Howdy, Stranger!

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

Top Grossing and Best are NOT the same

1246

Comments

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    Originally posted by Axehilt

    Originally posted by MadFrenchie
    Since my phone doesn't play well with MMORPG.com's forums, I cannot properly quote. However, referencing Axeholt's last post: While I really don't have an argument regarding the complexity of WoW's combat (being good or bad), many MMORPGs have had combat with at least as complex mechanics: Warhammer Online, Dark Age of Camelot, EVE Online (take, for instance, this "rookie" guide to PvP in EVE). However, mere complexity doesn't prove or disprove the overall merit of a combat system.  

    EVE is the one game I could believe.  Unfortunately it's so diluted by non-skill factors that PVP is really just a joke in the game. Ultra casual.  There are too many advantages to be gained by population and progression, so any depth to the underlying combat system is rarely relevant.

    If that doesn't make sense, imagine chess.  Now imagine it where playtime accumulates an advantage (every 100 hours played you start with another queen).  Now imagine it where you can bring friends into your game and they bring their pieces with them.  You started with a very deep game where skill mastery was highly rewarded, but you ended up with a game where non-skill trump cards invalidated that depth.

    Now if you could strip away those trump cards, taking EVE's combat/fitting gameplay but removing all the progression and population advantages involved, then I do think there's probably potential there.  But you'd have to basically dismantle the entire game to get at it.

    WAR and DAOC I definitely don't believe.  In both cases their rotations were very poorly designed. 

     

    Not sure what you mean by diluting it with non-skill factors; EVE is all about fitting the right ship with the right equipment for the right job. Then, doing that job. You act as if a player character will constantly have an advantage over any younger characters, but that shows a very limited knowledge of EVE itself. If you've maxed out the Rifter skills as a player who's been around for 5 years, you still won't have any advantage in flying that craft over a 6 month old character who rushed those same skills. Age in EVE provided options, not advantages, as you could only use a small subset of all your skills in any one fit. Expertise in mining and exploration won't help you warp away when being hit with disruptors.

    As for your offhanded dismissal of WAR and DAoC, I can only assume you, again, have limited knowledge. DAoC was one of the first MMOs to make melee characters engaging by inventing "styles", combos and chains (many of which could only be started as a result of a specific combat condition being met). Many of those styles provided either to-hit bonuses, stuns, cripples, or other short-term debuffs (and, in some cases, self-buffs). Plug that into a class like the Paladin (back when chant twisting existed). You were an off-tank who twisted up to four chants based upon the situation (magical damage, physical damage, squishies taking damage, etc.) While also positioning and reacting to combat conditions that enabled you to perform as many as 5 different style combos. Oh, and this back before a handy dandy 100% taunt on short-duration cooldowns wwas widely available and data blocks were created for mobs showing when you were causing too much aggro as a DPSer.

    WAR had many great concepts for classes that went beyond "throw out your DPS as fast as possible." Warrior Priests created healing pool resources using damage. Bright Wizards increased DPS potential while simultaneously increasing chance to damage themselves with their own spells. Pet classes that depended upon interaction to provide buffs and target debuffs. Where is WoW showing to be so much obviously more complex than these situations? And even if it were, why would that, by definition, make that complexity objectively "better"?

    image
  • HorusraHorusra Member EpicPosts: 4,148
    What best we talking about.  Best Value, Best gameplay, Best graphics, Best classes, etc....I bet even McDonalds has a "Best ___" some where....oh wait fries....mmmmmm....McD fries.....drooling.....
  • CecropiaCecropia Member RarePosts: 3,972
    Originally posted by Axehilt
    Originally posted by MadFrenchie
    Since my phone doesn't play well with MMORPG.com's forums, I cannot properly quote. However, referencing Axeholt's last post: While I really don't have an argument regarding the complexity of WoW's combat (being good or bad), many MMORPGs have had combat with at least as complex mechanics: Warhammer Online, Dark Age of Camelot, EVE Online (take, for instance, this "rookie" guide to PvP in EVE). However, mere complexity doesn't prove or disprove the overall merit of a combat system.

     

    EVE is the one game I could believe.  Unfortunately it's so diluted by non-skill factors that PVP is really just a joke in the game. Ultra casual.  There are too many advantages to be gained by population and progression, so any depth to the underlying combat system is rarely relevant.

    If that doesn't make sense, imagine chess.  Now imagine it where playtime accumulates an advantage (every 100 hours played you start with another queen).  Now imagine it where you can bring friends into your game and they bring their pieces with them.  You started with a very deep game where skill mastery was highly rewarded, but you ended up with a game where non-skill trump cards invalidated that depth.

    Now if you could strip away those trump cards, taking EVE's combat/fitting gameplay but removing all the progression and population advantages involved, then I do think there's probably potential there.  But you'd have to basically dismantle the entire game to get at it.

    WAR and DAOC I definitely don't believe.  In both cases their rotations were very poorly designed. 

    "Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb

  • mgilbrtsnmgilbrtsn Member EpicPosts: 3,311
    There is no best on a large scale.  Every swinging richard has a 'best,'  and the reason for it.  Top grossing is much simpler.  I wholeheartedly agree though that they are not the same thing.

    Concentrate on enjoying yourself, and not on why I shouldn't enjoy myself.

  • QuirhidQuirhid Member UncommonPosts: 6,230
    Originally posted by MadFrenchie
    Originally posted by Axehilt
     

    Not sure what you mean by diluting it with non-skill factors

    [...]

    Anything that diminishes your skill as a player is a "non-skill factor". Population, time zone, skill level, RNG...

    The difference in competitive and open world PvP is that you don't have to be good in order to win in open world PvP. You can just have more guys on your side, higher level, better gear etc. Some guy might win just because they are more skilled than you, but because they spent more time grinding something, for example. That is why some people (and some devs) refer to it as "casual PvP".

    It gives the low skilled players a chance to win every now and again.

    I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    Ahh, if that's the case, I would suggest Axehilt move to old-school FPSs, where there aren't any progression unlocks.

    Otherwise, it seems talking about those things as "diluting" PvP is onlt a step removed from saying that the player with TVs 50 inches or larger should be separated from those playing on smaller screens, as the bigger screen obviously makes it easier to spot other players on the distant horizon.

    image
  • AxehiltAxehilt Member RarePosts: 10,504
    Originally posted by MadFrenchie 

    Not sure what you mean by diluting it with non-skill factors; EVE is all about fitting the right ship with the right equipment for the right job. Then, doing that job. You act as if a player character will constantly have an advantage over any younger characters, but that shows a very limited knowledge of EVE itself. If you've maxed out the Rifter skills as a player who's been around for 5 years, you still won't have any advantage in flying that craft over a 6 month old character who rushed those same skills. Age in EVE provided options, not advantages, as you could only use a small subset of all your skills in any one fit. Expertise in mining and exploration won't help you warp away when being hit with disruptors.

    As for your offhanded dismissal of WAR and DAoC, I can only assume you, again, have limited knowledge. DAoC was one of the first MMOs to make melee characters engaging by inventing "styles", combos and chains (many of which could only be started as a result of a specific combat condition being met). Many of those styles provided either to-hit bonuses, stuns, cripples, or other short-term debuffs (and, in some cases, self-buffs). Plug that into a class like the Paladin (back when chant twisting existed). You were an off-tank who twisted up to four chants based upon the situation (magical damage, physical damage, squishies taking damage, etc.) While also positioning and reacting to combat conditions that enabled you to perform as many as 5 different style combos. Oh, and this back before a handy dandy 100% taunt on short-duration cooldowns wwas widely available and data blocks were created for mobs showing when you were causing too much aggro as a DPSer.

    WAR had many great concepts for classes that went beyond "throw out your DPS as fast as possible." Warrior Priests created healing pool resources using damage. Bright Wizards increased DPS potential while simultaneously increasing chance to damage themselves with their own spells. Pet classes that depended upon interaction to provide buffs and target debuffs. Where is WoW showing to be so much obviously more complex than these situations? And even if it were, why would that, by definition, make that complexity objectively "better"?

    Perhaps you played a different EVE where fights were frequently even and the depth showed through.  In my experience and in every story or battle I've witnessed, the battle was won before combat started -- implying that any depth to the fighting itself is marginalized, diluted to the point where it doesn't matter.

    I played WAR quite a lot.  The rotations were 1,2,3 simple.  1 and 2 were abilities that applied DoTs, 3 was your basic nuke.  If you were lucky you'd have a class that had to maintain two targets (WP/DoK).  It had the worst CC design of any game I have ever played (and I've played a lot.)  One of my characters could literally land 24 different CC effects in 20 seconds!  Rather than avoid giving players too much CC to start with, they used this horrible bandaid to try to solve it by giving players immunity to CC -- so now your CC ability may not even work half the time when you really need it to.  When they went to work on redesigning some of their classes, rather than starting with the shallowest classes which were dirt simple (and actually needed redesigns) they started by proposing taking their deepest classes (Archmage and equivalent) and removing their interesting heal-DPS-heal rhythm  and replacing it with a much shallower system instead.  And again, when you actually crunched the numbers of the rotations of these classes they ended up with a "maintain DoTs, then spam the basic nuke" rotation, which is really shallow.

    WAR did have some great ideas. And it was Warhammer! But it was a mess and not deep.

    As for DAOC, you're right that I have little experience there (because my Shaman's rotation was simple, and therefore boring, and so I quit.) But  keep in mind that really only a video or a guide is going to get at the heart of actual depth in these games. Anyone can wave their hands and say in 2 sentences why they thought a game was shallow or deep, but only by really digging into all the nuances and mathematical realities will you actually get a sense of the game's true depth. 

    "What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    So simply lengthening the available chain of nukes, DoTs or self-damage buffs makes it better?

    Because the Demonology guide you posted is all just a variation of doing one thing: DPSing. It sure provides a lot of blue clickies throughout, but it's all to facilitate a very one-dimensional goal: dealing damage. It's nice that it goes deep into doing that thing. However, that doesn't make it a better form of complexity than any other form, in my opinion. But hey, I enjoy hybrid classes for a reason I suppose.

    And, going back to what I've said in the beginning that really makes this discussion fairly moot, complexity does not equal an objectively better experience.

    I do feel as if, no matter the topic, you would argue that WoW does it right and lay the entire genre out in a linear spectrum which started with "not like WoW at all and therefore bad" to "just like WoW and therefore good." That's just an observation from previous posts I've read (namely, your claim in another thread that WoW boss encounters outmatched even games such as Mass Effect, The Witched, Divinity: Original Sin among other lauded SRPGs with excellent dungeons and boss encounters).

    It doesn't bother me that yoh enjoy WoW so much, but I think your opinions on the genre and industry as a whole should be placed into the proper perspective when arguing these points.

    image
  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Member RarePosts: 14,247
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by MadFrenchie
    Originally posted by Axehilt
     

    Not sure what you mean by diluting it with non-skill factors

    [...]

    Anything that diminishes your skill as a player is a "non-skill factor". Population, time zone, skill level, RNG...

    The difference in competitive and open world PvP is that you don't have to be good in order to win in open world PvP. You can just have more guys on your side, higher level, better gear etc. Some guy might win just because they are more skilled than you, but because they spent more time grinding something, for example. That is why some people (and some devs) refer to it as "casual PvP".

    It gives the low skilled players a chance to win every now and again.

    That's an interesting view of open world PVP. Could you link to the dev(s) you are referring to that called it "casual PVP" and cited those reasons for it being so?

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • CecropiaCecropia Member RarePosts: 3,972
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by Quirhid

    Anything that diminishes your skill as a player is a "non-skill factor". Population, time zone, skill level, RNG...

    The difference in competitive and open world PvP is that you don't have to be good in order to win in open world PvP. You can just have more guys on your side, higher level, better gear etc. Some guy might win just because they are more skilled than you, but because they spent more time grinding something, for example. That is why some people (and some devs) refer to it as "casual PvP".

    It gives the low skilled players a chance to win every now and again.

    That's an interesting view of open world PVP. Could you link to the dev(s) you are referring to that called it "casual PVP" and cited those reasons for it being so?

    I am quite interested as well to see who these "some dev(s)" are and what they have to say about "casual PVP". 

    "Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb

  • AxehiltAxehilt Member RarePosts: 10,504
    Originally posted by MadFrenchie
    So simply lengthening the available chain of nukes, DoTs or self-damage buffs makes it better?

    Because the Demonology guide you posted is all just a variation of doing one thing: DPSing. It sure provides a lot of blue clickies throughout, but it's all to facilitate a very one-dimensional goal: dealing damage. It's nice that it goes deep into doing that thing. However, that doesn't make it a better form of complexity than any other form, in my opinion. But hey, I enjoy hybrid classes for a reason I suppose.

    And, going back to what I've said in the beginning that really makes this discussion fairly moot, complexity does not equal an objectively better experience.

    I do feel as if, no matter the topic, you would argue that WoW does it right and lay the entire genre out in a linear spectrum which started with "not like WoW at all and therefore bad" to "just like WoW and therefore good." That's just an observation from previous posts I've read (namely, your claim in another thread that WoW boss encounters outmatched even games such as Mass Effect, The Witched, Divinity: Original Sin among other lauded SRPGs with excellent dungeons and boss encounters).

    It doesn't bother me that yoh enjoy WoW so much, but I think your opinions on the genre and industry as a whole should be placed into the proper perspective when arguing these points.

    It's not about having a long rotation chain.  It's about a class' rotation being a game to master all by itself.  Then it's about that rotation not surviving first encounter with the enemy -- boss abilities from adds to damage zones to most other things are deliberately designed to force a disruption of the rotation.  This dynamically forces a change in the ideal order of your abilities, which is a lot of what makes the game deep since you have to understand both your own rotation and the boss at a high level of mastery to perform the actual optimal rotation.

    It's not just boss abilities either (as a healer you're reacting to dynamic mistakes that your raid is making.)

    Warlocks are a damage class, so yeah they mostly do damage.  They're a bit more selfish than normal, having fantastic self-utility spells, but only a handful of key raid-utility spells, a battle-revive (Soulstone) and healthstones (a health potion dispenser.)  Even if all it did was damage that wouldn't change depth.  Depth is simply a measure of how much skill a game rewards.

    As for complexity?

    • Well games have actual complexity (depth) and perceived complexity (usually what players mean when they say something is complex or simple or "dumbed down").  The ideal is a game is simple to learn but difficult to master, and that implies it has low perceived complexity (the rules are simple) but high actual complexity (a lot of skill is required.)  So I tend to prefer the term "depth" which specifically implies the good complexity and avoids the bad complexity.
    • Sure deep games aren't always best.  But the most common other reasons players play games are mindless zen (FarmVille) and socializing.  And while it's fine for MMORPGs to offer those, neither tends to be the main reason core gamers play games.  Core gamers tend to gravitate towards games which reward a lot of skill, so game depth tends to be the most common type of game sought out.
    • You might be arguing that a FarmVille-like MMORPG would be successful.  Sure, it could happen.  There's clearly a market for zen games and they'll buy whatever has an interesting wrapper to it.  A bunch of coworkers enjoyed Clicker Heroes for a few days in fact.  But I'm more describing the typical MMORPG and also getting at what I feel is the underlying reason behind WOW's success and longevity (ie: it's a deep game.)
    I don't mindlessly argue WOW always does it right.  When it does things right, I point it out.  When it does things wrong, I point that out.  City of Heroes flat-out had better difficulty design than WOW does, in several ways.  Several other topics could be discussed.
     
    As for the other thread?  I stated I had a lot of experience with and loved Mass Effect, but that it's bosses were clearly mediocre. I admitted to having little experience with the other two games.  But because I had lots of experience with Mass Effect and knew it didn't have superior boss design, I was very suspicious of the claim.  I'm one of the most rational people you'll meet online, so evidence is all it'd take to convince me.  Like how I can show the Saren boss fight (Mass Effect) was little more than a hoverboard shooting gallery as evidence of its boss' mediocrity.

    "What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver

  • MalaboogaMalabooga Member UncommonPosts: 2,977
    Originally posted by Axehilt
    Originally posted by MadFrenchie
    So simply lengthening the available chain of nukes, DoTs or self-damage buffs makes it better?

    Because the Demonology guide you posted is all just a variation of doing one thing: DPSing. It sure provides a lot of blue clickies throughout, but it's all to facilitate a very one-dimensional goal: dealing damage. It's nice that it goes deep into doing that thing. However, that doesn't make it a better form of complexity than any other form, in my opinion. But hey, I enjoy hybrid classes for a reason I suppose.

    And, going back to what I've said in the beginning that really makes this discussion fairly moot, complexity does not equal an objectively better experience.

    I do feel as if, no matter the topic, you would argue that WoW does it right and lay the entire genre out in a linear spectrum which started with "not like WoW at all and therefore bad" to "just like WoW and therefore good." That's just an observation from previous posts I've read (namely, your claim in another thread that WoW boss encounters outmatched even games such as Mass Effect, The Witched, Divinity: Original Sin among other lauded SRPGs with excellent dungeons and boss encounters).

    It doesn't bother me that yoh enjoy WoW so much, but I think your opinions on the genre and industry as a whole should be placed into the proper perspective when arguing these points.

    It's not about having a long rotation chain.  It's about a class' rotation being a game to master all by itself.  Then it's about that rotation not surviving first encounter with the enemy -- boss abilities from adds to damage zones to most other things are deliberately designed to force a disruption of the rotation.  This dynamically forces a change in the ideal order of your abilities, which is a lot of what makes the game deep since you have to understand both your own rotation and the boss at a high level of mastery to perform the actual optimal rotation.

    It's not just boss abilities either (as a healer you're reacting to dynamic mistakes that your raid is making.)

    Warlocks are a damage class, so yeah they mostly do damage.  They're a bit more selfish than normal, having fantastic self-utility spells, but only a handful of key raid-utility spells, a battle-revive (Soulstone) and healthstones (a health potion dispenser.)  Even if all it did was damage that wouldn't change depth.  Depth is simply a measure of how much skill a game rewards.

    As for complexity?

    • Well games have actual complexity (depth) and perceived complexity (usually what players mean when they say something is complex or simple or "dumbed down").  The ideal is a game is simple to learn but difficult to master, and that implies it has low perceived complexity (the rules are simple) but high actual complexity (a lot of skill is required.)  So I tend to prefer the term "depth" which specifically implies the good complexity and avoids the bad complexity.
    • Sure deep games aren't always best.  But the most common other reasons players play games are mindless zen (FarmVille) and socializing.  And while it's fine for MMORPGs to offer those, neither tends to be the main reason core gamers play games.  Core gamers tend to gravitate towards games which reward a lot of skill, so game depth tends to be the most common type of game sought out.
    • You might be arguing that a FarmVille-like MMORPG would be successful.  Sure, it could happen.  There's clearly a market for zen games and they'll buy whatever has an interesting wrapper to it.  A bunch of coworkers enjoyed Clicker Heroes for a few days in fact.  But I'm more describing the typical MMORPG and also getting at what I feel is the underlying reason behind WOW's success and longevity (ie: it's a deep game.)
    I don't mindlessly argue WOW always does it right.  When it does things right, I point it out.  When it does things wrong, I point that out.  City of Heroes flat-out had better difficulty design than WOW does, in several ways.  Several other topics could be discussed.
     
    As for the other thread?  I stated I had a lot of experience with and loved Mass Effect, but that it's bosses were clearly mediocre. I admitted to having little experience with the other two games.  But because I had lots of experience with Mass Effect and knew it didn't have superior boss design, I was very suspicious of the claim.  I'm one of the most rational people you'll meet online, so evidence is all it'd take to convince me.  Like how I can show the Saren boss fight (Mass Effect) was little more than a hoverboard shooting gallery as evidence of its boss' mediocrity.

    All complexitiy in the world you need

    Sorry, but when comparing PvE to PvP its like this (example of chess):

    PvE - opponent always makes same moves, once you figure it out you win *every single time*

    PvP - regular chess

    Thats why PvP games (chess included) are much more popular and stand test of time, while PvE gets boring very quickly with scripted encounters

    Your warlock example : spend few hours on dummy, then spend needed time on boss to learn teh script -> win every single time -> boring and mindnumbing very quickly, you can reproduce success results blindfolded very quick, the more you stick to the script template the better you fare.

    Thats why majority of people like easy PvE. It gets boring quickly. I would say most people feel like people feel like this when they think of (highend) PvE:

  • GorweGorwe Member EpicPosts: 6,381
    Originally posted by Charlie.Cheswick
    Originally posted by shalissar
    well y'see grandpa it costs money to make these things, they aim to copy the top grossing because aiming for a minority is unlikely to return your investment. You're welcome for the insight.

    Exactly. 

    Because wealth is the only thing worthy of our aspirations...

    It is within neoliberal nazi fkland. Haven't you heard?

    What could you ever want besides money???

  • AxehiltAxehilt Member RarePosts: 10,504
    Originally posted by Malabooga

    All complexitiy in the world you need

    Sorry, but when comparing PvE to PvP its like this (example of chess):

    PvE - opponent always makes same moves, once you figure it out you win *every single time*

    PvP - regular chess

    Thats why PvP games (chess included) are much more popular and stand test of time, while PvE gets boring very quickly with scripted encounters

    Your warlock example : spend few hours on dummy, then spend needed time on boss to learn teh script -> win every single time -> boring and mindnumbing very quickly, you can reproduce success results blindfolded very quick, the more you stick to the script template the better you fare.

    Thats why majority of people like easy PvE. It gets boring quickly. I would say most people feel like people feel like this when they think of (highend) PvE:

    Certainly PVP tends to offer deeper gameplay.  MMORPGs are rarely the place to find good PVP, but GW2 and WOW's tournaments are notable exceptions to the rule. 

    "Spend a few hours on dummy" is practice.  Practice implies skill depth.  Well you've helped us better establish WOW's depth, now what about some other game being deeper?  And again, a big part of WOW's depth comes from the timing of boss capabilities and how they force sub-optimal rotations or switch the rotation being used.

    Keep in mind that WOW has PVP (and their tournaments are similarly skill-focused with no non-skill factors diluting things.)

    Keep in mind that hating all PVE doesn't magically make WOW PVE shallower.

    You can spin it negatively as "factory work", but in the end PVE is a collaborative puzzle to be solved, which many players find interesting to solve.  Also, your Chaplin film unintentionally shows that another big part of the depth comes from having to dynamically react to others' mistakes, which can further vary your rotation or behavior.

    "What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver

  • stevebombsquadstevebombsquad Member UncommonPosts: 884
    Originally posted by Axehilt
    Originally posted by MadFrenchie
     

    It's not about having a long rotation chain.  It's about a class' rotation being a game to master all by itself.  Then it's about that rotation not surviving first encounter with the enemy -- boss abilities from adds to damage zones to most other things are deliberately designed to force a disruption of the rotation.  This dynamically forces a change in the ideal order of your abilities, which is a lot of what makes the game deep since you have to understand both your own rotation and the boss at a high level of mastery to perform the actual optimal rotation.

    It's not just boss abilities either (as a healer you're reacting to dynamic mistakes that your raid is making.)

    This! This is the difference from someone who reads a rotation and just pushes the buttons and a high-level progression raider. There is a whole lot more to boss encounters than just memorizing the fight and your rotation. Inevitably things go wrong and you need to be able to respond. You can always tell the people who have no experience at that level.

    James T. Kirk: All she's got isn't good enough! What else ya got?

  • QuirhidQuirhid Member UncommonPosts: 6,230
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by MadFrenchie
    Originally posted by Axehilt
     

    Not sure what you mean by diluting it with non-skill factors

    [...]

    Anything that diminishes your skill as a player is a "non-skill factor". Population, time zone, skill level, RNG...

    The difference in competitive and open world PvP is that you don't have to be good in order to win in open world PvP. You can just have more guys on your side, higher level, better gear etc. Some guy might win just because they are more skilled than you, but because they spent more time grinding something, for example. That is why some people (and some devs) refer to it as "casual PvP".

    It gives the low skilled players a chance to win every now and again.

    That's an interesting view of open world PVP. Could you link to the dev(s) you are referring to that called it "casual PVP" and cited those reasons for it being so?

    Arenanet said their non-instanced PvP is for casual PvPers and instanced PvP for hardcore PvPers in some interview years back.

    I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483


    Originally posted by Axehilt It's not about having a long rotation chain.  It's about a class' rotation being a game to master all by itself.  Then it's about that rotation not surviving first encounter with the enemy -- boss abilities from adds to damage zones to most other things are deliberately designed to force a disruption of the rotation.  This dynamically forces a change in the ideal order of your abilities, which is a lot of what makes the game deep since you have to understand both your own rotation and the boss at a high level of mastery to perform the actual optimal rotation. It's not just boss abilities either (as a healer you're reacting to dynamic mistakes that your raid is making.) Warlocks are a damage class, so yeah they mostly do damage.  They're a bit more selfish than normal, having fantastic self-utility spells, but only a handful of key raid-utility spells, a battle-revive (Soulstone) and healthstones (a health potion dispenser.)  Even if all it did was damage that wouldn't change depth.  Depth is simply a measure of how much skill a game rewards. As for complexity?
    • Well games have actual complexity (depth) and perceived complexity (usually what players mean when they say something is complex or simple or "dumbed down").  The ideal is a game is simple to learn but difficult to master, and that implies it has low perceived complexity (the rules are simple) but high actual complexity (a lot of skill is required.)  So I tend to prefer the term "depth" which specifically implies the good complexity and avoids the bad complexity.
    • Sure deep games aren't always best.  But the most common other reasons players play games are mindless zen (FarmVille) and socializing.  And while it's fine for MMORPGs to offer those, neither tends to be the main reason core gamers play games.  Core gamers tend to gravitate towards games which reward a lot of skill, so game depth tends to be the most common type of game sought out. You might be arguing that a FarmVille-like MMORPG would be successful.  Sure, it could happen.  There's clearly a market for zen games and they'll buy whatever has an interesting wrapper to it.  A bunch of coworkers enjoyed Clicker Heroes for a few days in fact.  But I'm more describing the typical MMORPG and also getting at what I feel is the underlying reason behind WOW's success and longevity (ie: it's a deep game.)
    I don't mindlessly argue WOW always does it right.  When it does things right, I point it out.  When it does things wrong, I point that out.  City of Heroes flat-out had better difficulty design than WOW does, in several ways.  Several other topics could be discussed.   As for the other thread?  I stated I had a lot of experience with and loved Mass Effect, but that it's bosses were clearly mediocre. I admitted to having little experience with the other two games.  But because I had lots of experience with Mass Effect and knew it didn't have superior boss design, I was very suspicious of the claim.  I'm one of the most rational people you'll meet online, so evidence is all it'd take to convince me.  Like how I can show the Saren boss fight (Mass Effect) was little more than a hoverboard shooting gallery as evidence of its boss' mediocrity.

    The only thing you cited here that is unique to WoW is the lengthy chain. And a kudos to them for doing that. The fact that it paid off is great, as I can remember another MMO (of which I can't remember the name) that had an even more in-depth (perceived) system involving the automatic rotating of action bars throughout a fight. Its complexity did very little to help sell the game.

    Adds have been in MMORPGs since the dawn of the genre. They were actually more unpredictable in earlier MMORPGs as a general rule. There is nothing unique being done in WoW here.

    Damage zones? I know another MMO that focused on these damage zones and got burned for it in the end: Wildstar. Folks complained bosses brought too much difficulty and complexity to the fight. ESO bosses do damage zones as well (I know of a certain boss that has multiple fiery damage zones crisscrossing the arena the entirety of the fight). It's, again, not unique to WoW and doesn't really provide WoW with an objective edge in complexity or depth (actual or perceived).

    Other individuals not doing their job or making mistakes has been a part of the complexity of group interaction since we first began cooperating with one another as a species to accomplish a goal. Again, in any sense, it is not unique to WoW.

    I'm not arguing for a simpler MMO. I don't want that, and a check of my post history should show this. I'm not arguing for any kind of MMO here; just pointing out that what you place forth as the model for PvE content doesn't really contain ground-breaking ideas or complexity. It's simply polished and done by a studio who has a record for high QA. Nothing's bad about that. But, we need to place it into perspective when we look towards the future of the genre. It uses the same tools every other MMO with raids uses to create depth. Had Warlords of Draenor contained dynamically spawning dungeons and bosses with multiple sets of encounters (meaning the boss fights differently and with different abilities every time), I would call it groundbreaking and agree with you that it's a model to follow, eclipsing all others in the genre.

    You seem to be more arguing for the boons of the raiding scene in MMOs as a whole, though you attribute these to WoW almost exclusively while offhandedly dismissing their presence in other MMOs. This is the sentiment that drew my statement about your affinity for WoW. For PvE content as a whole, I agree with what you say (though as I cited above, it could still be moved forward). I disagree that these pillars of depth are not already permeating throughout the genre. Save for the lengthy rotations, of course. Those are being replaced by forced skill choices before the fight (something I'm not a big fan of myself).

    It seems strange to me, referencing the part of the Saren boss fight (part one) that is intentionally simple. It's simple that way because it isn't the true Saren boss fight. You neglected to mention the second part, where Saren jumps from wall to ceiling to floor firing AoE projectiles. This boss fight was released in 2007, not 2014. 7 years ago, and it had no need for damage zones or adds to create intensity. Even admittedly mediocre games being released in other genres these days are going to have more interactive boss fights. That Saren video can be found here.

    image
  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Member RarePosts: 14,247
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by MadFrenchie
    Originally posted by Axehilt
     

    Not sure what you mean by diluting it with non-skill factors

    [...]

    Anything that diminishes your skill as a player is a "non-skill factor". Population, time zone, skill level, RNG...

    The difference in competitive and open world PvP is that you don't have to be good in order to win in open world PvP. You can just have more guys on your side, higher level, better gear etc. Some guy might win just because they are more skilled than you, but because they spent more time grinding something, for example. That is why some people (and some devs) refer to it as "casual PvP".

    It gives the low skilled players a chance to win every now and again.

    That's an interesting view of open world PVP. Could you link to the dev(s) you are referring to that called it "casual PVP" and cited those reasons for it being so?

    Arenanet said their non-instanced PvP is for casual PvPers and instanced PvP for hardcore PvPers in some interview years back.

    That's not what I asked. You wrote that some devs refer to open world PVP as casual PVP and you said it was because of the reasons you cited.  I'm inclined to assume at this point either they were referring to a specific game when stating that and giving those reasons or you misunderstood what you were reading. I say that because I can't see any MMO developer making such an odd, broad statement like that, at least not without being under the influence of The Good Stuff. 

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • MalaboogaMalabooga Member UncommonPosts: 2,977
    Originally posted by Axehilt
    Originally posted by Malabooga

    All complexitiy in the world you need

    Sorry, but when comparing PvE to PvP its like this (example of chess):

    PvE - opponent always makes same moves, once you figure it out you win *every single time*

    PvP - regular chess

    Thats why PvP games (chess included) are much more popular and stand test of time, while PvE gets boring very quickly with scripted encounters

    Your warlock example : spend few hours on dummy, then spend needed time on boss to learn teh script -> win every single time -> boring and mindnumbing very quickly, you can reproduce success results blindfolded very quick, the more you stick to the script template the better you fare.

    Thats why majority of people like easy PvE. It gets boring quickly. I would say most people feel like people feel like this when they think of (highend) PvE:

    Certainly PVP tends to offer deeper gameplay.  MMORPGs are rarely the place to find good PVP, but GW2 and WOW's tournaments are notable exceptions to the rule. 

    "Spend a few hours on dummy" is practice.  Practice implies skill depth.  Well you've helped us better establish WOW's depth, now what about some other game being deeper?  And again, a big part of WOW's depth comes from the timing of boss capabilities and how they force sub-optimal rotations or switch the rotation being used.

    Keep in mind that WOW has PVP (and their tournaments are similarly skill-focused with no non-skill factors diluting things.)

    Keep in mind that hating all PVE doesn't magically make WOW PVE shallower.

    You can spin it negatively as "factory work", but in the end PVE is a collaborative puzzle to be solved, which many players find interesting to solve.  Also, your Chaplin film unintentionally shows that another big part of the depth comes from having to dynamically react to others' mistakes, which can further vary your rotation or behavior.

    MMO PvE is not overly complex and vast majority of people can master it. point is that for vast majority of people its just too boring to master it. this is not "hating all PvE". Less and less people raid (and developers have harder and harder time convincing people to raid, or even justify making raids). Not because they are not capable enough, but its just too boring, all the requirements, and reward is not very shiney - you get to repeat exact same stuff over and over every week for long period of time. And no, i dont consider LFR raiding, at least not in traditional sense.

  • SoraksisSoraksis Member UncommonPosts: 294
    Originally posted by Hariken
    Originally posted by Axehilt

    While true in a general sense, as a gameplay-centric player I'm still waiting for the MMORPG which surpasses WOW's combat and class design, including its crisp controls, responsive animations, rotation design, and mob design.

    Some games come close, and those games still manage to be fun, but so far none have managed to be more fun.

    Spot on,Wow's gameplay has always been fluid. Something other mmo companies just seem to ignore.

    Yes but WoW didnt start that way.  Something some players just seem to ignore.  WoW has had more than 10 years to work out the bugs.  I remember getting months of free game time in the first year because of how bad some of the problems were and how often and long the servers would go down. 

     

  • AxehiltAxehilt Member RarePosts: 10,504
    Originally posted by MadFrenchie

    The only thing you cited here that is unique to WoW is the lengthy chain. And a kudos to them for doing that. The fact that it paid off is great, as I can remember another MMO (of which I can't remember the name) that had an even more in-depth (perceived) system involving the automatic rotating of action bars throughout a fight. Its complexity did very little to help sell the game.

    Adds have been in MMORPGs since the dawn of the genre. They were actually more unpredictable in earlier MMORPGs as a general rule. There is nothing unique being done in WoW here.

    Damage zones? I know another MMO that focused on these damage zones and got burned for it in the end: Wildstar. Folks complained bosses brought too much difficulty and complexity to the fight. ESO bosses do damage zones as well (I know of a certain boss that has multiple fiery damage zones crisscrossing the arena the entirety of the fight). It's, again, not unique to WoW and doesn't really provide WoW with an objective edge in complexity or depth (actual or perceived).

    Other individuals not doing their job or making mistakes has been a part of the complexity of group interaction since we first began cooperating with one another as a species to accomplish a goal. Again, in any sense, it is not unique to WoW.

    I'm not arguing for a simpler MMO. I don't want that, and a check of my post history should show this. I'm not arguing for any kind of MMO here; just pointing out that what you place forth as the model for PvE content doesn't really contain ground-breaking ideas or complexity. It's simply polished and done by a studio who has a record for high QA. Nothing's bad about that. But, we need to place it into perspective when we look towards the future of the genre. It uses the same tools every other MMO with raids uses to create depth. Had Warlords of Draenor contained dynamically spawning dungeons and bosses with multiple sets of encounters (meaning the boss fights differently and with different abilities every time), I would call it groundbreaking and agree with you that it's a model to follow, eclipsing all others in the genre.

    You seem to be more arguing for the boons of the raiding scene in MMOs as a whole, though you attribute these to WoW almost exclusively while offhandedly dismissing their presence in other MMOs. This is the sentiment that drew my statement about your affinity for WoW. For PvE content as a whole, I agree with what you say (though as I cited above, it could still be moved forward). I disagree that these pillars of depth are not already permeating throughout the genre. Save for the lengthy rotations, of course. Those are being replaced by forced skill choices before the fight (something I'm not a big fan of myself).

    It seems strange to me, referencing the part of the Saren boss fight (part one) that is intentionally simple. It's simple that way because it isn't the true Saren boss fight. You neglected to mention the second part, where Saren jumps from wall to ceiling to floor firing AoE projectiles. This boss fight was released in 2007, not 2014. 7 years ago, and it had no need for damage zones or adds to create intensity. Even admittedly mediocre games being released in other genres these days are going to have more interactive boss fights. That Saren video can be found here.

    The chain's length isn't what's driving the depth.  It's the chain having ~3 tiers of burst DPS accumulation (HoG, Molten Core, and Demonic Fury) alongside the standard variety of DPS cooldowns, and it's specifically how that interacts with the rest of the dynamic elements of the fight (which yes, other games have) which makes WOW unusually deep.

    So the depth of the rotation has a multiplicative effect on the overall depth of the game, because other games have those other dynamic elements -- but then when you worry about switching adds it's just dot#1, dot#2, nuke, nuke, nuke, and you don't have as much of the damage tempo that makes WOW so rewarding of intelligent prediction.  (Typically you have a little, because a lot of games do have damage cooldowns, but you just don't have it to WOW's degree -- and games not having depth to WOW's degree is really the point here.)

    Not sure what Wildstar did wrong with damage zones.  Forcing players to move during a fight is clearly a proven mechanic, so it's not the mechanic that's flawed if Wildstar took flak over them.  (Honestly the idea that eventually Wildstar's danger zones became "too hard" is pretty appealing sounding to me.  I never got far enough into the game to see that.)

    Many of WOW's rotations weren't this deep before WoD.  So in some sense, they are ground-breaking.  But who cares?  Let's say they're not ground-breaking.  It doesn't matter.  The thing that matters is other games aren't doing "damage tempo" to this degree, and aren't doing other deep things of their own. (Because certainly damage tempo isn't the only way to create a deep game.)

    The only MMORPG I dismissed outright was WAR, as it clearly had shallow rotations (dot#1, dot#2, nuke, nuke, nuke) and horrible CC design .  For other games I'm not dismissing them.  I'm saying "bring on the evidence!"

    Neither of those fights seemed to involve any deliberate planning or tactics.  Though that guy fighting Saren phase 2 was depressing to watch, since he should've just been spamming abilities like crazy (there's no significant opportunity cost not to.)  "Shooting gallery, plus spam all your abilities" isn't a shining example of depth either.  To be fair, it's slightly more involved, but remember that the follow short strategy list is going up against that very long Warlock rotation guide in addition to a specific WOW boss strategy:

    • Shield recharge (when shields broken.)
    • Keep Barrier up.
    • Spam Overload (while enemy has shields)
    • Spam Warp (while enemy lacks shields)
    • Constantly aim at boss; shoot him when he stops.  (With Overkill if available.)
    So it's not completely simple, but it's still not an example of combat which surpasses the depth of WOW.  We're still waiting on that evidence.

    "What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver

  • AxehiltAxehilt Member RarePosts: 10,504
    Originally posted by Sukiyaki

    So why not waste YOUR time posting a single piece prove and evidence that WoW has deeper combat than any MMO ever so anyone can immediately dismiss it, with at best the usal superficial excuses and opinionated claims to feign some objectivity, if we bother about any attempt to justify it at all. After all you are regularly calling it the best or of the best, implying all or almost all others have less depth. That will take some even greater amount of videos/guides you need my aproval of to build some substantial case.

    Lets start with WAR. Try to prove your claim that WoW has deeper combat than WAR. Post your edvidence that WoW is even close. Lets see you wasting your time on a farce. 

    I've posted the Demonology rotation link several times.  It's the score to beat.  My other posts explain, in detail, why the "damage tempo" to that rotation creates a significant amount of depth (more than I've experienced in other MMORPGs, which usually have some damage tempo but not as much and with worse boss tempo (since the tempo of boss disruption abilities needs to be timed really well to actually force players to change their rotation up.)

    As for WAR, I gave it a paragraph a while back and have added some clarification in later posts.

    So basically read up on the thread, and then come back.

    "What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver

  • AxehiltAxehilt Member RarePosts: 10,504
    Originally posted by Malabooga

    MMO PvE is not overly complex and vast majority of people can master it. point is that for vast majority of people its just too boring to master it. this is not "hating all PvE". Less and less people raid (and developers have harder and harder time convincing people to raid, or even justify making raids). Not because they are not capable enough, but its just too boring, all the requirements, and reward is not very shiney - you get to repeat exact same stuff over and over every week for long period of time. And no, i dont consider LFR raiding, at least not in traditional sense.

    Well sure, but keep in mind my underlying point is summed up something like this: "Someone claimed WOW was shallow, but it's actually a very deep PVE game.  But I welcome evidence that points to another game's PVE being deeper, because I'd probably love to play that game."

    What you're saying isn't wrong, but it's like if I mentioned a car I thought was the fastest and asked if anyone knows of a faster car, and you correctly pointed out very few people drive cars that expensive.  While quite true, it's irrelevant data.

     

    "What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver

  • AxehiltAxehilt Member RarePosts: 10,504
    Originally posted by Loktofeit

    That's not what I asked. You wrote that some devs refer to open world PVP as casual PVP and you said it was because of the reasons you cited.  I'm inclined to assume at this point either they were referring to a specific game when stating that and giving those reasons or you misunderstood what you were reading. I say that because I can't see any MMO developer making such an odd, broad statement like that, at least not without being under the influence of The Good Stuff. 

    Well you understand the logic right?  The difference between pure/hardcore PVP (where only skill matters) and casual/world PVP (where non-skill factors are present, diluting the importance of skill.)  Non-skill factors are things like gear/level (progression; advantages of playtime) and bringing more players (population).

    So you're just asking to know which company peeled back the curtain and admitted world PVP was casual, right?  Because the entire point of world PVP is to trick casual PVPers into thinking their form of PVP is hardcore and gritty, and admitting it's casual directly works against that fantasy.

    "What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483


    Originally posted by Axehilt The chain's length isn't what's driving the depth.  It's the chain having ~3 tiers of burst DPS accumulation (HoG, Molten Core, and Demonic Fury) alongside the standard variety of DPS cooldowns, and it's specifically how that interacts with the rest of the dynamic elements of the fight (which yes, other games have) which makes WOW unusually deep. So the depth of the rotation has a multiplicative effect on the overall depth of the game, because other games have those other dynamic elements -- but then when you worry about switching adds it's just dot#1, dot#2, nuke, nuke, nuke, and you don't have as much of the damage tempo that makes WOW so rewarding of intelligent prediction.  (Typically you have a little, because a lot of games do have damage cooldowns, but you just don't have it to WOW's degree -- and games not having depth to WOW's degree is really the point here.) Not sure what Wildstar did wrong with damage zones.  Forcing players to move during a fight is clearly a proven mechanic, so it's not the mechanic that's flawed if Wildstar took flak over them.  (Honestly the idea that eventually Wildstar's danger zones became "too hard" is pretty appealing sounding to me.  I never got far enough into the game to see that.) Many of WOW's rotations weren't this deep before WoD.  So in some sense, they are ground-breaking.  But who cares?  Let's say they're not ground-breaking.  It doesn't matter.  The thing that matters is other games aren't doing "damage tempo" to this degree, and aren't doing other deep things of their own. (Because certainly damage tempo isn't the only way to create a deep game.) The only MMORPG I dismissed outright was WAR, as it clearly had shallow rotations (dot#1, dot#2, nuke, nuke, nuke) and horrible CC design .  For other games I'm not dismissing them.  I'm saying "bring on the evidence!" Neither of those fights seemed to involve any deliberate planning or tactics.  Though that guy fighting Saren phase 2 was depressing to watch, since he should've just been spamming abilities like crazy (there's no significant opportunity cost not to.)  "Shooting gallery, plus spam all your abilities" isn't a shining example of depth either.  To be fair, it's slightly more involved, but remember that the follow short strategy list is going up against that very long Warlock rotation guide in addition to a specific WOW boss strategy:
    • Shield recharge (when shields broken.)
    • Keep Barrier up.
    • Spam Overload (while enemy has shields) Spam Warp (while enemy lacks shields) Constantly aim at boss; shoot him when he stops.  (With Overkill if available.)
    So it's not completely simple, but it's still not an example of combat which surpasses the depth of WOW.  We're still waiting on that evidence.
     

    Well if your entire argument is based around the chain's length, I should be seeing WoD raid videos filled with folks moving around (to avoid damage zones), keeping their heads on a swivel (to pick up adds), and using a ton of different abilities to maximize DPS, correct?

    Then why, in the very first video I found of a WoD raid, do I watch what (at least looks like to me) a Warlock standing in place, spamming the same 3-4 abilities the entire 7-minute fight? There's no need to post multiple videos/guides pertaining to other MMORPGs when I can easily find a video of WoD raiding falling very short of the argument you're making for WoW.

    The poster could very well have done the entire video with one hand on the keyboard, the other down his pants. I'm not seeing the depth you speak of here. I, instead, see the classic raid experience we see in most MMORPGs. The majority of his abilities are never used in favor of 3-4 bread and butter abilities over and over.

    You might argue that's an easy boss or something, but that doesn't even matter. The DPS caster is using the same 3-4 abilities the entire time, ignoring all those deep, lengthy, multiple DPS rotations you speak of altogether. And the raid is going swimmingly.

    So y'see, that's the advantage action games such as Infamous and Mass Effect will always have: active dodge and targetting means they don't need a ton of different ability options to present the player with (not to mention Infamous: Second Son bestows the player with 3 different powersets at the time of that fight, all of which look and feel differently, target differently, and do different amounts of damage/utility). You can't play either of those games by releasing the mouse or keyboard (or taking one hand off the controller) and spamming 3-4 abilities. Which makes them much more engaging and interactive, at least in my opinion.

    image
Sign In or Register to comment.