Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

QoL (Quality of Life): The Double Edged Sword

AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member EpicPosts: 5,410
Never did a story start out like this:

"I went to school everyday in a red 1965 Corvette driven by Christy Brinkley downhill both ways in beautiful sunny weather with the top down."

That just doesn't happen. Stories are made of the hardships overcome, not the easy path taken.

Quality of Life (QoL) can be both good and bad. A UI adjustment that saves wear and tear on wrists and fingers is a good change. An implementation to help players find groups can be good or bad, depending on your desires.

MMORPGs are about playing with other players. NOT forced grouping, mind you, but just being aware and open to other players playing the same game. An LFG feature may be good for players that want to jump on and kill things, but really it detracts from what online gaming is about, or what it offers that single player games can not: Playing with others.

Yes, sometimes in old MMORPGs, players could easily spend 30 to over 60 minutes seeking a group to join. This happened to me often. But instead of sitting on my ass in some big city waiting, I'd run about and DO things like crafting or hunting or banking or questing or socializing. It wasn't wasted time. At times, though, it was a pain in the backside. So was a lot of the game... like dying.

There was (and still is) a lot to complain about in old MMORPGs. But didn't that make the accomplishments more meaningful? Better? Sweeter?

Where do you stand on QoL changes for the MMO genre?

- Al

Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
- FARGIN_WAR


(And now Burger King has MEATLESS burgers!)

AmatheGdemamiIselinAmaranthar
«1

Comments

  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member EpicPosts: 5,410
    PS: This isn't just about the LFG feature, but any QoL "improvement."

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR


    (And now Burger King has MEATLESS burgers!)

  • goboygogoboygo Member RarePosts: 2,061
    edited June 1
    I say just play the game let development happen organically. 

    Most QOL improvements in today's MMO's do not encourage this play style.  They automate events so players now just focus on completing "tasks" and checking boxes and not playing the game.

    Example, someone gets a quest for 10 bug legs, there are people that can now do literally nothing but chase down 10 bug legs and if they are a rare mob they will spend hours running around a zone single mindedly focused trying to complete the task.  Completely burning themselves out, then complaining later.

    Instead players should just play the game, they will eventually get the bug legs.  I can come up with 10 more examples on play style obsessions that have given us the modern MMO of automation through dungeon finders / auto running to quests / single player focused MMO's / I could go on an on.

    Just play the game...
    AlBQuirkyGdemami
  • ArteriusArterius Member EpicPosts: 1,852
    QoL when done well can keep a game for a long time. If done horrible can kill a game way faster then anything else.

    Monster Hunter World did QoL perfectly, not for me mind you, but for a lot of people those QoL changes were needed after so many years. FFXIV also does QoL really well. Every expansion they do a handful and they are very careful about what they do.  They are usually well received.

    Bad QoL changes like WoW and in my mind SWTOR helped kill their respective games. 
    AlBQuirkyGdemami
  • AmatheAmathe Member LegendaryPosts: 5,719
    Some games are like going to a private boy's school. While you are there you hand wring over how hard the curriculum is, the bullies, the snobs, the rites of passage and initiations, how tough or how boring the teachers, and so on. But all those challenges, once overcome, add up to a feeling of accomplishment that lasts a lifetime. Next thing you know you're sending your kid there.

    Easy games cannot match that. They may have other attributes, and be worthwhile for other reasons, but not that one.  


    GdemamiAlBQuirkyKyleranAmarantharSteelhelm

    EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests

  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member EpicPosts: 5,410
    Amathe said:
    Some games are like going to a private boy's school. While you are there you hand wring over how hard the curriculum is, the bullies, the snobs, the rites of passage and initiations, how tough or how boring the teachers, and so on. But all those challenges, once overcome, add up to a feeling of accomplishment that lasts a lifetime. Next thing you know you're sending your kid there.

    Easy games cannot match that. They may have other attributes, and be worthwhile for other reasons, but not that one.  


    Good example! Though I never went to a private school, the movies I've seen agree. If they're anything like other gatherings of boys (sports, especially), not too welcoming :)

    There is something about the harder the game, the more satisfying the accomplishments.

    PS: We got hit by the Gdmami "love button!" We must be on the right track :)
    AmatheAmaranthar

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR


    (And now Burger King has MEATLESS burgers!)

  • AmatheAmathe Member LegendaryPosts: 5,719
    goboygo said:

    Example, someone gets a quest for 10 bug legs, there are people that can now do literally nothing but chase down 10 bug legs and if they are a rare mob they will spend hours running around a zone single mindedly focused trying to complete the task.  Completely burning themselves out, then complaining later.

    Instead players should just play the game, they will eventually get the bug legs.  I can come up with 10 more examples on play style obsessions that have given us the modern MMO of automation through dungeon finders / auto running to quests / single player focused MMO's / I could go on an on.

    Just play the game...
    Warhammer was supposed to be like that. But alas, it wasn't.

    EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests

  • ShaighShaigh Member RarePosts: 2,007
    Worst thing about QoL changes is when they result in the game changing as well or they compensate poor game design.

    • When Rift included a dungeon finder they ended up nerfing their hard dungeons because people sucked at playing together with random people.
    • WoW ended up preventing full teams in their battlegrounds because they were too dominating.
    • Bossmods ended up telling players when to anticipate something because players had more attention to their UI than what happened on screen.
    • The game world ended up so dull that they added autopathing.

    On the opposite side you have poorly made descriptions that force you to exit the game to understand game mechanics. You also have the false choices for character builds that everyone should avoid.
    AlBQuirkyGorweSteelhelm
    The cynic knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 12,902
    edited June 3
    Yeah I hear you but I think my fond memories of early MMOs with corpse runs, no LFG and very slow leveling are heavily tinted by my rose colored glasses.

    If I'm being honest with myself I think the bulk of the remembered enjoyment comes from it being new and better and faster ways not being invented yet. Walking to the dungeon entrance to do a run was indeed fun but only the first few times. After a while it was more like a chore. Same with the danger of corpse runs. In Asheron's Call our corpses had items and if you died repeatedly, trying to recover your items the earlier corpses became open for anyone to loot - not to mention that you got progressively weaker with each unsuccessful attempt as more and more of the gear you needed to fight dropped with a corpse... fun times? :)

    Of course the flip side of that is what those dungeon runs today have become: little to no socializing - just speed runs everywhere - and players standing around aimlessly in a convenient town hub just treating the game like an instanced lobby MMO even when it isn't. And death is nothing but a minor inconvenience now usually with self-rez on the spot.
    AlBQuirkySteelhelm
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED
  • MendelMendel Member EpicPosts: 3,271
    I remember when EQ1 added its LFG tool.  It was mostly useful and, for an EQ1 UI, relatively simple to use.  The oft-praised community rejected it outright almost immediately.  It was far more successful to do manual searches (/who all cleric 32-37) and contact people with /tell.  You might get a group together in only 4-5 hours.

    If no one uses the QoL feature, is it really providing QoL?



    AlBQuirky

    Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.

  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 33,913
    I'm generally in favor of QOL improvements but have come to understand their benefits frequently come with some costs and can be overdone as well.

    I cringe when Pantheon backers call for no in game maps. I'm in favor of a decent map with pointers showing locations of me and anyone I'm grouped with along with a decent compass. 

    No need for quest givers or destinations to be put on it, I'm willing to look those up offline if I feel a need to.






    AlBQuirky

    "See normal people, I'm not one of them" | G-Easy & Big Sean

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing POE at the moment.

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member EpicPosts: 5,410
    edited June 3
    Kyleran said:
    I'm generally in favor of QOL improvements but have come to understand their benefits frequently come with some costs and can be overdone as well.

    I cringe when Pantheon backers call for no in game maps. I'm in favor of a decent map with pointers showing locations of me and anyone I'm grouped with along with a decent compass. 

    No need for quest givers or destinations to be put on it, I'm willing to look those up offline if I feel a need to.






    Maps is a big one for me. I had notebooks filled with printouts of in game maps in EQ1. I get lost so easily and my mind does not easily compute locations :)

    I'd much rather have an in game map covered with a fog of war.
    Kyleran

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR


    (And now Burger King has MEATLESS burgers!)

  • Vermillion_RaventhalVermillion_Raventhal Member EpicPosts: 3,933
    One of the biggest issues with this genre is QoL or as I call it refinement there is far too much copy cat and familiarity. 

    In RPG series you may have a second game that get refined and loses some depth for clarity.  The 3rd game may more refined but sometimes you get a mix of being back old gameplay mixed with refined.

    MMORPG just seem to have industry standards in ways I haven't seen since RTS.  UI, questing, type of MMORPG, LFG and etc are uniformed in the genre. 
    GdemamiAlBQuirky
  • iixviiiixiixviiiix Member RarePosts: 1,970
    I hate forced group like raid , but i love to sharing contents with other .
    AlBQuirkyAmaranthar
  • GorweGorwe Member EpicPosts: 6,086
    Shaigh said:
    Worst thing about QoL changes is when they result in the game changing as well or they compensate poor game design.

    • When Rift included a dungeon finder they ended up nerfing their hard dungeons because people sucked at playing together with random people.
    • WoW ended up preventing full teams in their battlegrounds because they were too dominating.
    • Bossmods ended up telling players when to anticipate something because players had more attention to their UI than what happened on screen.
    • The game world ended up so dull that they added autopathing.

    On the opposite side you have poorly made descriptions that force you to exit the game to understand game mechanics. You also have the false choices for character builds that everyone should avoid.
    1. Do people even want to play with others? If an activity by itself is stressful and you are forced to do something you don't really want to...your performance will suffer.

    2. The reverse of 1. Regardless, Premades should go vs Premades and randoms vs randoms. That's a common sense. Because, no matter how good a sports team, they will have trouble overcoming a nicely tuned teamspirit side.

    3. This is the failure of mechanic design. When I watch old footage of WoW, I just cringe so hard. Why? Because of that swarm of icons polluting the screen and taking 70-80% screen space! While I don't advocate BnS design where some classes are literally 1-2 spam, the ancient WoW design is the other extreme. One could even call the current state a reaction to that action.

    4. It was often very dull, let's be real now. It's just that we didn't see it because there were other things present, most notably the "wow, new" factor. World building / designing is a serious business and involves more than just making it look nice.
    GdemamiAlBQuirkyOGDeathRow
  • AAAMEOWAAAMEOW Member UncommonPosts: 1,095
    edited June 4
    I heard people complain about no lfg on wow forum..

    I heard people complain about no lfg on GW2 forum.

    I heard people complain about no fast travel on fallen earth forum.

    Never the opposite.  So I guess that is why developer added those in. 

    If there are many people unhappy with this things added there should be complaint on the game forum.  But I really don't see any.

    Obviously it depend on the game.  I doubt people will be happy with fast travel in sandbox game which focus on open world pvp.
    GorweAlBQuirky
  • SteelhelmSteelhelm Member UncommonPosts: 329
    edited June 7
    When there's discussion about LFG, I always start thinking that Frodo would have saved a lot of trouble if he had had an insta-teleport LFG tool to Mount Doom. But then again, it might have randomly grouped him with Saruman or Grima... :smiley:
    AlBQuirkyKyleran
    Talking about games where thousands of players exist simultaneously in a single instance and mechanics related to such games.
  • kjempffkjempff Member RarePosts: 1,629
    There is nothing wrong with QoL from a general and technical perspective.
    When players describe an oldschool game by mentioning lack of QoL features as the reasons to why this or that game is good, I sigh deeply. That notion is both extremely narrow and out of context, while at the same time holding a little truth. Think about all the actual QoL features that game have, that has improved the game experience for you, maybe even combined MADE that game great.

    What we need to understand is that every single QoL feature can and will have an impact of the entire game dynamics, from subtle things in perception of fun, to balance, to short or long term changesin player behavior. Also how one QoL feature evolve over time, and start working in a completely different way than first intended (group finder is a good example).
    What I am gettin at here is that it is not without consequence to add QoL features, but on the other hand lacking QoL does nothing good either, looking at each feature specifically. Only in rare cases does tediousness (lack of a QoL) do anything positive, and when it does it is usually an unrelated sideeffect that just happen outside of any actual design philosophy by the developer, but more like an observation "this is working, lets keep it".

    I hope I am being clear, though always a horde to misinterpret ;) My point is that no specific QoL feature can be bad in itself because it always improve the game experience, but the sum of all QoL is a intricate web that makes up the game experience, and even small changes or introduction of QoL can change entire game dynamics. This does not mean we should be stuck in the past just not making QoL features because I am sure we all want better games, but it means that it is important to constantly monitor what dynamics those QoL affect and be aware that games are everchanging if not themselves then through player changes in the way they are played.

    AlBQuirkyKyleran
  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 33,913
    Steelhelm said: ju
    When there's discussion about LFG, I always start thinking that Frodo would have saved a lot of trouble if he had had an insta-teleport LFG tool to Mount Doom. But then again, it might have randomly grouped him with Saruman or Grima... :smiley:
    Or someone would have ninja looted the ring....wait that almost happened anyways....PUGS suck.
    AlBQuirky

    "See normal people, I'm not one of them" | G-Easy & Big Sean

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing POE at the moment.

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member EpicPosts: 5,410
    edited June 7
    kjempff said:
    There is nothing wrong with QoL from a general and technical perspective.
    When players describe an oldschool game by mentioning lack of QoL features as the reasons to why this or that game is good, I sigh deeply. That notion is both extremely narrow and out of context, while at the same time holding a little truth. Think about all the actual QoL features that game have, that has improved the game experience for you, maybe even combined MADE that game great.

    What we need to understand is that every single QoL feature can and will have an impact of the entire game dynamics, from subtle things in perception of fun, to balance, to short or long term changesin player behavior. Also how one QoL feature evolve over time, and start working in a completely different way than first intended (group finder is a good example).
    What I am gettin at here is that it is not without consequence to add QoL features, but on the other hand lacking QoL does nothing good either, looking at each feature specifically. Only in rare cases does tediousness (lack of a QoL) do anything positive, and when it does it is usually an unrelated sideeffect that just happen outside of any actual design philosophy by the developer, but more like an observation "this is working, lets keep it".

    I hope I am being clear, though always a horde to misinterpret ;) My point is that no specific QoL feature can be bad in itself because it always improve the game experience, but the sum of all QoL is a intricate web that makes up the game experience, and even small changes or introduction of QoL can change entire game dynamics. This does not mean we should be stuck in the past just not making QoL features because I am sure we all want better games, but it means that it is important to constantly monitor what dynamics those QoL affect and be aware that games are everchanging if not themselves then through player changes in the way they are played.

    I get what you're saying and the clarification, too. I'm not sure I can agree to ALL QoL changes, though. They may improve some specific players' experience, but may also detract from the overall game design.

    I like looking at the reasons behind the changes rather than the change itself. Some players wanted LFG because they didn't want to interact with other players in a game designed around interacting with other players. This may improve that single player's (and certainly others, too) experience, but it lessens the overall game design, itself.

    WoW popularized NPCs with punctuation above their heads. A big point of RPGs is to "talk to everyone.", meaning NPCs in single player RPGs. The punctuation was a big QoL improvement for many players, yet lessened the overall game design.

    On the other hand, thank God minimaps became a thing! I could never grasp the location coordinate system for crap. -2234.43 by 9230.5433 by 110.21... OK... Which way is north again? I want to go North. Then there will be players who think minimaps destroyed exploration and discovery. I'm not sure if minimaps detracted from the game design. They did have the coordinate system in place. Minimaps actually encouraged me (personally) to explore more because finding my corpse when I inevitably died became less of a chore, and I didn't mind corpse running as a mechanic. Getting lost can be a fun mechanic and I still do, even with minimaps ;)

    We just have to look at the overall game design hit, not any one specific player's experience ;)
    kjempffKyleran

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR


    (And now Burger King has MEATLESS burgers!)

  • SteelhelmSteelhelm Member UncommonPosts: 329
    edited June 7
    Kyleran said:
    Steelhelm said: ju
    When there's discussion about LFG, I always start thinking that Frodo would have saved a lot of trouble if he had had an insta-teleport LFG tool to Mount Doom. But then again, it might have randomly grouped him with Saruman or Grima... :smiley:
    Or someone would have ninja looted the ring....wait that almost happened anyways....PUGS suck.
    Spoilers:
    So Sauron crafted the ring himself. Isildur looted it off him. Isildur was killed, but could not be looted because he died in a river. So years later Deagol fished the ring out of the river, but then Smeagol killed Deagol and took the ring and used it for years. By chance it dropped off his pockets and bilbo found it and gave it to Frodo. On Mount Doom Smeagol stole the ring again and jumped into the lava. End of story. :smiley:

    Lots of cool RNG mechanics in this story. :smile:

    AlBQuirkyKyleranAmathe
    Talking about games where thousands of players exist simultaneously in a single instance and mechanics related to such games.
  • kjempffkjempff Member RarePosts: 1,629
    AlBQuirky said:
    kjempff said:
    There is nothing wrong with QoL from a general and technical perspective.
    When players describe an oldschool game by mentioning lack of QoL features as the reasons to why this or that game is good, I sigh deeply. That notion is both extremely narrow and out of context, while at the same time holding a little truth. Think about all the actual QoL features that game have, that has improved the game experience for you, maybe even combined MADE that game great.

    What we need to understand is that every single QoL feature can and will have an impact of the entire game dynamics, from subtle things in perception of fun, to balance, to short or long term changesin player behavior. Also how one QoL feature evolve over time, and start working in a completely different way than first intended (group finder is a good example).
    What I am gettin at here is that it is not without consequence to add QoL features, but on the other hand lacking QoL does nothing good either, looking at each feature specifically. Only in rare cases does tediousness (lack of a QoL) do anything positive, and when it does it is usually an unrelated sideeffect that just happen outside of any actual design philosophy by the developer, but more like an observation "this is working, lets keep it".

    I hope I am being clear, though always a horde to misinterpret ;) My point is that no specific QoL feature can be bad in itself because it always improve the game experience, but the sum of all QoL is a intricate web that makes up the game experience, and even small changes or introduction of QoL can change entire game dynamics. This does not mean we should be stuck in the past just not making QoL features because I am sure we all want better games, but it means that it is important to constantly monitor what dynamics those QoL affect and be aware that games are everchanging if not themselves then through player changes in the way they are played.

    I get what you're saying and the clarification, too. I'm not sure I can agree to ALL QoL changes, though. They may improve some specific players' experience, but may also detract from the overall game design.

    I like looking at the reasons behind the changes rather than the change itself. Some players wanted LFG because they didn't want to interact with other players in a game designed around interacting with other players. This may improve that single player's (and certainly others, too) experience, but it lessens the overall game design, itself.

    WoW popularized NPCs with punctuation above their heads. A big point of RPGs is to "talk to everyone.", meaning NPCs in single player RPGs. The punctuation was a big QoL improvement for many players, yet lessened the overall game design.

    On the other hand, thank God minimaps became a thing! I could never grasp the location coordinate system for crap. -2234.43 by 9230.5433 by 110.21... OK... Which way is north again? I want to go North. Then there will be players who think minimaps destroyed exploration and discovery. I'm not sure if minimaps detracted from the game design. They did have the coordinate system in place. Minimaps actually encouraged me (personally) to explore more because finding my corpse when I inevitably died became less of a chore, and I didn't mind corpse running as a mechanic. Getting lost can be a fun mechanic and I still do, even with minimaps ;)

    We just have to look at the overall game design hit, not any one specific player's experience ;)
    Yes good points, and it is not that I entirely disagree. However, the QoL that was in my mind were much smaller things, while stuff like lfg tool (automatch), maps and exclamation marks are maybe more in the feature definition than QoL. (I know I mentioned lfg tool myself, but I regret that now).

    Some examples of the QoL I am thinking of could be .. instead of drag and drop of every single item the QoL could be ctrl/shift-click for fast transfer/selling. Automatic grabbing of components when tradeskilling instead of manually moving every item, having a list of recipes and showing how many would be possible to make with current stock. Showing loot/items as "tradeskill item" and "quest item" so you would know what to do with it, maybe even auto sorting it in separate category bags.

    An great example of a bigger feature I think found a perfect balance would be from (oldschool) WoW, where two players could summon others to a dungeon .. it saved time, but at the same time didn't remove meaningful travel.

    An example of how QoL changes entire dynamic of a game could be Everquest progression servers. Personally I don't miss corpse runs one bit, not having maps, old tradeskill system, etc and the newest client QoL is far superior to old clients... but together with how damage taken and dealt are make much easier (is that QoL?), the entire dynamics have changed and the game is just different because of that while still being mostly the same mechanic wise.
    AlBQuirky
  • OGDeathRowOGDeathRow Member UncommonPosts: 119
    AAAMEOW said:
    I heard people complain about no lfg on wow forum..

    I heard people complain about no lfg on GW2 forum.

    I heard people complain about no fast travel on fallen earth forum.

    Never the opposite.  So I guess that is why developer added those in. 

    If there are many people unhappy with this things added there should be complaint on the game forum.  But I really don't see any.

    Obviously it depend on the game.  I doubt people will be happy with fast travel in sandbox game which focus on open world pvp.
    Like when the deny people flying in new WoW expansions and have lengthy achievements people complained, but still exists, like LFD/LFR. QoL only effects certain people, so its hard to say how good a QoL update really is.
    AlBQuirky
  • MendelMendel Member EpicPosts: 3,271
    Steelhelm said:
    Kyleran said:
    Steelhelm said: ju
    When there's discussion about LFG, I always start thinking that Frodo would have saved a lot of trouble if he had had an insta-teleport LFG tool to Mount Doom. But then again, it might have randomly grouped him with Saruman or Grima... :smiley:
    Or someone would have ninja looted the ring....wait that almost happened anyways....PUGS suck.
    Spoilers:
    So Sauron crafted the ring himself. Isildur looted it off him. Isildur was killed, but could not be looted because he died in a river. So years later Deagol fished the ring out of the river, but then Smeagol killed Deagol and took the ring and used it for years. By chance it dropped off his pockets and bilbo found it and gave it to Frodo. On Mount Doom Smeagol stole the ring again and jumped into the lava. End of story. :smiley:

    Lots of cool RNG mechanics in this story. :smile:

    You forgot the part where Samwise ninja-looted Frodo so the orcs wouldn't loot his corpse, but then got guilt-shamed into giving Frodo's stuff back when they reunited.  Not nearly abbreviated as Peter Jackson's version, either.



    SteelhelmAlBQuirky

    Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    edited June 8
    QoL is great so long as it doesn't results in a compromise of the underlying pillars the game is built upon (*cough* LFG *cough*).


    Speaking from experience playing CoH, this claim people make about old MMORPGs and having to spam LFG for hours are definitely personal problems for those players.  I can't recall a single time I was logged into CoH that a player around my level didn't advertise they were starting a group or looking for more.  Surprise surprise: the groups I've been in there have spoken more in the short time I've been playing it again than in any of the LFG-made groups I played in WoW.

    It's almost like such QoL can literally train players to view other players a certain way, affecting the entire community of the game.  Crazy!

    The problem now is, entitlements (in this case, the game finding eligible players to group with and auto-porting you all together), once given, are suicide to then try and take away.  In that sense, QoL are literally Pandora boxes, complete with the temptation to open them.
    Post edited by MadFrenchie on
    AlBQuirkyVermillion_Raventhal

    image
  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member EpicPosts: 5,410
    kjempff said:
    AlBQuirky said:
    kjempff said:
    There is nothing wrong with QoL from a general and technical perspective.
    When players describe an oldschool game by mentioning lack of QoL features as the reasons to why this or that game is good, I sigh deeply. That notion is both extremely narrow and out of context, while at the same time holding a little truth. Think about all the actual QoL features that game have, that has improved the game experience for you, maybe even combined MADE that game great.

    What we need to understand is that every single QoL feature can and will have an impact of the entire game dynamics, from subtle things in perception of fun, to balance, to short or long term changesin player behavior. Also how one QoL feature evolve over time, and start working in a completely different way than first intended (group finder is a good example).
    What I am gettin at here is that it is not without consequence to add QoL features, but on the other hand lacking QoL does nothing good either, looking at each feature specifically. Only in rare cases does tediousness (lack of a QoL) do anything positive, and when it does it is usually an unrelated sideeffect that just happen outside of any actual design philosophy by the developer, but more like an observation "this is working, lets keep it".

    I hope I am being clear, though always a horde to misinterpret ;) My point is that no specific QoL feature can be bad in itself because it always improve the game experience, but the sum of all QoL is a intricate web that makes up the game experience, and even small changes or introduction of QoL can change entire game dynamics. This does not mean we should be stuck in the past just not making QoL features because I am sure we all want better games, but it means that it is important to constantly monitor what dynamics those QoL affect and be aware that games are everchanging if not themselves then through player changes in the way they are played.

    I get what you're saying and the clarification, too. I'm not sure I can agree to ALL QoL changes, though. They may improve some specific players' experience, but may also detract from the overall game design.

    I like looking at the reasons behind the changes rather than the change itself. Some players wanted LFG because they didn't want to interact with other players in a game designed around interacting with other players. This may improve that single player's (and certainly others, too) experience, but it lessens the overall game design, itself.

    WoW popularized NPCs with punctuation above their heads. A big point of RPGs is to "talk to everyone.", meaning NPCs in single player RPGs. The punctuation was a big QoL improvement for many players, yet lessened the overall game design.

    On the other hand, thank God minimaps became a thing! I could never grasp the location coordinate system for crap. -2234.43 by 9230.5433 by 110.21... OK... Which way is north again? I want to go North. Then there will be players who think minimaps destroyed exploration and discovery. I'm not sure if minimaps detracted from the game design. They did have the coordinate system in place. Minimaps actually encouraged me (personally) to explore more because finding my corpse when I inevitably died became less of a chore, and I didn't mind corpse running as a mechanic. Getting lost can be a fun mechanic and I still do, even with minimaps ;)

    We just have to look at the overall game design hit, not any one specific player's experience ;)
    Yes good points, and it is not that I entirely disagree. However, the QoL that was in my mind were much smaller things, while stuff like lfg tool (automatch), maps and exclamation marks are maybe more in the feature definition than QoL. (I know I mentioned lfg tool myself, but I regret that now).

    Some examples of the QoL I am thinking of could be .. instead of drag and drop of every single item the QoL could be ctrl/shift-click for fast transfer/selling. Automatic grabbing of components when tradeskilling instead of manually moving every item, having a list of recipes and showing how many would be possible to make with current stock. Showing loot/items as "tradeskill item" and "quest item" so you would know what to do with it, maybe even auto sorting it in separate category bags.

    An great example of a bigger feature I think found a perfect balance would be from (oldschool) WoW, where two players could summon others to a dungeon .. it saved time, but at the same time didn't remove meaningful travel.

    An example of how QoL changes entire dynamic of a game could be Everquest progression servers. Personally I don't miss corpse runs one bit, not having maps, old tradeskill system, etc and the newest client QoL is far superior to old clients... but together with how damage taken and dealt are make much easier (is that QoL?), the entire dynamics have changed and the game is just different because of that while still being mostly the same mechanic wise.
    Great points!

    I see QoL as more of a "comfort or enjoyment thing." Your looting example was a great example. The "features" in my examples are there in the game: grouping with others; quests/talking to NPCs; mapping. The QoL comes in in the presentation of those features. The punctuation above NPC's heads wasn't a new feature, it just told players which NPCs had quests for them. LFG didn't add grouping, it made finding a group easier. Minimaps did not add location finding, it made it easier. Auction Houses would be another example. They didn't "add" anything to the game, they just made it easier.

    I also didn't mind the 2 group members summon the others for dungeon runs in WoW. It was a nice compromise where some work/tedium had to be endured :)

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR


    (And now Burger King has MEATLESS burgers!)

Sign In or Register to comment.