Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
But in all of this the mechanics involved with the Holy Trinity system have a purpose, and over time has been perfected so players can play certain roles as mains...you know the RP in MMORPG?
The "RP" to me always referred to playing the character in the setting. The definition you're using never occurred to me until about a year ago; and while I'm not sure which definition is the ideological revisionism and which is the proper history, I am pretty confident that mine is more common than yours. When you run into the "RP community" in a game, they're the people playing at improv acting and speaking in terms of the setting tropes - not the people talking about 'tanking damage' or 'build optimizations,' which is what I would expect from those who adhere to your version of RP.
In fact, the only place I've ever seen yours used is in "defence of holy trinity" arguments. And though it's usually a logical fallacy, language is the one place where an appeal to common practice is somewhat justified. Which is to say, while your concept of "RP" isn't wrong, it's unlikely to be the one most readily thought of by the average gamer.
As for the trinity itself, you call it perfected but I call it stifling. You *can* play certain 'roles' in trinity based games, but *only* those roles. It's like playing MtG in a metagame where everything but 'midrange' is gone.
RP of that nature evolved out of the MuDs that enforced it, that type of RP I never got into as it's so put on (last time I played a MuD, when people are screaming, "LAG BEASSSSST!!!" in a corner so the GM doesn't ban them...come on). The RP I adhere to is the back story, and how a toon fits into the world. I'm not going to literally RP a Holy paladin to the point of speaking in Middle English and looking for heathens to smite, but I will keep to the general theme of the class...like my eternal enemy are the undead and react to undead with determination to keep them dead, dead. And since Horde has the Undead race, and a juicy traitor class called Blood Elves, fits into the WoW lore perfectly. Call it RP "lite".
It maybe stifling to you, but if there wasn't this Holy Trinity like concept, there would be chaos. Players learned to simplify the many classes and make essentially 3 roles fulfill the work. It does work. And by extension offers players a full-time means to RP those roles. I can't even think of playing WoW as simply a class named paladin, and then just a healbot. It has no meaning. A role, as a paladin healer there's a purpose playing that character and keep evolving over the long haul. Because what also evolved over time was the tank and healer became the "dad and mom" in these groups, and why they're now called "responsible roles". As a healer, I really do feel like a "mother hen".
Things work because they've been means tested. Just now the mechanics need some tweaking, because there's not enough tanks and healers for the 5 to 1 ratio of damage dealers. Need to make them sexier, so the kids will see there's more than one role to play that's fun.
They 'work' not due to the inherently good game design, but because they address meta-mechanic issues. Collison detection and good AI take large amounts of processing power and bandwidth as well. Which has not always been available. Just look at the PvP strategies: Take out the healers, CC, and other squishies first. Which should be the PVE design as well. Trinity design plays on real world flaws, its not writ in some holy book.
As far as immersion goes, how come a simple warrior can aggravate every single foe, in every single language? As a superhero trope it could make sense, or as a magic power. A Holy Warrior Paladin having a divine skill at taunting makes some sense. But every fighter? Some of whom (depending on system) can barely hurt you?
Also, shouldn't Paladins be speaking some archaic form of French? Technically speaking, of course.....
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
I'd say the trinity is fairly close to older warfare, and even has parallels today.
When you send in the invasion force, do you send tanks, or thin-skinned supply vehicles in first? -- tanks
Range weapons, both archers and now missile batteries, are not highly armored. They go in the back, protected by ... tanks.
Aircraft are new, but even they tend to follow the trend. They have a lot of dps, but little armor; you could think of them as the stealth character: able to do a lot of damage, but pretty easy to take down if directly attacked. They are hard to hit, though.
What I think is further from anything real, is the new tendency to allow all players to be all things.
Aircraft are new, but even they tend to follow the trend. They have a lot of dps, but little armor; you could think of them as the stealth character: able to do a lot of damage, but pretty easy to take down if directly attacked. They are hard to hit, though.
And transport aircraft is defended by interceptors and bomber squadrons.
All this comes down to gamers just wanting to play a Jack of All Trades, and master of none one role (probably the interest in raising 10001 alts with 100000001 builds too).
Aircraft are new, but even they tend to follow the trend. They have a lot of dps, but little armor; you could think of them as the stealth character: able to do a lot of damage, but pretty easy to take down if directly attacked. They are hard to hit, though.
And transport aircraft is defended by interceptors and bomber squadrons.
All this comes down to gamers just wanting to play a Jack of All Trades, and master of none one role (probably the interest in raising 10001 alts with 100000001 builds too).
I normally like to play as the jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none, with CC, and utility skills. Although none of the skills are as good as the specialized player, the value of this type of player is that you can pick the right skill for the right time. Think of them perhaps as combat engineers. Not armored like tanks, not ranged like missile batteries, but able to do an assortment of valuable things.
However, with many of the newer game designs coming out, you can't play like that. Especially those who are also being designed for consoles. They typically only allow for a handful of abilities. (*cough*ESO*cough*)
Aircraft are new, but even they tend to follow the trend. They have a lot of dps, but little armor; you could think of them as the stealth character: able to do a lot of damage, but pretty easy to take down if directly attacked. They are hard to hit, though.
And transport aircraft is defended by interceptors and bomber squadrons.
All this comes down to gamers just wanting to play a Jack of All Trades, and master of none one role (probably the interest in raising 10001 alts with 100000001 builds too).
I normally like to play as the jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none, with CC, and utility skills. Although none of the skills are as good as the specialized player, the value of this type of player is that you can pick the right skill for the right time. Think of them perhaps as combat engineers. Not armored like tanks, not ranged like missile batteries, but able to do an assortment of valuable things.
However, with many of the newer game designs coming out, you can't play like that. Especially those who are also being designed for consoles. They typically only allow for a handful of abilities. (*cough*ESO*cough*)
If publishers stuck to the D&D multi-class system (pures can be masters of their class only; multis can get only at max 3/4 of one class skills/abilities) it would be better. It rewards specialization, but also offers experimentation to those willing to take the penalty.
I was willing to take the penalty hit to be a healing paladin for example, and fine with it. But publishers seem to want to move away from multi penalties and just allow hybrids specialist skills, and those classes feel just as throw aways in the process.
The reward is being either the best specialist or the best hybrid. Not hybrids trump pures.
They kind of do because tanks are well... tanks? Whou'd of thought. DPS is dps like a gun or something or anything which could hurt you and Healers are like a nurse or doctors or something.
1. The closest thing to Trinity existing in real life was large scale Midieval battles. There would be melee infantry men on the front line while rows of archers would loose arrows over them. On the back behind the archers would be some reserve troops. Reserves would moved forward if the front line collapsed. Healing didn't really exist though and neither did agro. More people died after the battle from festering wounds then were killed directly in combat.
2. The Trinity in video games was created by accident and players capitalizing on dumb mob AIs. In the early days of Everquest there were two ways to kill things. One was to kite tank by running around in circles and the other was to heal tank. In 1999 the trinity was consider emergent game play. The heal tank method became the most popular with community because it required much less skill than kite tanking. The first official trinity in Everquest was Warrior, Cleric, Chanter. The devs never planned this out. It was the players who came up with the trinity. The devs simply supported it later on by designing encounters around the trinity.
Indeed. The holy trinity is basically players exploiting dumb AI. Its inspiration did not come from real combat and this is why attempts to apply it to real life sounds so silly.
3. Trinity breaks immersion because it so unrealistic. MMOs in the future will not have a trinity.
Alas, there will always be a market for trinity games, I think.
There will always be a market for trinity games because people like easy games. Manually dodging attacks is much more difficult than going through button rotations while the mobs back is turned.
There will always be a market for trinity games because people like easy games. Manually dodging attacks is much more difficult than going through button rotations while the mobs back is turned.
Play WoW now and tell us how easy the AI is.
It isn't. "Rotations" are now on a priority system, can't do what was done before Cata.
I'd say some of the quest NPCs in WoW now are harder to survive through -- as a healer mind you -- than PvP players without FoTM gimmicks. Not only do they follow your movements face on, they'll react to your abilities, making it tough to counter their abilities. All the player skeletons in those quest zones show by how much!
Cop outs may have worked in 2010, not in 2014.
The devs are perfecting the AIs to the point, I'd say in an expansion or two in WoW, that PvE will be more challenging than PvP. Because PvP will be as predictable.
That's going to be THE revolution in gaming, because PvP is provided because players claim human intelligence is superior to AI. Well, Blizzard is going overtime in perfecting the PvE game, because...
But in all of this the mechanics involved with the Holy Trinity system have a purpose, and over time has been perfected so players can play certain roles as mains...you know the RP in MMORPG?
The "RP" to me always referred to playing the character in the setting. The definition you're using never occurred to me until about a year ago; and while I'm not sure which definition is the ideological revisionism and which is the proper history, I am pretty confident that mine is more common than yours. When you run into the "RP community" in a game, they're the people playing at improv acting and speaking in terms of the setting tropes - not the people talking about 'tanking damage' or 'build optimizations,' which is what I would expect from those who adhere to your version of RP.
In fact, the only place I've ever seen yours used is in "defence of holy trinity" arguments. And though it's usually a logical fallacy, language is the one place where an appeal to common practice is somewhat justified. Which is to say, while your concept of "RP" isn't wrong, it's unlikely to be the one most readily thought of by the average gamer.
As for the trinity itself, you call it perfected but I call it stifling. You *can* play certain 'roles' in trinity based games, but *only* those roles. It's like playing MtG in a metagame where everything but 'midrange' is gone.
RP of that nature evolved out of the MuDs that enforced it,
Actually, I believe it evolved on the tabletop games first and got imported to the MuDs from there :P
that type of RP never got into as it's so put on (last time I played a MuD, when people are screaming, "LAG BEASSSSST!!!" in a corner so the GM doesn't ban them...come on). The RP I adhere to is the back story, and how a toon fits into the world. I'm not going to literally RP a Holy paladin to the point of speaking in Middle English and looking for heathens to smite, but I will keep to the general theme of the class...like my eternal enemy are the undead and react to undead with determination to keep them dead, dead. And since Horde has the Undead race, and a juicy traitor class called Blood Elves, fits into the WoW lore perfectly. Call it RP "lite".
Middle English (usually bad) and zero-tolerance policies belong in the same category as VOIP-ragers and abusive guild-leaders: as things I wish were strawmen, but sadly aren't.
(Also, that section of the "RP community" that thinks "RP" = "cybersex.")
It maybe stifling to you, but if there wasn't this Holy Trinity like concept, there would be chaos.
I admit, I like a little chaos; without chaos, there is only stagnation.
Be honest, which was more memorable: the 5th smooth clear in a row, or the first try that turned into a total clusterf**k? The boss-kill that you managed by the skin of your teeth, or the one you could have run while typing out a post here?
And yes, in the games I've played where the Trinity was actually bypassed (or at least vague enough for debate about whether arguments that it was there had basis or just forcing the shoe on an oversized foot) there was more chaos than the ones where it was endorsed. But it wasn't *all* mindless zerging or whatever.
Players learned to simplify the many classes and make essentially 3 roles fulfill the work.
Which implies that DPS is DPS; whether it's ranged or melee, burst or sustained, AOE or pinpoint - doesn't matter, it's all the same.
But that's nitpicking. Point that's been touched on by others, is that it wasn't just the players. The devs had a hand in it too, by designing the system so that 'everything else' could be pared off or crammed in to 3 slots.
Some of that was due to system limits (mob AI and design time being the big ones.) Some of it was part of a feedback loop with the players, each rewarding the other for continuing down this path. But it wasn't just the players involved.
It does work. And by extension offers players a full-time means to RP those roles. I can't even think of playing WoW as simply a class named paladin, and then just a healbot. It has no meaning. A role, as a paladin healer there's a purpose playing that character and keep evolving over the long haul.
I find that it's the Trinity itself that gets in the way of me being more than "a class named paladin, and then just a healbot." It gives me the mechanics to handle that role, while generating an environment that pushes me into being exactly that, but it doesn't offer anything for being anything other than that.
Also, I never said it doesn't "work." I admit it does work. It just works in a way that I find bland and played-out. Like playing ICS on Civ2.
Because what also evolved over time was the tank and healer became the "dad and mom" in these groups, and why they're now called "responsible roles". As a healer, I really do feel like a "mother hen".
I'm not sure how that follows from the previous paragraph, but fair enough. Personally, I always felt more like I was working helpdesk again. (Not that doing DPS was much better: less responsible, but more 'infinitely replaceable.')
Things work because they've been means tested. Just now the mechanics need some tweaking, because there's not enough tanks and healers for the 5 to 1 ratio of damage dealers. Need to make them sexier, so the kids will see there's more than one role to play that's fun.
They buffed the hell out of clerics in 3e, letting them be Tank, DPS and Healer all at once and it was still the least popular class. (Not sure what they did in 4th, I haven't even looked at that one yet.) This tells me that tweaking the mechanics alone won't do the trick. Losing the holy baggage might help, though, at least based on conversations about why nobody wanted to be a cleric.
Help you, that is; not me. I'll still be left out in the cold, looking at games that can't hold my interest while the few who make the attempt to try something else get ripped apart by unforgiving fans for the inevitable hiccups that come with trying to break new ground.
There will always be a market for trinity games because people like easy games. Manually dodging attacks is much more difficult than going through button rotations while the mobs back is turned.
Play WoW now and tell us how easy the AI is.
It isn't. "Rotations" are now on a priority system, can't do what was done before Cata.
I'd say some of the quest NPCs in WoW now are harder to survive through -- as a healer mind you -- than PvP players without FoTM gimmicks. Not only do they follow your movements face on, they'll react to your abilities, making it tough to counter their abilities. All the player skeletons in those quest zones show by how much!
Cop outs may have worked in 2010, not in 2014.
The devs are perfecting the AIs to the point, I'd say in an expansion or two in WoW, that PvE will be more challenging than PvP. Because PvP will be as predictable.
That's going to be THE revolution in gaming, because PvP is provided because players claim human intelligence is superior to AI. Well, Blizzard is going overtime in perfecting the PvE game, because...
Sounds good to me, and if anyone can pull it off, it probably will be Blizzard, the more complex the npc AI is the better imo, and if they really can improve it to that degree, then fair enough, WoW may even undergo a revival, though i do hope they upgrade the graphics quite a bit too
but hell yes, 'shut up pvp guy'
though can't help but feel their focus on PVE is mostly because there are more PVE players than PVP ones by a significant margin.
There will always be a market for trinity games because people like easy games. Manually dodging attacks is much more difficult than going through button rotations while the mobs back is turned.
Play WoW now and tell us how easy the AI is.
It isn't. "Rotations" are now on a priority system, can't do what was done before Cata.
I'd say some of the quest NPCs in WoW now are harder to survive through -- as a healer mind you -- than PvP players without FoTM gimmicks. Not only do they follow your movements face on, they'll react to your abilities, making it tough to counter their abilities. All the player skeletons in those quest zones show by how much!
Cop outs may have worked in 2010, not in 2014.
The devs are perfecting the AIs to the point, I'd say in an expansion or two in WoW, that PvE will be more challenging than PvP. Because PvP will be as predictable.
That's going to be THE revolution in gaming, because PvP is provided because players claim human intelligence is superior to AI. Well, Blizzard is going overtime in perfecting the PvE game, because...
Revolution might be the right word, but don't be surprised if it's the *other* kind of revolution. The Hardcore PvE crowd might want a game that's "more challenging than PvP," but I highly doubt the mass market does.
Revolution might be the right word, but don't be surprised if it's the *other* kind of revolution. The Hardcore PvE crowd might want a game that's "more challenging than PvP," but I highly doubt the mass market does.
PvPers really don't want challenge, they just want more ganking. It was proven in WoW's twink battlegrounds (after jumping up and down the forums asking for it, then waiting 3+hrs for queues because the twinks are too busy facerolling on the regular BGs, it fell on the wayside) and when CRZ opened, the Black Portal area turned into Barrens all over again...you know level 90s killing level 58s "challenge" stuff.
Revolution might be the right word, but don't be surprised if it's the *other* kind of revolution. The Hardcore PvE crowd might want a game that's "more challenging than PvP," but I highly doubt the mass market does.
PvPers really don't want challenge, they just want more ganking. It was proven in WoW's twink battlegrounds (after jumping up and down the forums asking for it, then waiting 3+hrs for queues because the twinks are too busy facerolling on the regular BGs, it fell on the wayside) and when CRZ opened, the Black Portal area turned into Barrens all over again...you know level 90s killing level 58s "challenge" stuff.
Are PvEers *really* any different, as a whole?
Remember, I'm talking about the masses. Not the hardcore crowd, who talk about even 25man raids as being "dumbed down for casuals who couldn't handle 40-man."
(Also, I left WoW even before BC was released and never looked back. IIRC, the cap was 60 back then, so I don't know "level 90s killing level 58s.")
I swear to you guys, if you want to see the trinity at work in real life, watch a season of Big Brother or Survivor with the trinity in mind. You will see the roles pop right out in front of your eyes. Even the taunts hehe.
Comments
hahaha lol.
Read this: http://www.youhaventlived.com/qblog/2010/QBlog190810A.html
Then come back here and explain how the players came up with the trinity.
Did you just make that up or did someone tell you that and you just believed it?
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
They 'work' not due to the inherently good game design, but because they address meta-mechanic issues. Collison detection and good AI take large amounts of processing power and bandwidth as well. Which has not always been available. Just look at the PvP strategies: Take out the healers, CC, and other squishies first. Which should be the PVE design as well. Trinity design plays on real world flaws, its not writ in some holy book.
As far as immersion goes, how come a simple warrior can aggravate every single foe, in every single language? As a superhero trope it could make sense, or as a magic power. A Holy Warrior Paladin having a divine skill at taunting makes some sense. But every fighter? Some of whom (depending on system) can barely hurt you?
Also, shouldn't Paladins be speaking some archaic form of French? Technically speaking, of course.....
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
Which is no better than dumping the Holy Trinity for no roles but one.
GW2 couldn't fix it, so gut it all out.
So much for innovation!
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
I'd say the trinity is fairly close to older warfare, and even has parallels today.
When you send in the invasion force, do you send tanks, or thin-skinned supply vehicles in first? -- tanks
Range weapons, both archers and now missile batteries, are not highly armored. They go in the back, protected by ... tanks.
Aircraft are new, but even they tend to follow the trend. They have a lot of dps, but little armor; you could think of them as the stealth character: able to do a lot of damage, but pretty easy to take down if directly attacked. They are hard to hit, though.
What I think is further from anything real, is the new tendency to allow all players to be all things.
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.
And transport aircraft is defended by interceptors and bomber squadrons.
All this comes down to gamers just wanting to play a Jack of All Trades, and master of none one role (probably the interest in raising 10001 alts with 100000001 builds too).
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
I normally like to play as the jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none, with CC, and utility skills. Although none of the skills are as good as the specialized player, the value of this type of player is that you can pick the right skill for the right time. Think of them perhaps as combat engineers. Not armored like tanks, not ranged like missile batteries, but able to do an assortment of valuable things.
However, with many of the newer game designs coming out, you can't play like that. Especially those who are also being designed for consoles. They typically only allow for a handful of abilities. (*cough*ESO*cough*)
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.
If publishers stuck to the D&D multi-class system (pures can be masters of their class only; multis can get only at max 3/4 of one class skills/abilities) it would be better. It rewards specialization, but also offers experimentation to those willing to take the penalty.
I was willing to take the penalty hit to be a healing paladin for example, and fine with it. But publishers seem to want to move away from multi penalties and just allow hybrids specialist skills, and those classes feel just as throw aways in the process.
The reward is being either the best specialist or the best hybrid. Not hybrids trump pures.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
This isn't a signature, you just think it is.
There will always be a market for trinity games because people like easy games. Manually dodging attacks is much more difficult than going through button rotations while the mobs back is turned.
Play WoW now and tell us how easy the AI is.
It isn't. "Rotations" are now on a priority system, can't do what was done before Cata.
I'd say some of the quest NPCs in WoW now are harder to survive through -- as a healer mind you -- than PvP players without FoTM gimmicks. Not only do they follow your movements face on, they'll react to your abilities, making it tough to counter their abilities. All the player skeletons in those quest zones show by how much!
Cop outs may have worked in 2010, not in 2014.
The devs are perfecting the AIs to the point, I'd say in an expansion or two in WoW, that PvE will be more challenging than PvP. Because PvP will be as predictable.
That's going to be THE revolution in gaming, because PvP is provided because players claim human intelligence is superior to AI. Well, Blizzard is going overtime in perfecting the PvE game, because...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Or8q02BQFLY
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
Actually, I believe it evolved on the tabletop games first and got imported to the MuDs from there :P
Middle English (usually bad) and zero-tolerance policies belong in the same category as VOIP-ragers and abusive guild-leaders: as things I wish were strawmen, but sadly aren't.
(Also, that section of the "RP community" that thinks "RP" = "cybersex.")
I admit, I like a little chaos; without chaos, there is only stagnation.
Be honest, which was more memorable: the 5th smooth clear in a row, or the first try that turned into a total clusterf**k? The boss-kill that you managed by the skin of your teeth, or the one you could have run while typing out a post here?
And yes, in the games I've played where the Trinity was actually bypassed (or at least vague enough for debate about whether arguments that it was there had basis or just forcing the shoe on an oversized foot) there was more chaos than the ones where it was endorsed. But it wasn't *all* mindless zerging or whatever.
Which implies that DPS is DPS; whether it's ranged or melee, burst or sustained, AOE or pinpoint - doesn't matter, it's all the same.
But that's nitpicking. Point that's been touched on by others, is that it wasn't just the players. The devs had a hand in it too, by designing the system so that 'everything else' could be pared off or crammed in to 3 slots.
Some of that was due to system limits (mob AI and design time being the big ones.) Some of it was part of a feedback loop with the players, each rewarding the other for continuing down this path. But it wasn't just the players involved.
I find that it's the Trinity itself that gets in the way of me being more than "a class named paladin, and then just a healbot." It gives me the mechanics to handle that role, while generating an environment that pushes me into being exactly that, but it doesn't offer anything for being anything other than that.
Also, I never said it doesn't "work." I admit it does work. It just works in a way that I find bland and played-out. Like playing ICS on Civ2.
I'm not sure how that follows from the previous paragraph, but fair enough. Personally, I always felt more like I was working helpdesk again. (Not that doing DPS was much better: less responsible, but more 'infinitely replaceable.')
They buffed the hell out of clerics in 3e, letting them be Tank, DPS and Healer all at once and it was still the least popular class. (Not sure what they did in 4th, I haven't even looked at that one yet.) This tells me that tweaking the mechanics alone won't do the trick. Losing the holy baggage might help, though, at least based on conversations about why nobody wanted to be a cleric.
Help you, that is; not me. I'll still be left out in the cold, looking at games that can't hold my interest while the few who make the attempt to try something else get ripped apart by unforgiving fans for the inevitable hiccups that come with trying to break new ground.
Sounds good to me, and if anyone can pull it off, it probably will be Blizzard, the more complex the npc AI is the better imo, and if they really can improve it to that degree, then fair enough, WoW may even undergo a revival, though i do hope they upgrade the graphics quite a bit too
but hell yes, 'shut up pvp guy'
though can't help but feel their focus on PVE is mostly because there are more PVE players than PVP ones by a significant margin.
Revolution might be the right word, but don't be surprised if it's the *other* kind of revolution. The Hardcore PvE crowd might want a game that's "more challenging than PvP," but I highly doubt the mass market does.
PvPers really don't want challenge, they just want more ganking. It was proven in WoW's twink battlegrounds (after jumping up and down the forums asking for it, then waiting 3+hrs for queues because the twinks are too busy facerolling on the regular BGs, it fell on the wayside) and when CRZ opened, the Black Portal area turned into Barrens all over again...you know level 90s killing level 58s "challenge" stuff.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
Are PvEers *really* any different, as a whole?
Remember, I'm talking about the masses. Not the hardcore crowd, who talk about even 25man raids as being "dumbed down for casuals who couldn't handle 40-man."
(Also, I left WoW even before BC was released and never looked back. IIRC, the cap was 60 back then, so I don't know "level 90s killing level 58s.")
First we have people comparing the trinity to the military.
Now somebody is saying WoW is hard.
Close this topic; someone might catch the stupid in this thread.
We get it - you're a hater. Do you actually have a good counter-point to what he wrote?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky