Darksworm

About

Username
Darksworm
Joined
Visits
237
Last Active
Roles
Member
Points
269
Rank
Uncommon
Favorite Role
Tank
Posts
506
Badges
18
  • So you are happy with the direction It's going?

    Mendel said:
    centkin said:
    What has mostly happened to the progression of MMORPGs is that computers stopped getting faster.  There were a lot of good ideas, that were implausible back in the day and still implausible now. 

    We won't see much improvement until computers actually make a leap in something more meaningful than graphics.
    Things besides graphics aren't dependant on hardware speed though, so I'm not sure why you think more would help.  We've got enough hardware for good physics simulation, or for better AI if that existed.  We've got more than enough hardware for interactive story, intricate game mechanics, voice chat, deeply developed NPCs, less predictable monsters...
    Very true, @sunandshadow.  There is plenty of hardware on the client end to do much more elaborate things than games attempt.  The problem, in my view, is that games aren't attempting to do anything more elaborate.  Processing power is adequate for much more difficult applications, why haven't we seen game developers attempt anything that can't be reproduced with analog dice?
    I disagree. 

    I am a software developer. I have worked on everything from large defence contracts through to small websites. I have also worked for a good games company, admittedly in QA rather than dev, but I hung out with the devs a lot. 


    Hardware is still a very real limitation. You would probably be shocked at just how many calculations are going on every second when playing a game. It is staggering! Not only is the volume staggering, but it all has to be perfectly timed otherwise everything falls apart. 


    The real barrier to improvement is on the software end. Not in terms of designing interesting things, there are plenty of capable devs for that, but in terms of how we do the fundamentals. I'll give you an example. 

    Games are sequential - one thing follows another - so timing is extremely crucial to a game running properly. I cannot calculate whether I have shot you before I have calculated where I am aiming, then where you are moving, then whether there is a collision or not. It is thus vitally important that calculations happen in the right order. 

    What this means is that most games still only utilise a single core on your processor. This is the easiest way to ensure the correct order is followed. Multi-threading (calculations being done on different cores) is an extremely complicated thing to get correct - not due to the hardware, but due to writing the software properly. So, I have a quad-core processor, but most games only use one core. That one core typically sits at 90-95% load whilst the other 3 idle at 20-30%. The software is causing me to hit a hardware limitation. 

    This gives us the illusion that buying new processors means we're getting more performance, but for gaming that isn't true. We are still hitting hardware limitations on a per-core basis and will continue to do so until game engines improve. This is obviously a generalisation - some games do utilise multi-threading.

    Maybe that was true 10 years ago, but not nowadays.
    How has it changed these days? It was my understanding that multi-threading is still a real issue for a lot of game devs and they struggle to take advantage of multiple cores - something I can attest to from watching my hardware monitors. 

    The good developers/firms have no issues with multi-threading.  Look at any Blizzard game.  They run gloriously on Multi-Threaded systems.  This is part of the reason why WoW runs so well, along with Overwatch ... which runs amazingly.  You can raid in WoW on a Kaveri-era AMD APU in a Notebook, but you can't even play Path of Exile on that kind of machine (it's completely unplayable - sub-20 FPS performance even with stuff turned down).  Blizzard developed their games with an eye towards the future, and they keep on top of their Graphics Engine Maintenance.

    Now, contrast that to EverQuest II...  Which runs awfully on newer systems because the game was developed with poor assumptions, and they've done very little to modernize their code base or graphics engine.

    I think a lot of developers simply aren't putting in the work to optimize their games well.  They are rushing to release, so that they can make as much money as possible.  They are putting these things off, but they are generally done half-assed, if at all, when they get around to it post-release.  Players should demand this on release...  Especially for Buy to Play or Subscription games.

    The incentive to polish a game drops substantially post-release, unless there is outrage about the quality.  Most people don't notice the efficiency issues - they simply stop playing if it runs badly on their PC, or they upgrade a component or two, if possible.  They often don't give any feedback.

    Developers will always do the PR spin about how they plan to tackle these issues, but recent history has taught me that they often take years to even touch them.  Path of Exile pretty much ceased to exist to me before they "fixed" DeSync, for example.

    MMORPGs should be developed with an eye towards the future.  They are long term investments of both time and money, so you have to assume that more people will get more systems with higher core count and better GPUs.  If you don't utilize properly, then they aren't getting much value out of their upgrade when playing your game.

    I think that it's unforgiveable for a new MMORPG to release with bad CPU and/or GPU utilization, and poor hardware scaling.

    Generally, if a game is not well optimized on release, I don't bother with it.  It's a pretty good indicator of developer priorities or competencies.
    Jean-Luc_PicardMendel
  • Pantheon vs Wow Classic

    Dullahan said:
    The quest in EQ was your every adventure, not some npc sanctioned task.

    No.

    The devs were correct.  There were tons of Quests in EverQuest.  The problem is that the game was not set up to alert users to where they were, they didn't give XP, and the rewards were not worth the massive amount of time you had to spend finding and doing them.  You basically had to run around and hail every NPC, and some of them didn't offer quests unless you directed specific text at them.  The system was just terrible.  It's a lot better now than it used to be, though.

    There were quests everywhere.  They were just largely worthless.

    In WoW the quests facilitated the leveling experience.  In Classic you still had to grind a bit, but not nearly as much as in EQ, because the quests there largely didn't give XP (I don't think most of the earlier quests gave much - and certainly not enough to care, when they did).

    The difference between Quests in WoW Classic and EQ Classic was fairly "fundamental."  The quests in WoW served a different, and more foundational, purpose in the leveling and story-telling process.

    I actually think this hurt EQ, as it really short-changed the excellent lore and back story the game had.  In WoW, you are force-fed this information with the quests, dialogs, and cinematics..  But, because most people skipped the quests in EQ, they tended to remain relatively ignorant of what was going on in the game, why, how things arrived at certain points.

    This made WoW a lot more interesting to play from a story-telling standpoint than EQ, which is probably why people continue to sub at expansion and major patch launches to play through the content.  Blizzard has made the content interesting, and they've made people take note of it.

    Verant/SOE never really did that.
    KyleranDullahanGyva02
  • Graphics

    Scott23 said:
    kitarad said:
    Lokero said:
    Kyleran said:
    Dullahan said:

    No he is not kidding himself, How does EQ have infinitely more depth to its game play than AC? I know the guy before was being rude but you have nothing backing your claim besides your friends say so. Did you play AC?
    Yeah just me and my friends and around half a million other people who chose EQ over AC. The real question is did you even play EQ? Serious question.

    It doesn't mean AC was a bad game, but it speaks for itself. Just the people playing on the EQ pvp servers would have been more than all their pvp players and a few of their PvE server playerbases combined. And this wasn't a WoW scenario where another established publisher came along years later with updated graphics, EQ and AC were contemporary. AC even had advantages in some of the features pointed out like a non-zoned world and better graphics, but those things were not enough to pull people away.
    So, people thought more popular equals better, even back in 1998 eh?

    I thought that was just a WOW thing. 

    ;)
     
    Indeed, numbers don't equal better. There was depth in both games in different ways. I am glad he didn't say it was a sucky game at least. I did play EQ for a while and liked XI better.
    This is a very genuine point.  Back in the EQ era, EQ was basically what WoW became later.

    Most people who played EQ never even tried most of the other MMOs.  EQ required so much invested time that the majority of its user-base hardly glanced at other games.
    Many of the other MMOs that launched in the soon-after era were completely overlooked.  To further complicate things, let's not forget just how niche MMOs were back then, either.  It wasn't like you were constantly hearing about those other games when they popped up.

    Many of those MMOs that followed in EQ's wake, such as Asheron's Call, etc., were victims of the time rather than of inferior gameplay.

    You make it sound like people were living in caves. Any gamer who played MMORPGs checked out other games. I mean what you're saying makes little sense the fact that they found Everquest means they do look for games.


    Not necessarily.  My wife and I were playing EQ when AC came out and we had no desire to check it out.  We were having fun in EQ with our friends (and new friends).  There was no reason to check out another game.  As I remember a few of our guildmates checked it out, but came back because they missed their friends in EQ.

    I don't know if this is just an anomaly or whether people didn't game hop quite so much.


    We didn't game hop as much, back then.  I remember ordering the EQ and Lineage Trials when I started playing in 2000.  I started on EQ, and didn't even make it to installing the Lineage client.  I met a few people that I started leveling with on day one, and didn't want to leave them to try another game.  I ordered the complete game immediately, and subscribed.

    EQ was like a little city.  It really did feel like stepping through that closet into Narnia when you logged into the game.  I think that's what a lot of people miss about it, and those times in general.

    The genre has matured now, so that "magic" is gone.  MMORPGs aren't immersive at all - that is why developers and game companies are trying to move to VR.  Perhaps we will get another EQ when VR becomes commonplace, and affordable for the masses.

    The games back then were such a time sink, and you spent so much time with guild mates and the people you met in game that switching games was almost like moving to another city.

    The entire gaming landscape was different.  A lot of people didn't even have cell phones.  Communication was primarily via email or web forums.  There was no VOIP back in Early EQ.  The only way to really stay connected to those people was to keep playing the same game as them.  If you wanted to talk to those people, you had to log in - for the most part.

    It wasn't until 2003 or so that Internet Access really became a commodity in the first world, and it was possible to reliably use things like Video Chat (in AIM, MSN Messenger, Yahoo Messenger, etc.) to talk to people.  But that game's early history was formulated by a market with specific conditions, and people who played to fulfill specific purposes in their lives.

    These days, it's a lot easier to game hop because the social fabric of MMORPGs isn't nearly as strong as it used to be - if it exists at all, frankly.  Because so much communication has been offloaded to applications like TeamSpeak, Ventrillo, Discord, and Skype...  There simply isn't a need to keep playing the same games as your friends.  You can still Voice or Video Chat with them, call them, text them, add them on Facebook or Twitter, etc.  This also leaves games volatile and vulnerable to extreme population shifts or sudden death.

    There is a reason why a lot of really old MMORPGs still run, while many that follow them have faded into history.

    Back in the day, MMORPGs were like our Facebook and Twitter... and iMessage and FaceTime.  They were like social networks, and for some people the primary means of fruitful interaction with other human beings (for whatever reason... they could have been abused, depressed, bullied heavily at school, picked on for their looks/voice/mannerisms/ethnic background/etc. - to a far greater, and "more necessary" extent than they are today.

    The market, and the world, has outgrown a lot of the social usefulness of MMORPG games, but I do think some elements of the "community" has regressed heavily since then, because MMORPG players tended to be a certain spectrum of personalities.  Current games try to bring any and everyone in to profit as much as possible, which creates clashes and can breed toxicity to a much greater extent than me experienced (back then).
    Gyva02
  • Class Raid Sets Being Discontinued. Will Cosmetic Appearances Replace Them? - World of Warcraft News


    Darksworm said:





    They are just making crap obsolete. Bad game design by first impression






    This is actually a great change. It means they can make other content more difficult and keep it more relevant longer, because the rewards can be kept relevant by other means. Right now, the set pieces are a prison... They can always adjust difficulty in patches if things become a bit too trivial, etc. This is really going to give players more choice and allow them to differentiate themselves from others besides simply transmogging the same pieces of gear. There will still be BiS - that is unavoidable - but this is a great change to bring us back to more "rewarding" feel when high level gear drops, because we won't be passing on them (or throwing them away/DEing them) for set pieces.



    This is a great change. Raid sets were bad when they were introduced to EverQuest as well... "That's really nice, but I'm waiting on my class helm so I think I'll pass on it..." It was full of that, since Velious on up. EQ2 had the same issue, because the set pieces had such amazing focus effects, that it wasn't possible to pass on them for other high level gear - even though the other gear was really good aside from the lack of set bonus/focus effect.



    Great change. Looking forward to this. Will make the game feel more fun and rewarding to play compared to now.



    People like you just have to piss in others Cheerios, as if you have a clue about game design in the first place.



    Lol, gamers can be so quick to snarkiness mate. Calm down a notch theres no reason we cannot have civil and polite discussions on this website. Thank you very much. As to why I have the early impression this devalues the raiding scene and make it somewhat obsolete is simply the effort versus reward aspect.

    Every change as big as this is bound to have some flaws in the eyes of someone. A big concern of mine is how much the incentive to try and do raids in the endgame become whether it will replace hunt for epic rare loot to empower your char or just common currency and cosmetics. Getting the warglaive of azzinoth wasn't just amazing because it had a low drop rate alone it was also the challenge to get the opportunity that made it legendaryback in burning crusade
    :)



    Raids will still drop much of the best gear.  There are other things they're doing with the itemization, which is not covered by this specific topic.  Read up...

    What you're questioning is illogical, because it simply won't happen.

    What you're talking about is your ego.  No one, but you, cares about your ego.

    What people care about, is having the largest amount of viable content and the least amount of wasted itemization.  This makes the game more fun and more rewarding for players to log in and play, day to day.

    Dungeon drops will be more viable.  World boss drops will be more viable.  Raid drops that occupy the same slot as set pieces will be more viable.

    Yes, it's nice to get a powerful, rare drop from a difficult raid boss...  Nothing will change that.  Those types of rare, prized item drops will still exist.

    What's also nice is not seeing half the items you get from Dungeons, Raids Token Rolls, and Mythic+ rot/DE because you have a set piece in that slot and the set bonus >>>>> any stat increases the "upgrade" will give you - even with fairly massive iLevel differences.

    There is no way for this to have the flaw you're talking about.  The fact that they're doing away with Tier does not mean that there will not be rarer, more powerful drops from the highest raid difficulties.  You're not making much sense, at all.  What you're talking about isn't even related to what I'm referring to.

    I've already said BiS will still exist, and there will still be better drops from different places.

    What doing away with tier does is lower the barrier to entry for raiding, while widening the available viable gear pieces for each slot.  If you got Tier from heroic raids but a nice piece dropped in Mythic, right now you would skip the Mythic piece to avoid breaking the set bonus.  If the Tier has the two worse secondaries for your class, you sucked it up and wore it, cause of the set bonuses - unless you can find another piece of Tier in a different slot to equip, allowing you to swap that slot out to something that had better stats; and that's assuming the other piece of tier doesn't have junk secondaries as well...

    Class Armor sets are nice, in theory, but in practice they are and have always been awful - a sort of jail cell once you've gotten them.  They were awful in EQ - years before WoW existed - and they're equally awful in WoW.
    SBFordByrgenarHofenjimmywolfNephethMadFrenchie
  • Class Raid Sets Being Discontinued. Will Cosmetic Appearances Replace Them? - World of Warcraft News



    They are just making crap obsolete. Bad game design by first impression



    This is actually a great change. It means they can make other content more difficult and keep it more relevant longer, because the rewards can be kept relevant by other means. Right now, the set pieces are a prison... They can always adjust difficulty in patches if things become a bit too trivial, etc. This is really going to give players more choice and allow them to differentiate themselves from others besides simply transmogging the same pieces of gear. There will still be BiS - that is unavoidable - but this is a great change to bring us back to more "rewarding" feel when high level gear drops, because we won't be passing on them (or throwing them away/DEing them) for set pieces.

    This is a great change. Raid sets were bad when they were introduced to EverQuest as well... "That's really nice, but I'm waiting on my class helm so I think I'll pass on it..." It was full of that, since Velious on up. EQ2 had the same issue, because the set pieces had such amazing focus effects, that it wasn't possible to pass on them for other high level gear - even though the other gear was really good aside from the lack of set bonus/focus effect.

    Great change. Looking forward to this. Will make the game feel more fun and rewarding to play compared to now.

    People like you just have to piss in others Cheerios, as if you have a clue about game design in the first place.
    SBFordlaseritSiegeMachineHatefullBlecodWarLord2424Nepheth