Saying cookie-cutter builds = classes is just plain stupid. Noone is forcing you to play that build. You play the game the way you want to play it. If you feel you have to follow the flavour of the month its your own problem.
Saying roles = classes is just plain stupid. Yes you will have those who go for the straightforward tank or healer. But the setup allows for an almost infinite amount of builds. I am not saying that one build will be just as good as the next (different encounters will be best beaten with certain builds), but the option to make whatever you want is there. If you really have to talk about classes in this game you would have to say it has an insanely high amount of classes. Im just gonna quote a dev with an example:
Players can take on any role they please which include the holy trinity (tank, mage, priest), but also many many more.
What differenciates us from more traditional MMOs is that when we look at a group scenario, we say "This encounter requires the equivalent of 1 healer, 1 tank, 1 crowd controller, 1 cleanser/purger and 1 dps" (I use this just as an example). This means that a valid group setup for this is:
Tank/crowd controller
Healer/dps
Dps/purger
Tank/cleanser
Healer/crowd controller
Also keep in mind that there are different ways of fulfilling these roles. When we look at encounters we not only say "this will require a healer", but we say "this will require a healer, and healer type X will be best suited". There is a big difference from the guy who relentlessly attacks everything around him in order to heal his buddies, and the guy who dishes out those nice juicy barriers to protect his team mates from those slow hard hitting attacks.
Saying cookie-cutter builds = classes is just plain stupid. Noone is forcing you to play that build. You play the game the way you want to play it. If you feel you have to follow the flavour of the month its your own problem.
Saying roles = classes is just plain stupid. Yes you will have those who go for the straightforward tank or healer. But the setup allows for an almost infinite amount of builds. I am not saying that one build will be just as good as the next (different encounters will be best beaten with certain builds), but the option to make whatever you want is there. If you really have to talk about classes in this game you would have to say it has an insanely high amount of classes. Im just gonna quote a dev with an example:
Players can take on any role they please which include the holy trinity (tank, mage, priest), but also many many more.
What differenciates us from more traditional MMOs is that when we look at a group scenario, we say "This encounter requires the equivalent of 1 healer, 1 tank, 1 crowd controller, 1 cleanser/purger and 1 dps" (I use this just as an example). This means that a valid group setup for this is:
Tank/crowd controller
Healer/dps
Dps/purger
Tank/cleanser
Healer/crowd controller
Also keep in mind that there are different ways of fulfilling these roles. When we look at encounters we not only say "this will require a healer", but we say "this will require a healer, and healer type X will be best suited". There is a big difference from the guy who relentlessly attacks everything around him in order to heal his buddies, and the guy who dishes out those nice juicy barriers to protect his team mates from those slow hard hitting attacks.
You are both right and wrong in that no one forces you to play a certain build. However, let's look at the facts.
Currently, the majority of MMO play time revolves around "end game": IE raids or PvP. That tends to be group content with a limited number of slots. Naturally, groups don't like to waste their time, so they'll take the most effective players before the less so. So in order to maintain a competitive edge with the rest and maintain a raid slot, you're forced to take a cookie-cutter build.
I'm not saying this is right- I'm saying this is. Now maybe TSW or some other game will eliminate this. Maybe. But we've been like this since there WERE MMOs. I don't see it changing that much.
And yes, classes do=roles. Or, more accurately, classes=a predefined set of optimized abilities and stats geared towards fulfilling a certain role. Now I agree with you that the possibility exists for an nigh-infinite amount of builds, but I will not be surprised in the slightest when we find that there is maybe a dozen, maybe fewer optimal builds that get consistently picked. The only way to avoid this is to make every single one of the hundreds of planned skills 100% equally useful in every situation, and that will not happen. Some skills will be situational, and largely ignored. Some skills will worked better in PVP, and be largely ignored by PvE players. Some skills will essentially be carbon copies of one another, but the one that does a teency bit more damage in some spreadsheet somewhere will probably win out.
Again, I'm not saying this is a bad thing. I just think that many players are convinced that classless, skill based MMOs allow for freedom that classed games never will. In a way they do. But players themselves will restrict themselves in the long run.
I am still not getting it, you seem to infer there is no class only because there is choice and you can change that choice. But if you are continuing to have the same tradiotional roles involved, tank, dps, healer you have classes. Now your build or skill choices may determine your class but there will still be a class involved.
Classless means there is no distinction of being involved/connected to a particular class. There has to be some distinction if a character is expected to take on a specific role. Otherwise everybody without screwing around, picking builds or changing anything, should be able to play any role required in the game. We aren't saying that, we are saying the traditional roles are still going to be there. Which in turn infers that some sort of class structure, no matter how complex or specialised, is going to be involved. Otherwise you are going to end up with a tank that can't tank, a healer that can't heal and a dps that is as much use as a cholocate teapot. Well that might make for an interesting game! But I doubt people are going to want you to be part of a group if you don't have the class to fullfil your role.
Thing you dont seem to be getting is that a 'role' has nothing to do with a 'class'.
A role is something that you can do - you can fill the role of a healer, tank, ranged or melee DPS if you so wish at any given time.
With a 'Class' you have to always fill that role.
Take a real world example;
I work in IT. I work mostly at a desk fixing other peoples errors/mistake/issue. If the janitor called in due to illness I could go around and empty the trash cans in the office, filling the role of 'janitor' for a bit. Once I am done with taking out the trash I can resume doing my own work. By taking on the role of 'janitor' for a bit doesn't mean my job title changes, my pay goes down and security privliges change. It just means that I too can empty a waste basket if needed.
Nice analogy fyrewall.
However sometimes, no matter how you explain it, some people still don't understand, or want to understand.
Once you start focusing on certain actions, you BECOME a class. In most of these games where you can do anything, you tend to find out very quick that a jack of all trades is not only a master of none, but tends to fall so far behind specialists he's not useful for any sort of group role. So people start to pigeonhole into roles to suit the needs of their group.
Then the min/maxers come out. They crunch a few numbers, realize x skill is weak and y skill needs to be at least z level for you to keep up with the big boys..and then in a game qith millions of possible skill combintations, you still end up with a dozen or so cookie-cutter clones that follow whichever build(s) is/are currently most effective.
This isn't per se a bad thing. I just wish people would realize it and stop yammering that "classless" games like UO or TSW are superior. If anything they're worse, because they give uneducated players more room to fail. They're more punishing to noobs, but offer nothing to any player with state smarts (or who can manage to use the search feature on his/her game's forums)
When Funcom stated the game was classless and x number of year in the making I was expecting the evolution of the MMO, the next step. Not just something like a skill/ability list. To my mind I see no evolution and it makes me skeptical that progression is leveless as well. But Funcom are marketing this aspect which is where I get annoyed.
If Funcom had stated they removed traditional classes I wouldn't argue. But I was expecting some giant leap forward, which at the moment I don't see albeit I am yet to play the game. But from what I know at the moment classes can be created and likely will be created when optimal builds are found. It is not classless.
Originally posted by fallenlords Originally posted by terrant There is no such thing as a classless game. No really, there isn't. Once you start focusing on certain actions, you BECOME a class. In most of these games where you can do anything, you tend to find out very quick that a jack of all trades is not only a master of none, but tends to fall so far behind specialists he's not useful for any sort of group role. So people start to pigeonhole into roles to suit the needs of their group. Then the min/maxers come out. They crunch a few numbers, realize x skill is weak and y skill needs to be at least z level for you to keep up with the big boys..and then in a game qith millions of possible skill combintations, you still end up with a dozen or so cookie-cutter clones that follow whichever build(s) is/are currently most effective. This isn't per se a bad thing. I just wish people would realize it and stop yammering that "classless" games like UO or TSW are superior. If anything they're worse, because they give uneducated players more room to fail. They're more punishing to noobs, but offer nothing to any player with state smarts (or who can manage to use the search feature on his/her game's forums)
When Funcom stated the game was classless and x number of year in the making I was expecting the evolution of the MMO, the next step. Not just something like a skill/ability list. To my mind I see no evolution and it makes me skeptical that progression is leveless as well. But Funcom are marketing this aspect which is where I get annoyed.
If Funcom had stated they removed traditional classes I wouldn't argue. But I was expecting some giant leap forward, which at the moment I don't see albeit I am yet to play the game. But from what I know at the moment classes can be created and likely will be created when optimal builds are found. It is not classless. I think most of us knew what Funcom was talking about. Im sorry that you built up something in your head that wasnt there. My suggestion would be to get more MMO experience so you know what the different terms mean and how they work.
Classless =/= roleless. You can fit some role, then change it and fit some other. But you can switch them whenever you want. Or even make hybrid role. Or almost useless role.
In class system you can fit only roles designed for your class. I.e. warrior cant be healer, and mage cant be tank. In classless system you can fit all roles (ofc you have to unlock proper skills). No matter that some kind of build is "proper" for tank - you can still change it, and lets say... for pure tank skils add some nuke dps. Your limitation in TSW is 7 active and 7 passive skills, so you cant just add all you wish on your hotbar. But still, nuke from tank can be nice suprice in PvP.
Saying cookie-cutter builds = classes is just plain stupid. Noone is forcing you to play that build. You play the game the way you want to play it. If you feel you have to follow the flavour of the month its your own problem.
Saying roles = classes is just plain stupid. Yes you will have those who go for the straightforward tank or healer. But the setup allows for an almost infinite amount of builds. I am not saying that one build will be just as good as the next (different encounters will be best beaten with certain builds), but the option to make whatever you want is there. If you really have to talk about classes in this game you would have to say it has an insanely high amount of classes. Im just gonna quote a dev with an example:
Players can take on any role they please which include the holy trinity (tank, mage, priest), but also many many more.
What differenciates us from more traditional MMOs is that when we look at a group scenario, we say "This encounter requires the equivalent of 1 healer, 1 tank, 1 crowd controller, 1 cleanser/purger and 1 dps" (I use this just as an example). This means that a valid group setup for this is:
Tank/crowd controller
Healer/dps
Dps/purger
Tank/cleanser
Healer/crowd controller
Also keep in mind that there are different ways of fulfilling these roles. When we look at encounters we not only say "this will require a healer", but we say "this will require a healer, and healer type X will be best suited". There is a big difference from the guy who relentlessly attacks everything around him in order to heal his buddies, and the guy who dishes out those nice juicy barriers to protect his team mates from those slow hard hitting attacks.
You are both right and wrong in that no one forces you to play a certain build. However, let's look at the facts.
Currently, the majority of MMO play time revolves around "end game": IE raids or PvP. That tends to be group content with a limited number of slots. Naturally, groups don't like to waste their time, so they'll take the most effective players before the less so. So in order to maintain a competitive edge with the rest and maintain a raid slot, you're forced to take a cookie-cutter build.
I'm not saying this is right- I'm saying this is. Now maybe TSW or some other game will eliminate this. Maybe. But we've been like this since there WERE MMOs. I don't see it changing that much.
And yes, classes do=roles. Or, more accurately, classes=a predefined set of optimized abilities and stats geared towards fulfilling a certain role. Now I agree with you that the possibility exists for an nigh-infinite amount of builds, but I will not be surprised in the slightest when we find that there is maybe a dozen, maybe fewer optimal builds that get consistently picked. The only way to avoid this is to make every single one of the hundreds of planned skills 100% equally useful in every situation, and that will not happen. Some skills will be situational, and largely ignored. Some skills will worked better in PVP, and be largely ignored by PvE players. Some skills will essentially be carbon copies of one another, but the one that does a teency bit more damage in some spreadsheet somewhere will probably win out.
Again, I'm not saying this is a bad thing. I just think that many players are convinced that classless, skill based MMOs allow for freedom that classed games never will. In a way they do. But players themselves will restrict themselves in the long run.
I agree its up to the playerbase how this will turn out. I expect a very large amount of builds to be viable in PvE (PvP i have other views on). Especially because the mixing of roles they are going for, which is further supported by being able to equip 2 weapons at once (For example Fire/Sword, Hammer/curses, Shotgun/protective etc).
Yes you will have elitist players that require you to have certain build and items to run raids with them, but there are also players that dont mind using 10 minutes more in a dungeon to play the build they like the most and have most fun with. I know atleast what kind of players i will be playing with.
The classless system is a breath of fresh air compared to the many other MMOs to date which forces you down a preset path in which you have minimum saying.
If you took Guild Wars' skill system and removed the classes. Would you end up with a game without classes, or would you still have classes because players could choose to (or feel they have to) pick skills as if the class restrictions were still in place? There's more to the mechanics of TSW than this, but on a very basic level it's close. To me, it's obvious that if you take a system with defined classes, class restrictions on skills, passives and equipment, and remove the defined classes and class restrictions, you end up with a game without classes, but I'd like to hear where the flaw in my logic is.
Classless =/= roleless. You can fit some role, then change it and fit some other. But you can switch them whenever you want. Or even make hybrid role. Or almost useless role.
In class system you can fit only roles designed for your class. I.e. warrior cant be healer, and mage cant be tank. In classless system you can fit all roles (ofc you have to unlock proper skills). No matter that some kind of build is "proper" for tank - you can still change it, and lets say... for pure tank skils add some nuke dps. Your limitation in TSW is 7 active and 7 passive skills, so you cant just add all you wish on your hotbar. But still, nuke from tank can be nice suprice in PvP.
There's a lot of "Ifs" here.
You state you can switch whenever you like. Now, I've missed a few news posts, but has FC actually said you can fully respec your skills on the fly, no penalty or fee? Even then, is it allowed in combat? Is there a cooldown? We don't know. Depending on how prohibitive changes are, you might not see people shifting that much.
As to your statement about a tank nuking or whatever, yeah I agree that could be nice (and I'm betting healer/dps hybrids will probably own in pvp, since they do in every other game out there, at least until someone nerfs them). But I think you'll mind with only 14 skills (and only 7 of those active), you're not gonna have a lot of flex room in your build. Mind you, I also haven't seen a lot of info on how trinity-tastic this game is going to be. If the Holy Triangle of Boredom exists just as strongly here, there will be little/no room for flexing. If they use a model closer to what, say, Guild Wars 2 is planning (tanks not required, everyone can heal) things may turn out different.
I know, that there will be limitations in changing decks. Some "-score" in dungeons. Probably decks can be only change out of combat, perhaps special place(anima well) will be required. But definetly they can be change, and this is part of game experience. That was clearly stated during "Polaris" dungeon crawl.
The GW2 system looks good, but heals arent equal between classes?
I think most of us knew what Funcom was talking about. Im sorry that you built up something in your head that wasnt there. My suggestion would be to get more MMO experience so you know what the different terms mean and how they work.
Well I am starting to wonder what the faiscination is with the game to be honest. But then perhaps if I could get access to the beta (without jumping through facebook hoops) I might understand how things work. But isn't it strange that this has been on the cards since what 2002 - and they aren't pushing the MMO genre forward by all accounts with any next gen stuff? I mean Guild Wars 2 is implementing Dynamic Events - single player rpg games are becoming more multiplayer in nature (co-op modes etc). All TSW seems to be bringing to the table is a new'ish setting.
I think most of us knew what Funcom was talking about. Im sorry that you built up something in your head that wasnt there. My suggestion would be to get more MMO experience so you know what the different terms mean and how they work.
Well I am starting to wonder what the faiscination is with the game to be honest. But then perhaps if I could get access to the beta (without jumping through facebook hoops) I might understand how things work. But isn't it strange that this has been on the cards since what 2002 - and they aren't pushing the MMO genre forward by all accounts with any next gen stuff? I mean Guild Wars 2 is implementing Dynamic Events - single player rpg games are becoming more multiplayer in nature (co-op modes etc). All TSW seems to be bringing to the table is a new'ish setting.
the lore was been in work since 2002, (1998 actually), not the game as a whole.
the lore was been in work since 2002, (1998 actually), not the game as a whole.
As far as I understand the game was in pre-production in 2002, the development history has been up and down due to the many up's and down's at Funcom. We are talking about what I thought would be the most innovative aspects (classless, leveless) to be nothing more than a reworking of what is already available. So I am asking what are they doing that is revolutionary as far as the MMO world is concerned? Lore is just setting.
I think most of us knew what Funcom was talking about. Im sorry that you built up something in your head that wasnt there. My suggestion would be to get more MMO experience so you know what the different terms mean and how they work.
Well I am starting to wonder what the faiscination is with the game to be honest. But then perhaps if I could get access to the beta (without jumping through facebook hoops) I might understand how things work. But isn't it strange that this has been on the cards since what 2002 - and they aren't pushing the MMO genre forward by all accounts with any next gen stuff? I mean Guild Wars 2 is implementing Dynamic Events - single player rpg games are becoming more multiplayer in nature (co-op modes etc). All TSW seems to be bringing to the table is a new'ish setting.
Theres the new setting, but there is also the whole over reaching ARG that takes place through the net itself. The game isn't meant to throw the genre on it's ear, but rather give players more immersion through puzzels and riddles both in game and on the web.
Why does a game have to push the envelope to be good? How many MMOs do we have that forsake the level/class pidgeon hole and allow the player to build a playstyle that works for them? How many MMOs do we have that combine an ARG with MMO gameplay?
Games like GW2 look fine, but its really just more of the same with 'dynamic events' thrown in (and how truely dynamic can triggered events based on yes/no scripting... no matter what it all comes down to 'If A = True/False then B') Because no matter how you look at it, dynamic events will be existing within a static framework with static triggers.
But after reading several of your posts and many of your replies it appears you don't really want to know anything about TSW, because people explain what they know and answer your questions only to have you repost the same thing over and over worded differently.
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
Theres the new setting, but there is also the whole over reaching ARG that takes place through the net itself. The game isn't meant to throw the genre on it's ear, but rather give players more immersion through puzzels and riddles both in game and on the web.
Why does a game have to push the envelope to be good? How many MMOs do we have that forsake the level/class pidgeon hole and allow the player to build a playstyle that works for them? How many MMOs do we have that combine an ARG with MMO gameplay?
Games like GW2 look fine, but its really just more of the same with 'dynamic events' thrown in (and how truely dynamic can triggered events based on yes/no scripting... no matter what it all comes down to 'If A = True/False then B') Because no matter how you look at it, dynamic events will be existing within a static framework with static triggers.
But after reading several of your posts and many of your replies it appears you don't really want to know anything about TSW, because people explain what they know and answer your questions only to have you repost the same thing over and over worded differently.
A game doesn't have to push the envelope to be good, but at the same time depends on the track record of the developer. If they produce solid, story led, immersive games then producing the same types of game is fine. But as far as Funcom are concerned doesn't this game need to be a success (negative cash flow expected until TSW launches). All this in mind I would expect for them to push some sort of boundary in order to attract customers. Because correct me if I am wrong but most MMO's are not exactly flourishing in financial terms. Considering what is coming out not just in the MMO world but the RPG world - don't they need to push the envelope? Or at least bring something new to the table so people will take a fresh look at them and what they have to offer?
My personal interest in TSW is I purchased a beta key, so I want to play the game. I don't tend to judge a game prior to playing, so I still have an open mind (to an extent) about TSW. But I fully expect Funcom to screw it up because they have no sense of the user. Regardless of the quaility of the game I expect Funcom will make a mess of it overall. It will be the fundementals where they fail, bug fixing, performance, taking notice of their user community etc etc. So I expect for me, and perhaps for a lot of other people, the game in itself is going to have to be mind blowing for us to part with any cash.
Originally posted by fallenlords Originally posted by fyerwall
Theres the new setting, but there is also the whole over reaching ARG that takes place through the net itself. The game isn't meant to throw the genre on it's ear, but rather give players more immersion through puzzels and riddles both in game and on the web. Why does a game have to push the envelope to be good? How many MMOs do we have that forsake the level/class pidgeon hole and allow the player to build a playstyle that works for them? How many MMOs do we have that combine an ARG with MMO gameplay? Games like GW2 look fine, but its really just more of the same with 'dynamic events' thrown in (and how truely dynamic can triggered events based on yes/no scripting... no matter what it all comes down to 'If A = True/False then B') Because no matter how you look at it, dynamic events will be existing within a static framework with static triggers. But after reading several of your posts and many of your replies it appears you don't really want to know anything about TSW, because people explain what they know and answer your questions only to have you repost the same thing over and over worded differently.
A game doesn't have to push the envelope to be good, but at the same time depends on the track record of the developer. If they produce solid, story led, immersive games then producing the same types of game is fine. But as far as Funcom are concerned doesn't this game need to be a success (negative cash flow expected until TSW launches). All this in mind I would expect for them to push some sort of boundary in order to attract customers. Because correct me if I am wrong but most MMO's are not exactly flourishing in financial terms. Considering what is coming out not just in the MMO world but the RPG world - don't they need to push the envelope? Or at least bring something new to the table so people will take a fresh look at them and what they have to offer?
My personal interest in TSW is I purchased a beta key, so I want to play the game. I don't tend to judge a game prior to playing, so I still have an open mind (to an extent) about TSW. But I fully expect Funcom to screw it up because they have no sense of the user. Regardless of the quaility of the game I expect Funcom will make a mess of it overall. It will be the fundementals where they fail, bug fixing, performance, taking notice of their user community etc etc. So I expect for me, and perhaps for a lot of other people, the game in itself is going to have to be mind blowing for us to part with any cash.
You've already judged the game through the developer. Your expectations being what they are, I wonder at why you spent money buying a beta key from someone.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
My personal interest in TSW is I purchased a beta key, so I want to play the game. I don't tend to judge a game prior to playing, so I still have an open mind (to an extent) about TSW. But I fully expect Funcom to screw it up because they have no sense of the user. Regardless of the quaility of the game I expect Funcom will make a mess of it overall. It will be the fundementals where they fail, bug fixing, performance, taking notice of their user community etc etc. So I expect for me, and perhaps for a lot of other people, the game in itself is going to have to be mind blowing for us to part with any cash.
With that kind of mindset and general heavily negative stance towards FC, I'm surprised that you have any interest at all in this game, and not in others that are from companies that you don't passionately hate/dislike, like GW2, SWTOR, TERA, ArcheAge, Firefall or World of Darkness. Following a game from a company that's the one that you trust the least of all companies around and that apparently holds little appeal above those other upcoming MMO's just makes no sense to me at all.
My advice is, let this one go: move on, look at the other upcoming MMO's and follow those, if it's really gameplay enjoyment that you're after, there'll be enough MMO's upcoming that looks like they can be fun too. And only when TSW launched and you hear positive comments about it I'd suggest you cast a second glance to TSW again. Following a game that you're kind of 'meh' about from a company you'd rather see burn in hell, well, it seems like setting yourself up for disappointment and the opposite of looking for gaming fun in your situation. Like the saying goes, 'fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me'?
If you had a bad, traumatic experience with FC/AoC before and still trust FC for not even an inch, I'd think that other MMO's would have more appeal to you. Especially if you think that the game and FC will fail anyway.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
My personal interest in TSW is I purchased a beta key, so I want to play the game. I don't tend to judge a game prior to playing, so I still have an open mind (to an extent) about TSW.
If you still have that same video card (you refused not tell us what it was) you said would not run Age of Conan then you just blew money in the wind buying that beta key. But then again I think both of these stories is a bunch of cow pie.
Originally posted by fallenlords Originally posted by Foomerang
I think most of us knew what Funcom was talking about. Im sorry that you built up something in your head that wasnt there. My suggestion would be to get more MMO experience so you know what the different terms mean and how they work.
Well I am starting to wonder what the faiscination is with the game to be honest. But then perhaps if I could get access to the beta (without jumping through facebook hoops) I might understand how things work. But isn't it strange that this has been on the cards since what 2002 - and they aren't pushing the MMO genre forward by all accounts with any next gen stuff? I mean Guild Wars 2 is implementing Dynamic Events - single player rpg games are becoming more multiplayer in nature (co-op modes etc). All TSW seems to be bringing to the table is a new'ish setting. Oh I think I get it now. This doesnt really have anything to do with the actual question youre posing. Its more of a rhetorical argument against a game youre not interested in. So GW2 is your fav? Its not our jobs to try and convince you to like TSW. Theres a ton of unique features about tsw that make it a true next gen mmo. Do some research please.
You've already judged the game through the developer. Your expectations being what they are, I wonder at why you spent money buying a beta key from someone.
I haven't judged the game at all and I won't judge it until I play the game. But I have no faith in the developer at all. I was conned into buying a beta key when I bought an AOC subscription and I say conned, because it was inferred a beta for TSW would be available shortly. Not explicitly stated but I don't in general find I buy a game marketed with 'beta access' to find out the beta is x number of years away.
This is a company that launch an expansion for AOC and when you can't play the expansion because of memory errors and the client crashes. They don't offer you a refund on your remaining subscription or the expansion, all they offer you is free game time for a game you can't play! Me and Funcom do have history I will admit and after redeem my beta access/play the game I fully expect us to part ways. Unless of course the game is so mind blowing that I forgive them for all past sins. But I can't see that happening.
If you still have that same video card (you refused not tell us what it was) you said would not run Age of Conan then you just blew money in the wind buying that beta key. But then again I think both of these stories is a bunch of cow pie.
No my rig still sucks when it comes to AOC - but is running well for everything else. So I am not going to get into this argument that it's my card, or my setup, or something along those lines. Been there done that, my rig is fine. my network is fine, it should run any game at a reasonable whack and guess what it does. Apart from AOC - the only game that runs like a dead dog even with the new game engine. But here is the skinny I can get AOC to work well - just not out the box or with the standard settings. I have to apply a multitude of hacks, tips/tricks and mod my whole setup just to get reasonable performance - don't have to do this for any other game.
Originally posted by fallenlords Originally posted by lizardbones
You've already judged the game through the developer. Your expectations being what they are, I wonder at why you spent money buying a beta key from someone.
I haven't judged the game at all and I won't judge it until I play the game. But I have no faith in the developer at all. I was conned into buying a beta key when I bought an AOC subscription and I say conned, because it was inferred a beta for TSW would be available shortly. Not explicitly stated but I don't in general find I buy a game marketed with 'beta access' to find out the beta is x number of years away.
This is a company that launch an expansion for AOC and when you can't play the expansion because of memory errors and the client crashes. They don't offer you a refund on your remaining subscription or the expansion, all they offer you is free game time for a game you can't play! Me and Funcom do have history I will admit and after redeem my beta access/play the game I fully expect us to part ways. Unless of course the game is so mind blowing that I forgive them for all past sins. But I can't see that happening.
Hopefully they have learned from AoC and AO. It doesn't matter if the suits want to release the game now, if it's not ready, don't let it out the door. Time will tell though.
I am fully sold on the idea of TSW. Will have to see how the actual game plays out though. My cat is currently doing the beta song and dance on Facebook. :-)
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Hopefully they have learned from AoC and AO. It doesn't matter if the suits want to release the game now, if it's not ready, don't let it out the door. Time will tell though.
I am fully sold on the idea of TSW. Will have to see how the actual game plays out though. My cat is currently doing the beta song and dance on Facebook. :-)
This is what gets me a little, everybody is hopeful things with Funcom have changed yet we have no evidence of this at all. The recent beta clock countdown announcement seems to indicate nothing has changed - unless you believe it's all part of the game (now any problem can be part of the game due to ARG).
They aren't in touch with the people interested in the game - the majority according to the mini poll on this site don't want to be bothered with Facebook just to play a game. However successful or not TSW is, the main problem to my mind is always going to the fact that Funcom are just so out of touch. AOC is a good game and with going free to play it's having a bit of resurgence. But it was always a good game - the direction they took it was wrong. They didn't listen to the users comments and they never fixed bugs or problems in a timely manner. They recovered from a bad launch, they were heading in the right direction then they made business choices which screwed the game.
If anything I would just warn people to not be sucked in with TSW and assume Funcom have changed until there is some evidence to that effect. If I was playing the beta now I would say - you know what perhaps things are looking up. But I haven't seen the beta and then when you start to scratch the surface 'classless' isn't classless etc etc. I though EA having some participation in things might have turned stuff around.
With Skyrim they have taken the decision to remove traditional classes. How you decide to play ultimately dictates your class. You can change your class by changing the way you play. But they haven't said the game is 'classless' because that would be a lie. The way your class is defined is based on how you play.
Classless I would imagine means no classes or no concept of class. But now we seem to be saying classless means not being in a fixed class - so classless isn't classless, it just means having classes but not having any fixed classes and also having the ability to change classes. Yeah right - I see goal posts moving.
So having no levels means what exactly? Having levels but they are invisible to the user, having levels but they are called something else, having a progression system of some sort (progression sounds like level to me). I am beginning to think classless/leveless = full of crap.
thats why i said its a hard concept to understand if you don't have experience of the game type.. classless means just that.. no classes of any kind.. instead you have skills, or abilities even, i think they said there was over 500 of them... its an ideal model to base pvp combat on really, as you don't have differentiation due to levels etc.. balancing isnt an issue because there are no classes to balance.. Eve players will probably find this easier to cope with initially i think, as the whole 'class mentality' thing doesnt happen in Eve either.. and for those too, who don't think of levelling up as being the whole point of a game..
Ahem. In EVE-speak:-
"Bait" = Tank
"Logi" = Healer
"EWAR" = CC
"DPS" = DPS
You as a player/avatar are free to pick skills to fit any of these roles, and ships for these roles, but these roles do exist, same as they do in other games.
The only other possible alternative is the WTFSOLOPWNMOBILE. That's disallowed in EVE, as it's dissallowed in almost every other MMO.
Even in Champions Online, the most classless MMO out there I can think of, where nearly every player is the equivalent of a WTFSOLOPWNMOBILE, there are roles which you can skew a build towards, for really difficult group content.
thats why i said its a hard concept to understand if you don't have experience of the game type.. classless means just that.. no classes of any kind.. instead you have skills, or abilities even, i think they said there was over 500 of them... its an ideal model to base pvp combat on really, as you don't have differentiation due to levels etc.. balancing isnt an issue because there are no classes to balance.. Eve players will probably find this easier to cope with initially i think, as the whole 'class mentality' thing doesnt happen in Eve either.. and for those too, who don't think of levelling up as being the whole point of a game..
Still don't see how it is classless. You can by your skill selection define a class, just because there are no pre-defined classes at the start doesn't make any difference. I am sure if everybody that wants to adopt a traditional role finds a particular talent/skill useful it won't be long before everybody who plays that role is adopting the same thing.
The only way I can see it being classless is if you have individual tailored experience. Just because you have the power of choice with abilities/skills I don't see you have removed class. You may have multiple tiers, sub classes, but if I can choose the same options as you I can play as the same class.
I realize this is from a million and a half pages ago, but based off of that loose definition of classes, Magic the Gathering, rock paper scissors, paintball, and working at Walmart are all situations where someone is playing a class.
Comments
Saying cookie-cutter builds = classes is just plain stupid. Noone is forcing you to play that build. You play the game the way you want to play it. If you feel you have to follow the flavour of the month its your own problem.
Saying roles = classes is just plain stupid. Yes you will have those who go for the straightforward tank or healer. But the setup allows for an almost infinite amount of builds. I am not saying that one build will be just as good as the next (different encounters will be best beaten with certain builds), but the option to make whatever you want is there. If you really have to talk about classes in this game you would have to say it has an insanely high amount of classes. Im just gonna quote a dev with an example:
Players can take on any role they please which include the holy trinity (tank, mage, priest), but also many many more.
What differenciates us from more traditional MMOs is that when we look at a group scenario, we say "This encounter requires the equivalent of 1 healer, 1 tank, 1 crowd controller, 1 cleanser/purger and 1 dps" (I use this just as an example). This means that a valid group setup for this is:
Tank/crowd controller
Healer/dps
Dps/purger
Tank/cleanser
Healer/crowd controller
Also keep in mind that there are different ways of fulfilling these roles. When we look at encounters we not only say "this will require a healer", but we say "this will require a healer, and healer type X will be best suited". There is a big difference from the guy who relentlessly attacks everything around him in order to heal his buddies, and the guy who dishes out those nice juicy barriers to protect his team mates from those slow hard hitting attacks.
You are both right and wrong in that no one forces you to play a certain build. However, let's look at the facts.
Currently, the majority of MMO play time revolves around "end game": IE raids or PvP. That tends to be group content with a limited number of slots. Naturally, groups don't like to waste their time, so they'll take the most effective players before the less so. So in order to maintain a competitive edge with the rest and maintain a raid slot, you're forced to take a cookie-cutter build.
I'm not saying this is right- I'm saying this is. Now maybe TSW or some other game will eliminate this. Maybe. But we've been like this since there WERE MMOs. I don't see it changing that much.
And yes, classes do=roles. Or, more accurately, classes=a predefined set of optimized abilities and stats geared towards fulfilling a certain role. Now I agree with you that the possibility exists for an nigh-infinite amount of builds, but I will not be surprised in the slightest when we find that there is maybe a dozen, maybe fewer optimal builds that get consistently picked. The only way to avoid this is to make every single one of the hundreds of planned skills 100% equally useful in every situation, and that will not happen. Some skills will be situational, and largely ignored. Some skills will worked better in PVP, and be largely ignored by PvE players. Some skills will essentially be carbon copies of one another, but the one that does a teency bit more damage in some spreadsheet somewhere will probably win out.
Again, I'm not saying this is a bad thing. I just think that many players are convinced that classless, skill based MMOs allow for freedom that classed games never will. In a way they do. But players themselves will restrict themselves in the long run.
Nice analogy fyrewall.
However sometimes, no matter how you explain it, some people still don't understand, or want to understand.
I just think the OP is thinking too deeply.
When Funcom stated the game was classless and x number of year in the making I was expecting the evolution of the MMO, the next step. Not just something like a skill/ability list. To my mind I see no evolution and it makes me skeptical that progression is leveless as well. But Funcom are marketing this aspect which is where I get annoyed.
If Funcom had stated they removed traditional classes I wouldn't argue. But I was expecting some giant leap forward, which at the moment I don't see albeit I am yet to play the game. But from what I know at the moment classes can be created and likely will be created when optimal builds are found. It is not classless.
If Funcom had stated they removed traditional classes I wouldn't argue. But I was expecting some giant leap forward, which at the moment I don't see albeit I am yet to play the game. But from what I know at the moment classes can be created and likely will be created when optimal builds are found. It is not classless.
I think most of us knew what Funcom was talking about. Im sorry that you built up something in your head that wasnt there. My suggestion would be to get more MMO experience so you know what the different terms mean and how they work.
Classless =/= roleless. You can fit some role, then change it and fit some other. But you can switch them whenever you want. Or even make hybrid role. Or almost useless role.
In class system you can fit only roles designed for your class. I.e. warrior cant be healer, and mage cant be tank. In classless system you can fit all roles (ofc you have to unlock proper skills). No matter that some kind of build is "proper" for tank - you can still change it, and lets say... for pure tank skils add some nuke dps. Your limitation in TSW is 7 active and 7 passive skills, so you cant just add all you wish on your hotbar. But still, nuke from tank can be nice suprice in PvP.
I agree its up to the playerbase how this will turn out. I expect a very large amount of builds to be viable in PvE (PvP i have other views on). Especially because the mixing of roles they are going for, which is further supported by being able to equip 2 weapons at once (For example Fire/Sword, Hammer/curses, Shotgun/protective etc).
Yes you will have elitist players that require you to have certain build and items to run raids with them, but there are also players that dont mind using 10 minutes more in a dungeon to play the build they like the most and have most fun with. I know atleast what kind of players i will be playing with.
The classless system is a breath of fresh air compared to the many other MMOs to date which forces you down a preset path in which you have minimum saying.
Just curious...
If you took Guild Wars' skill system and removed the classes. Would you end up with a game without classes, or would you still have classes because players could choose to (or feel they have to) pick skills as if the class restrictions were still in place? There's more to the mechanics of TSW than this, but on a very basic level it's close. To me, it's obvious that if you take a system with defined classes, class restrictions on skills, passives and equipment, and remove the defined classes and class restrictions, you end up with a game without classes, but I'd like to hear where the flaw in my logic is.
There's a lot of "Ifs" here.
You state you can switch whenever you like. Now, I've missed a few news posts, but has FC actually said you can fully respec your skills on the fly, no penalty or fee? Even then, is it allowed in combat? Is there a cooldown? We don't know. Depending on how prohibitive changes are, you might not see people shifting that much.
As to your statement about a tank nuking or whatever, yeah I agree that could be nice (and I'm betting healer/dps hybrids will probably own in pvp, since they do in every other game out there, at least until someone nerfs them). But I think you'll mind with only 14 skills (and only 7 of those active), you're not gonna have a lot of flex room in your build. Mind you, I also haven't seen a lot of info on how trinity-tastic this game is going to be. If the Holy Triangle of Boredom exists just as strongly here, there will be little/no room for flexing. If they use a model closer to what, say, Guild Wars 2 is planning (tanks not required, everyone can heal) things may turn out different.
I know, that there will be limitations in changing decks. Some "-score" in dungeons. Probably decks can be only change out of combat, perhaps special place(anima well) will be required. But definetly they can be change, and this is part of game experience. That was clearly stated during "Polaris" dungeon crawl.
The GW2 system looks good, but heals arent equal between classes?
Well I am starting to wonder what the faiscination is with the game to be honest. But then perhaps if I could get access to the beta (without jumping through facebook hoops) I might understand how things work. But isn't it strange that this has been on the cards since what 2002 - and they aren't pushing the MMO genre forward by all accounts with any next gen stuff? I mean Guild Wars 2 is implementing Dynamic Events - single player rpg games are becoming more multiplayer in nature (co-op modes etc). All TSW seems to be bringing to the table is a new'ish setting.
the lore was been in work since 2002, (1998 actually), not the game as a whole.
As far as I understand the game was in pre-production in 2002, the development history has been up and down due to the many up's and down's at Funcom. We are talking about what I thought would be the most innovative aspects (classless, leveless) to be nothing more than a reworking of what is already available. So I am asking what are they doing that is revolutionary as far as the MMO world is concerned? Lore is just setting.
Theres the new setting, but there is also the whole over reaching ARG that takes place through the net itself. The game isn't meant to throw the genre on it's ear, but rather give players more immersion through puzzels and riddles both in game and on the web.
Why does a game have to push the envelope to be good? How many MMOs do we have that forsake the level/class pidgeon hole and allow the player to build a playstyle that works for them? How many MMOs do we have that combine an ARG with MMO gameplay?
Games like GW2 look fine, but its really just more of the same with 'dynamic events' thrown in (and how truely dynamic can triggered events based on yes/no scripting... no matter what it all comes down to 'If A = True/False then B') Because no matter how you look at it, dynamic events will be existing within a static framework with static triggers.
But after reading several of your posts and many of your replies it appears you don't really want to know anything about TSW, because people explain what they know and answer your questions only to have you repost the same thing over and over worded differently.
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
A game doesn't have to push the envelope to be good, but at the same time depends on the track record of the developer. If they produce solid, story led, immersive games then producing the same types of game is fine. But as far as Funcom are concerned doesn't this game need to be a success (negative cash flow expected until TSW launches). All this in mind I would expect for them to push some sort of boundary in order to attract customers. Because correct me if I am wrong but most MMO's are not exactly flourishing in financial terms. Considering what is coming out not just in the MMO world but the RPG world - don't they need to push the envelope? Or at least bring something new to the table so people will take a fresh look at them and what they have to offer?
My personal interest in TSW is I purchased a beta key, so I want to play the game. I don't tend to judge a game prior to playing, so I still have an open mind (to an extent) about TSW. But I fully expect Funcom to screw it up because they have no sense of the user. Regardless of the quaility of the game I expect Funcom will make a mess of it overall. It will be the fundementals where they fail, bug fixing, performance, taking notice of their user community etc etc. So I expect for me, and perhaps for a lot of other people, the game in itself is going to have to be mind blowing for us to part with any cash.
My personal interest in TSW is I purchased a beta key, so I want to play the game. I don't tend to judge a game prior to playing, so I still have an open mind (to an extent) about TSW. But I fully expect Funcom to screw it up because they have no sense of the user. Regardless of the quaility of the game I expect Funcom will make a mess of it overall. It will be the fundementals where they fail, bug fixing, performance, taking notice of their user community etc etc. So I expect for me, and perhaps for a lot of other people, the game in itself is going to have to be mind blowing for us to part with any cash.
You've already judged the game through the developer. Your expectations being what they are, I wonder at why you spent money buying a beta key from someone.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
With that kind of mindset and general heavily negative stance towards FC, I'm surprised that you have any interest at all in this game, and not in others that are from companies that you don't passionately hate/dislike, like GW2, SWTOR, TERA, ArcheAge, Firefall or World of Darkness. Following a game from a company that's the one that you trust the least of all companies around and that apparently holds little appeal above those other upcoming MMO's just makes no sense to me at all.
My advice is, let this one go: move on, look at the other upcoming MMO's and follow those, if it's really gameplay enjoyment that you're after, there'll be enough MMO's upcoming that looks like they can be fun too. And only when TSW launched and you hear positive comments about it I'd suggest you cast a second glance to TSW again. Following a game that you're kind of 'meh' about from a company you'd rather see burn in hell, well, it seems like setting yourself up for disappointment and the opposite of looking for gaming fun in your situation. Like the saying goes, 'fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me'?
If you had a bad, traumatic experience with FC/AoC before and still trust FC for not even an inch, I'd think that other MMO's would have more appeal to you. Especially if you think that the game and FC will fail anyway.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
If you still have that same video card (you refused not tell us what it was) you said would not run Age of Conan then you just blew money in the wind buying that beta key. But then again I think both of these stories is a bunch of cow pie.
.. .... .- - . - .-. --- .-.. .-.. ... .-- .... --- .-. . .--. --- .-. - .-.-.-
--------------------------------------------------------
Promote what you love instead of bashing what you hate.
Oh I think I get it now. This doesnt really have anything to do with the actual question youre posing. Its more of a rhetorical argument against a game youre not interested in. So GW2 is your fav? Its not our jobs to try and convince you to like TSW. Theres a ton of unique features about tsw that make it a true next gen mmo. Do some research please.
I haven't judged the game at all and I won't judge it until I play the game. But I have no faith in the developer at all. I was conned into buying a beta key when I bought an AOC subscription and I say conned, because it was inferred a beta for TSW would be available shortly. Not explicitly stated but I don't in general find I buy a game marketed with 'beta access' to find out the beta is x number of years away.
This is a company that launch an expansion for AOC and when you can't play the expansion because of memory errors and the client crashes. They don't offer you a refund on your remaining subscription or the expansion, all they offer you is free game time for a game you can't play! Me and Funcom do have history I will admit and after redeem my beta access/play the game I fully expect us to part ways. Unless of course the game is so mind blowing that I forgive them for all past sins. But I can't see that happening.
No my rig still sucks when it comes to AOC - but is running well for everything else. So I am not going to get into this argument that it's my card, or my setup, or something along those lines. Been there done that, my rig is fine. my network is fine, it should run any game at a reasonable whack and guess what it does. Apart from AOC - the only game that runs like a dead dog even with the new game engine. But here is the skinny I can get AOC to work well - just not out the box or with the standard settings. I have to apply a multitude of hacks, tips/tricks and mod my whole setup just to get reasonable performance - don't have to do this for any other game.
You've already judged the game through the developer. Your expectations being what they are, I wonder at why you spent money buying a beta key from someone.
I haven't judged the game at all and I won't judge it until I play the game. But I have no faith in the developer at all. I was conned into buying a beta key when I bought an AOC subscription and I say conned, because it was inferred a beta for TSW would be available shortly. Not explicitly stated but I don't in general find I buy a game marketed with 'beta access' to find out the beta is x number of years away.
This is a company that launch an expansion for AOC and when you can't play the expansion because of memory errors and the client crashes. They don't offer you a refund on your remaining subscription or the expansion, all they offer you is free game time for a game you can't play! Me and Funcom do have history I will admit and after redeem my beta access/play the game I fully expect us to part ways. Unless of course the game is so mind blowing that I forgive them for all past sins. But I can't see that happening.
Hopefully they have learned from AoC and AO. It doesn't matter if the suits want to release the game now, if it's not ready, don't let it out the door. Time will tell though.
I am fully sold on the idea of TSW. Will have to see how the actual game plays out though. My cat is currently doing the beta song and dance on Facebook. :-)
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
This is what gets me a little, everybody is hopeful things with Funcom have changed yet we have no evidence of this at all. The recent beta clock countdown announcement seems to indicate nothing has changed - unless you believe it's all part of the game (now any problem can be part of the game due to ARG).
They aren't in touch with the people interested in the game - the majority according to the mini poll on this site don't want to be bothered with Facebook just to play a game. However successful or not TSW is, the main problem to my mind is always going to the fact that Funcom are just so out of touch. AOC is a good game and with going free to play it's having a bit of resurgence. But it was always a good game - the direction they took it was wrong. They didn't listen to the users comments and they never fixed bugs or problems in a timely manner. They recovered from a bad launch, they were heading in the right direction then they made business choices which screwed the game.
If anything I would just warn people to not be sucked in with TSW and assume Funcom have changed until there is some evidence to that effect. If I was playing the beta now I would say - you know what perhaps things are looking up. But I haven't seen the beta and then when you start to scratch the surface 'classless' isn't classless etc etc. I though EA having some participation in things might have turned stuff around.
Ahem. In EVE-speak:-
"Bait" = Tank
"Logi" = Healer
"EWAR" = CC
"DPS" = DPS
You as a player/avatar are free to pick skills to fit any of these roles, and ships for these roles, but these roles do exist, same as they do in other games.
The only other possible alternative is the WTFSOLOPWNMOBILE. That's disallowed in EVE, as it's dissallowed in almost every other MMO.
Even in Champions Online, the most classless MMO out there I can think of, where nearly every player is the equivalent of a WTFSOLOPWNMOBILE, there are roles which you can skew a build towards, for really difficult group content.
I realize this is from a million and a half pages ago, but based off of that loose definition of classes, Magic the Gathering, rock paper scissors, paintball, and working at Walmart are all situations where someone is playing a class.