change fact that todays mmos are easy.
Easy to you. There is no absolute level of "easiness". Look at all those who QQ about CATA H dungeons when it was first released. Obviously it was not "easy" for them.
That is why a difficult slider like D3 is perfect. No one can complain either way.
A difficulty slider is not perfect. Difficulty sliders mean that the game isn't designed around a single level of difficulty, so the overall quality of the game is going to be lower than if it were designed around one difficulty level.
Also, difficulty isn't really subjective, it would just be really hard to test. You could have people of similar capabilities (or even just a large random sample) attempting to play each game, and then see how many people (or how quickly they) reach some agreed upon level of success.
Also, difficulty isn't really subjective, it would just be really hard to test. You could have people of similar capabilities (or even just a large random sample) attempting to play each game, and then see how many people (or how quickly they) reach some agreed upon level of success.
That is just silly. People here complaint WoW is too easy. On wow forum, back in CATA, people complained it was too hard. OBVIOUSLY the same gameplay is easy for some, and difficult for others.
Look at D3. No one complains about difficulty anymore. And you have no evidence that it is not optimal. It is just your opinion.
If you measure by the number of complaints, a difficulty slider is much better than any set level. If you don't believe that people are different .. a pretty much well accepted fact ... than there is nothing to talk about.
Also, difficulty isn't really subjective, it would just be really hard to test. You could have people of similar capabilities (or even just a large random sample) attempting to play each game, and then see how many people (or how quickly they) reach some agreed upon level of success.
That is just silly. People here complaint WoW is too easy. On wow forum, back in CATA, people complained it was too hard. OBVIOUSLY the same gameplay is easy for some, and difficult for others.
Look at D3. No one complains about difficulty anymore. And you have no evidence that it is not optimal. It is just your opinion.
If you measure by the number of complaints, a difficulty slider is much better than any set level. If you don't believe that people are different .. a pretty much well accepted fact ... than there is nothing to talk about.
Yes, the same gameplay is easy for some and difficult for others. In addition to that, some games are easier than others. If you think otherwise, you're wrong. You need only imagine a hypothetical situation. If a game required you to simply press the enter key to win the entire game, would that be easier than a game like osu! or some other fast paced twitch game? More people will succeed at one than the other. It's an easier game.
As for difficulty sliders, I think you missed my point entirely. You lose quality if a game is designed around the possibility of different difficulties. The slider doesn't change everything about the game, just modifiers like health, dmg, number of lives, etc.
Yes, the same gameplay is easy for some and difficult for others. In addition to that, some games are easier than others. If you think otherwise, you're wrong. You need only imagine a hypothetical situation. If a game required you to simply press the enter key to win the entire game, would that be easier than a game like osu! or some other fast paced twitch game? More people will succeed at one than the other. It's an easier game.
As for difficulty sliders, I think you missed my point entirely. You lose quality if a game is designed around the possibility of different difficulties. The slider doesn't change everything about the game, just modifiers like health, dmg, number of lives, etc.
Of course a slider doesn't change everything about the game if its not programmed to change everything about the game. And if it is programmed to change only modifiers then that is precisely it will do. Surely your argument is not about how badly implemented difficulty sliders are bad?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Yes, the same gameplay is easy for some and difficult for others. In addition to that, some games are easier than others. If you think otherwise, you're wrong. You need only imagine a hypothetical situation. If a game required you to simply press the enter key to win the entire game, would that be easier than a game like osu! or some other fast paced twitch game? More people will succeed at one than the other. It's an easier game.
As for difficulty sliders, I think you missed my point entirely. You lose quality if a game is designed around the possibility of different difficulties. The slider doesn't change everything about the game, just modifiers like health, dmg, number of lives, etc.
Of course a slider doesn't change everything about the game if its not programmed to change everything about the game. And if it is programmed to change only modifiers then that is precisely it will do. Surely your argument is not about how badly implemented difficulty sliders are bad?
I'm not saying any sliders are "bad", I'm saying they're not perfect. Some games are difficult not simply because of the modifiers that sliders change, but because how the whole game is set up. Unless you have a slider that changes how the game is designed, they're not "perfect" like narius claims.
basically, what I'm saying is that you lose something with sliders. A game set to a certain difficulty on a slider will not be as good as that same game designed specifically for that level of difficulty.
basically, what I'm saying is that you lose something with sliders. A game set to a certain difficulty on a slider will not be as good as that same game designed specifically for that level of difficulty.
But why does that matter unless you're playing these games as a dick-waving contest? What difference does it make if you're playing at the same difficulty level as anyone else? About the only place it might make a difference is when grouping so you only allow people to group with people playing at the same level of difficulty. Problem solved.
basically, what I'm saying is that you lose something with sliders. A game set to a certain difficulty on a slider will not be as good as that same game designed specifically for that level of difficulty.
But why does that matter unless you're playing these games as a dick-waving contest? What difference does it make if you're playing at the same difficulty level as anyone else? About the only place it might make a difference is when grouping so you only allow people to group with people playing at the same level of difficulty. Problem solved.
Umm I don't think you understand the point...? It has nothing to do with dick-waving, it has to do with enjoying the game. If you enjoy a game that is of a certain difficulty, you would ideally want a game that is designed specifically for that difficulty level.
Comments
I believe MMORPGs required the skill of social interaction at least to advance. As you pointed out they are not that hard, but require a lot of time. They require even more time if there are things like needing a certain class to complete a certain area. Having to wait for and compete over a mob that takes a long time to spawn, or something as simple as asking people for help to get buffs/ports to another place/help recovering a corpse. To me if you are willing to spend the time it takes to learn the game mechanics, create things that purely your own and not the developers intentions, and in general expend a lot of effort in game that is something difficult in a sense. It means you have to give up a lot to get something or you have to do things over a longer period of time with a lot less reward. To me the question is not weather or not the game is hard or easy, but weather people are actually willing to put the effort/time in required to make the game a worthwhile experience. To me the answer to that question is no because most people don't want to interact short of grouping up to kill some mobs in an instance. Most don't care about the RPG or the setting. They have little attachment to it. They have little attachment to the game in general. IMO their time would be better spent doing something else then spending only a few hours on an MMO once in a while like the ones today. You don't really get anything out of the experience. It seems difficult to place a difficulty level on something like a MMO. Lets just say it required more patience, tolerance of others, and a love for the setting your are playing in.
In truth what you said is that time doesn't matter. I've said it does matter.
Again, show me where I said that time is the most important factor. And by the way, I'm sure you'll take me saying this as an opportunity to slip away from answering the previous question but I'm gonna say it anyway, time probably is the most important factor because nothing else matters without time. You will literally learn ZERO without time.
Is the following bit of math a true statement?
3x + t < 4x + t
If you think so then take the next step with the math to prove it.
3x + t - t < 4x + t - t
3x < 4x
3x/x < 4x/x
3 < 4
Remove the factor that is going to be the same on both sides of the equation to see what really matters. "t" is time by the way. Let "x" be the cognitive reaction time for humans.
This equation, just like Venge's examples, isn't measuring time. You're assuming the same level of time for each person, but differing levels of cognitive reaction time. How about this?
x + 3t < x +4t
Now all of a sudden it looks like time is "what really matters."
To be honest I'm not sure how any of this contradicts what I said. It doesn't matter if things like level of effort take precedence because we don't know how much effort each person is putting into the game. That's why I've said so many times that holding all things constant, games made for hardcore gamers will tend to be harder than games made for casual players. If we somehow knew how much effort each person was putting into learning the game, we could come to a different conclusion about casual games vs hardcore games.
Not only that, just because MMORPGs in general don't take much skill, doesn't make my statement any less true. Some MMORPGs take more skill than others, and they tend to be the hardcore ones. The more casual MMORPGs will tend to be the easier ones.
I believe MMORPGs required the skill of social interaction at least to advance. As you pointed out they are not that hard, but require a lot of time. They require even more time if there are things like needing a certain class to complete a certain area. Having to wait for and compete over a mob that takes a long time to spawn, or something as simple as asking people for help to get buffs/ports to another place/help recovering a corpse. To me if you are willing to spend the time it takes to learn the game mechanics, create things that purely your own and not the developers intentions, and in general expend a lot of effort in game that is something difficult in a sense. It means you have to give up a lot to get something or you have to do things over a longer period of time with a lot less reward. To me the question is not weather or not the game is hard or easy, but weather people are actually willing to put the effort/time in required to make the game a worthwhile experience. To me the answer to that question is no because most people don't want to interact short of grouping up to kill some mobs in an instance. Most don't care about the RPG or the setting. They have little attachment to it. They have little attachment to the game in general. IMO their time would be better spent doing something else then spending only a few hours on an MMO once in a while like the ones today. You don't really get anything out of the experience. It seems difficult to place a difficulty level on something like a MMO. Lets just say it required more patience, tolerance of others, and a love for the setting your are playing in.
I agree with the overall sentiment regarding the social aspect in MMOs. Why would you make MMOs less social and more of a single player or co-op experience? What's the point of being in the same world as everybody else if there is such little/limited interaction?Small scale stuff demands more skill from any one member. Your mistake in a group of 5 is likely to be much more severe than your mistake in a group of 10, 20 or 30. I'd imagine that is also the appeal of large scale content for some people. They can feel they've achieved something or contributed to something even if that something is not much. And if you happen to make a mistake, it won't be "all your fault" if things go bad.
In a large zerg, you can just hang around and soak the atmosphere. Some of us want more though. We want to have an impact on the outcome. And tactical group-sizes serves us best in this. It all depends on whether you want to be a faceless soldier in a mass rather than somebody who takes his fate on his own hands.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I believe MMORPGs required the skill of social interaction at least to advance. As you pointed out they are not that hard, but require a lot of time. They require even more time if there are things like needing a certain class to complete a certain area. Having to wait for and compete over a mob that takes a long time to spawn, or something as simple as asking people for help to get buffs/ports to another place/help recovering a corpse. To me if you are willing to spend the time it takes to learn the game mechanics, create things that purely your own and not the developers intentions, and in general expend a lot of effort in game that is something difficult in a sense. It means you have to give up a lot to get something or you have to do things over a longer period of time with a lot less reward. To me the question is not weather or not the game is hard or easy, but weather people are actually willing to put the effort/time in required to make the game a worthwhile experience. To me the answer to that question is no because most people don't want to interact short of grouping up to kill some mobs in an instance. Most don't care about the RPG or the setting. They have little attachment to it. They have little attachment to the game in general. IMO their time would be better spent doing something else then spending only a few hours on an MMO once in a while like the ones today. You don't really get anything out of the experience. It seems difficult to place a difficulty level on something like a MMO. Lets just say it required more patience, tolerance of others, and a love for the setting your are playing in.
I agree with the overall sentiment regarding the social aspect in MMOs. Why would you make MMOs less social and more of a single player or co-op experience? What's the point of being in the same world as everybody else if there is such little/limited interaction?Small scale stuff demands more skill from any one member. Your mistake in a group of 5 is likely to be much more severe than your mistake in a group of 10, 20 or 30. I'd imagine that is also the appeal of large scale content for some people. They can feel they've achieved something or contributed to something even if that something is not much. And if you happen to make a mistake, it won't be "all your fault" if things go bad.
In a large zerg, you can just hang around and soak the atmosphere. Some of us want more though. We want to have an impact on the outcome. And tactical group-sizes serves us best in this. It all depends on whether you want to be a faceless soldier in a mass rather than somebody who takes his fate on his own hands.
When I talk about the social aspect, I'm definitely not talking about zerging. I'm talking about interacting with other players. That can be a small scale thing. In fact the least social mmos seem to be the largest, though I haven't thought about that too much.what I'm talking about is removing the social aspect with things like LFG, auction houses, instance queuing, etc. For instance, darkfall unholy wars has a good deal of zerging, but it's still a social game. In order to get a large number of players in one place so that you CAN zerg means you have to find somebody to port you to that town, or you have to hoof it over there on foot, which often means grouping up with people in case you get jumped, etc.
Also things like helping someone to find and retrieve their corpse, teleporting them to different places, giving buffs and items to other people to be nice, helping them out when they are in trouble.
It's generally harder for a larger group of people to work together. It's why I never raided. I never enjoyed having one person make a mistake or worse that person being yourself and then everyone is made at you. Raiding was fun before it was raiding. When people just had nothing to do at end game and grouped up to try to beat impossible to beat mobs. When it became commonplace and developers starting making raids it wasn't that much fun anymore. I didn't begrudge the people who did enjoy it though. It took a lot of time and effort to get everyone on the same page. That is definitely not the type of socializing I'm interested in seeing in MMOs. I'm pretty sure it still exist in a lesser form though. Most games have it in instances. I never felt MMOs should be about raiding in the way it is done now where it is the purpose of the game.
Wrong.
MMOS have never been hard and I've been playing since MUDS. They just had rougher edges and were a lot less streamlined. Your nostalgia is blinding you.
If clients are smart, articulate and critical then they will question quality of products and not just buy them because they have cool colors.
It is a business choice, dumb games make dumb gamers, dumb gamers will buy w/e is put in front of them w/o question.
Time is a factor when comparing an individual to themselves. Over time a person will learn more and accumulate more skill. When looking at two or more people, time gets factored out. It just doesn't matter. As someone mentioned earlier, someone who has invested 3 months of time in something that measures skill can defeat someone that has invested 3 years of time. That's how you know something is a measure of skill. Two people meet and "all other things are equal" and the only determinant of success is how well the players perform.
In MMORPGs especially. It takes a short period of time to master a game's mechanics. At that point I would say it's up to the execution that determines success, but then there are all the other factors that come into play. The biggest being the avatar's numbers relative to the numbers in the environment. If the avatar's numbers are higher, then success is assured. If the avatar's numbers are low relative to the numbers in the environment, then failure is assured. Very rarely are "all other things equal" such that only the player's skill determines success. Even or especially in MMORPG PvP players do not face "all other things being equal". It's the numbers that determine success. Sometimes it's the RNG that determines success.
Time accumulating numbers will certainly lead to success, but that's not skill. That's just investing a bunch of time into something to collect more numbers and hopefully having fun. Now, I do agree that it is harder to collect numbers for six months rather than two weeks to achieve a goal. In that regard, yes, older games are harder than newer games. But that's not a measure of skill, that's a measure determination.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
In truth what you said is that time doesn't matter. I've said it does matter.
Again, show me where I said that time is the most important factor. And by the way, I'm sure you'll take me saying this as an opportunity to slip away from answering the previous question but I'm gonna say it anyway, time probably is the most important factor because nothing else matters without time. You will literally learn ZERO without time.
Is the following bit of math a true statement?
3x + t < 4x + t
If you think so then take the next step with the math to prove it.
3x + t - t < 4x + t - t
3x < 4x
3x/x < 4x/x
3 < 4
Remove the factor that is going to be the same on both sides of the equation to see what really matters. "t" is time by the way. Let "x" be the cognitive reaction time for humans.
This equation, just like Venge's examples, isn't measuring time. You're assuming the same level of time for each person, but differing levels of cognitive reaction time. How about this?
x + 3t < x +4t
Now all of a sudden it looks like time is "what really matters."
To be honest I'm not sure how any of this contradicts what I said. It doesn't matter if things like level of effort take precedence because we don't know how much effort each person is putting into the game. That's why I've said so many times that holding all things constant, games made for hardcore gamers will tend to be harder than games made for casual players. If we somehow knew how much effort each person was putting into learning the game, we could come to a different conclusion about casual games vs hardcore games.
Not only that, just because MMORPGs in general don't take much skill, doesn't make my statement any less true. Some MMORPGs take more skill than others, and they tend to be the hardcore ones. The more casual MMORPGs will tend to be the easier ones.
Time is a factor when comparing an individual to themselves. Over time a person will learn more and accumulate more skill. When looking at two or more people, time gets factored out. It just doesn't matter. As someone mentioned earlier, someone who has invested 3 months of time in something that measures skill can defeat someone that has invested 3 years of time. That's how you know something is a measure of skill. Two people meet and "all other things are equal" and the only determinant of success is how well the players perform.
In MMORPGs especially. It takes a short period of time to master a game's mechanics. At that point I would say it's up to the execution that determines success, but then there are all the other factors that come into play. The biggest being the avatar's numbers relative to the numbers in the environment. If the avatar's numbers are higher, then success is assured. If the avatar's numbers are low relative to the numbers in the environment, then failure is assured. Very rarely are "all other things equal" such that only the player's skill determines success. Even or especially in MMORPG PvP players do not face "all other things being equal". It's the numbers that determine success. Sometimes it's the RNG that determines success.
Time accumulating numbers will certainly lead to success, but that's not skill. That's just investing a bunch of time into something to collect more numbers and hopefully having fun. Now, I do agree that it is harder to collect numbers for six months rather than two weeks to achieve a goal. In that regard, yes, older games are harder than newer games. But that's not a measure of skill, that's a measure determination.
What on earth am I reading? Please explain how time "gets factored out" when comparing people. I have to ask, do you know what this discussion was about? I'm claiming that if you have two groups of players, and the only information you have about them is how much they play, then it's safe to assume that the group of players who play more will tend to be more skilled. Please, no more nebulous conversation about anything else. Just answer directly: do you agree or disagree with that?I would say that if you do something enough it almost because habit or instinctive. You react almost immediately to what needs to be done. I used to play rollerblade hockey so I could compare it to being able to react better after repeatedly doing different moves to evade people over and over again. It became more instinctive the more I did it. I guess you could argue that it is not skill, but I guess the more ingrained something is into you the faster you can react and the faster you can react the more time you have to improvise if something goes wrong.
Soloing has always been a huge part of MMOs because most people don't want to log in and just use the game like a virtual chat room they want to play a game.
Crafters spent hours solo crafting in SWG all missions were done solo. A few combat classes and cookie cutter builds plagued the game at launch die to terrible balance. Crafter ran shops where a vendor sold everything not a person same thing in UO.
Social interaction was by choice the forced system and elitist players that made the solo more popular over the years.
Ever considered idea that maybe after long years of gaming experience you simply become more skilled, better? :-)
Yes, but that doesn't change fact that todays mmos are easy. And with new people join the train, on 1 skilled comes thousands noobs. Games are just catered to those last ones, they're much bigger numbers than skilled ones.
I would say it's a dumb question because you don't have enough information to know anything about the players or the game in question. Instead of trying to contrive a scenario where you are right, why don't you work with scenarios that actually happen?
For instance, in MMORPGs that people actually play, the longer they play the bigger their avatar's numbers are. That doesn't mean they are better players, it just means their avatars are more powerful within the context of the game. A long time player will have a better grasp of the game than a new player, but that gap becomes nonexistent very quickly. It's the game's mechanics and the game's RNG that determines the winners. Not some nebulous skill based on how long someone has been playing an MMORPG.
If you have two players, and one player plays 10 hours a week, and the other player plays 5 hours a week, in two weeks the second player will pass the same number checks that the first player passed in one week. Both players are equally skilled because both are reaching the same achievements after the same amount of effort. If you decide to compare both players after one week, the only comparison you can make is that the first player has accumulated more numbers than the second player and the second player will be unable to compete with the first player. This isn't because of player skill, it's because the game's mechanics reward players for playing longer by giving them bigger numbers.
Define what you mean by "skill" within the context of an MMORPG.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
This is the "MMOs Are Too Easy" thread, not the "Solo Players Destroyed MMOs" thread.
(^o^)
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
In truth what you said is that time doesn't matter. I've said it does matter.
Again, show me where I said that time is the most important factor. And by the way, I'm sure you'll take me saying this as an opportunity to slip away from answering the previous question but I'm gonna say it anyway, time probably is the most important factor because nothing else matters without time. You will literally learn ZERO without time.
Is the following bit of math a true statement?
3x + t < 4x + t
If you think so then take the next step with the math to prove it.
3x + t - t < 4x + t - t
3x < 4x
3x/x < 4x/x
3 < 4
Remove the factor that is going to be the same on both sides of the equation to see what really matters. "t" is time by the way. Let "x" be the cognitive reaction time for humans.
This equation, just like Venge's examples, isn't measuring time. You're assuming the same level of time for each person, but differing levels of cognitive reaction time. How about this?
x + 3t < x +4t
Now all of a sudden it looks like time is "what really matters."
To be honest I'm not sure how any of this contradicts what I said. It doesn't matter if things like level of effort take precedence because we don't know how much effort each person is putting into the game. That's why I've said so many times that holding all things constant, games made for hardcore gamers will tend to be harder than games made for casual players. If we somehow knew how much effort each person was putting into learning the game, we could come to a different conclusion about casual games vs hardcore games.
Not only that, just because MMORPGs in general don't take much skill, doesn't make my statement any less true. Some MMORPGs take more skill than others, and they tend to be the hardcore ones. The more casual MMORPGs will tend to be the easier ones.
Time is a factor when comparing an individual to themselves. Over time a person will learn more and accumulate more skill. When looking at two or more people, time gets factored out. It just doesn't matter. As someone mentioned earlier, someone who has invested 3 months of time in something that measures skill can defeat someone that has invested 3 years of time. That's how you know something is a measure of skill. Two people meet and "all other things are equal" and the only determinant of success is how well the players perform.
In MMORPGs especially. It takes a short period of time to master a game's mechanics. At that point I would say it's up to the execution that determines success, but then there are all the other factors that come into play. The biggest being the avatar's numbers relative to the numbers in the environment. If the avatar's numbers are higher, then success is assured. If the avatar's numbers are low relative to the numbers in the environment, then failure is assured. Very rarely are "all other things equal" such that only the player's skill determines success. Even or especially in MMORPG PvP players do not face "all other things being equal". It's the numbers that determine success. Sometimes it's the RNG that determines success.
Time accumulating numbers will certainly lead to success, but that's not skill. That's just investing a bunch of time into something to collect more numbers and hopefully having fun. Now, I do agree that it is harder to collect numbers for six months rather than two weeks to achieve a goal. In that regard, yes, older games are harder than newer games. But that's not a measure of skill, that's a measure determination.
What on earth am I reading? Please explain how time "gets factored out" when comparing people. I have to ask, do you know what this discussion was about? I'm claiming that if you have two groups of players, and the only information you have about them is how much they play, then it's safe to assume that the group of players who play more will tend to be more skilled. Please, no more nebulous conversation about anything else. Just answer directly: do you agree or disagree with that?I would say it's a dumb question because you don't have enough information to know anything about the players or the game in question. Instead of trying to contrive a scenario where you are right, why don't you work with scenarios that actually happen?
For instance, in MMORPGs that people actually play, the longer they play the bigger their avatar's numbers are. That doesn't mean they are better players, it just means their avatars are more powerful within the context of the game. A long time player will have a better grasp of the game than a new player, but that gap becomes nonexistent very quickly. It's the game's mechanics and the game's RNG that determines the winners. Not some nebulous skill based on how long someone has been playing an MMORPG.
If you have two players, and one player plays 10 hours a week, and the other player plays 5 hours a week, in two weeks the second player will pass the same number checks that the first player passed in one week. Both players are equally skilled because both are reaching the same achievements after the same amount of effort. If you decide to compare both players after one week, the only comparison you can make is that the first player has accumulated more numbers than the second player and the second player will be unable to compete with the first player. This isn't because of player skill, it's because the game's mechanics reward players for playing longer by giving them bigger numbers.
Define what you mean by "skill" within the context of an MMORPG.
It's not a stupid question. What's "enough information"? We know what defines a hardcore player and what defines a casual player. You can extrapolate from there.I'm not contriving a scenario where I'm right. You guys are bending over backwards to make me seem wrong. That includes using faulty factor analysis and bad math.As for the entirely separate point about what determines success in an MMO, it seems like you're just trying to say that in general MMOs aren't about skill, and are much more about character progression and game knowledge. That's probably true, but that doesn't mean there is no skill at all. Skill in games is typically anything mechanical. Reaction time, aiming, etc. Some MMOs have more of an emphasis on player skill than others. You pointing out that MMOs typically aren't skill based games doesn't change my point. The hardcore ones will tend to be harder and more skill based because the average hardcore gamer will be more skilled than the average casual gamer.
Easy to you. There is no absolute level of "easiness". Look at all those who QQ about CATA H dungeons when it was first released. Obviously it was not "easy" for them.
That is why a difficult slider like D3 is perfect. No one can complain either way.
A difficulty slider is not perfect. Difficulty sliders mean that the game isn't designed around a single level of difficulty, so the overall quality of the game is going to be lower than if it were designed around one difficulty level.
Also, difficulty isn't really subjective, it would just be really hard to test. You could have people of similar capabilities (or even just a large random sample) attempting to play each game, and then see how many people (or how quickly they) reach some agreed upon level of success.
That is just silly. People here complaint WoW is too easy. On wow forum, back in CATA, people complained it was too hard. OBVIOUSLY the same gameplay is easy for some, and difficult for others.
Look at D3. No one complains about difficulty anymore. And you have no evidence that it is not optimal. It is just your opinion.
If you measure by the number of complaints, a difficulty slider is much better than any set level. If you don't believe that people are different .. a pretty much well accepted fact ... than there is nothing to talk about.
Yes, the same gameplay is easy for some and difficult for others. In addition to that, some games are easier than others. If you think otherwise, you're wrong. You need only imagine a hypothetical situation. If a game required you to simply press the enter key to win the entire game, would that be easier than a game like osu! or some other fast paced twitch game? More people will succeed at one than the other. It's an easier game.
As for difficulty sliders, I think you missed my point entirely. You lose quality if a game is designed around the possibility of different difficulties. The slider doesn't change everything about the game, just modifiers like health, dmg, number of lives, etc.
Of course a slider doesn't change everything about the game if its not programmed to change everything about the game. And if it is programmed to change only modifiers then that is precisely it will do. Surely your argument is not about how badly implemented difficulty sliders are bad?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I'm not saying any sliders are "bad", I'm saying they're not perfect. Some games are difficult not simply because of the modifiers that sliders change, but because how the whole game is set up. Unless you have a slider that changes how the game is designed, they're not "perfect" like narius claims.
basically, what I'm saying is that you lose something with sliders. A game set to a certain difficulty on a slider will not be as good as that same game designed specifically for that level of difficulty.
But why does that matter unless you're playing these games as a dick-waving contest? What difference does it make if you're playing at the same difficulty level as anyone else? About the only place it might make a difference is when grouping so you only allow people to group with people playing at the same level of difficulty. Problem solved.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Umm I don't think you understand the point...? It has nothing to do with dick-waving, it has to do with enjoying the game. If you enjoy a game that is of a certain difficulty, you would ideally want a game that is designed specifically for that difficulty level.