I think AI could easily be more adaptive than players. I'll be honest, I don't think the players can handle better AI. Or at least some better than others. And in most Theme Park MMOs, I think players, in general, don't really want it harder than it is.
It's not about their ability to handle it, but their ability to have fun with it. Playing to Lose was a great talk that covered the needs of various AI as they relate to different game genres.
RPG AI is a combat puzzle. It's enjoyed in that specific manner, and wouldn't be enjoyed if it were smart. It's just not the type of game or combat that works well with smart AI. Personally I feel that even in the genres where it makes the most sense, smart AI is never quite as fun as a good puzzle AI (though this is largely because these genres tend to be PVP-focused, which means that anytime you're playing the AI in these games it feels like you're settling for the second-best experience.)
I think you are saying what I really meant to say.
If you look at my follow up post, That's exactly what I tried to touch on.
Seriously... most of you should be playing Minecraft. There's even that "Leopard" thing, just better done. Minecraft on survival mode is pretty much what you are all asking for. And *hint* it also has farming.
I know I enjoy that game for my sandbox needs. Bonus: you can run a server for cheap and play with friends, too.
I do play Mincraft sometimes. Minecraft is a pretty fun game, but considering everything is made up of blocks that detracts from the fun. The combat is also fairly simplistic. The game is like playing with legos (which I like, but not quite as advanced as I would like). I was thinking of something a bit more realistic and with some magic/high fantasy theme.
for the record currently most 'minecraft like games' meaning Voxel based games are ALL better than minecraft now. That is not to say minecraft is bad but it is to say that its already antiquated.
Would be nice if you gave a list, because I have several on my owned games list, and none has as many features as minecraft gained over the years.
short list 7 Days to Die From the Depths Space Engineers StarMade
Those are the ones I have first hand play time on, there are others that look very compelling but I am in the middle of something else at the momment
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Seriously... most of you should be playing Minecraft. There's even that "Leopard" thing, just better done. Minecraft on survival mode is pretty much what you are all asking for. And *hint* it also has farming.
I know I enjoy that game for my sandbox needs. Bonus: you can run a server for cheap and play with friends, too.
I do play Mincraft sometimes. Minecraft is a pretty fun game, but considering everything is made up of blocks that detracts from the fun. The combat is also fairly simplistic. The game is like playing with legos (which I like, but not quite as advanced as I would like). I was thinking of something a bit more realistic and with some magic/high fantasy theme.
for the record currently most 'minecraft like games' meaning Voxel based games are ALL better than minecraft now. That is not to say minecraft is bad but it is to say that its already antiquated.
Would be nice if you gave a list, because I have several on my owned games list, and none has as many features as minecraft gained over the years.
short list 7 Days to Die From the Depths Space Engineers StarMade
Those are the ones I have first hand play time on, there are others that look very compelling but I am in the middle of something else at the momment
None of those has more features than Minecraft (1.9 beta, today's version, not 5 years ago). Planet Explorers is a nice one you're missing on your list, though.
really?
minecraft has ballastics, boats, spaceships?, infinite planets?, structural integrity physics?
I think you didnt give those games are real look
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I think AI could easily be more adaptive than players. I'll be honest, I don't think the players can handle better AI. Or at least some better than others. And in most Theme Park MMOs, I think players, in general, don't really want it harder than it is.
It's not about their ability to handle it, but their ability to have fun with it. Playing to Lose was a great talk that covered the needs of various AI as they relate to different game genres.
RPG AI is a combat puzzle. It's enjoyed in that specific manner, and wouldn't be enjoyed if it were smart. It's just not the type of game or combat that works well with smart AI. Personally I feel that even in the genres where it makes the most sense, smart AI is never quite as fun as a good puzzle AI (though this is largely because these genres tend to be PVP-focused, which means that anytime you're playing the AI in these games it feels like you're settling for the second-best experience.)
Think outside the box:
It's not so much about creating AI that's too smart for the player. It's more about creating AI that gives a better entertainment experience.
Seriously... most of you should be playing Minecraft. There's even that "Leopard" thing, just better done. Minecraft on survival mode is pretty much what you are all asking for. And *hint* it also has farming.
I know I enjoy that game for my sandbox needs. Bonus: you can run a server for cheap and play with friends, too.
What's the point of your response?
What are you trying to say?
That whack a mole AI is where it's at?
You speak about Tactics... besides PVP or figuring out the fastest way to level, where is the strategy or tactics in a themepark MMO?
This is true with raiding as well. There is no strategy or tactics when it comes to something that is static. It's like being an opponent in a martial arts movie. It takes skill and finesse but you're learning and reacting to a choreography. A choreography that does not change.
The "leopard" thing is just a quick single example. The point is to have a more intelligent AI that makes a game less static and less predictable which in turn makes it less stale.
AI could be more adaptive, I've never played it but I hear Shadow of Mordor has some type of adaptability to how it's AI learns from encounters. I think that only goes so far as to how much it heightens the experience though. As I've also heard that SOM is not much more worldly/dynamic than an Assassins creed game overall, which is why I've never purchased it.
I don't think stale has much to do with AI, I think it's more in how long we've been seeing certain elements presented. I think what's grown stale is the 1-?? drudgery that MMORPGs have always been about. While I prefer progression, I am an RPG fan, I think the very nature of yet another trek from one to cap is what's really getting stale, real RPG's both P&P as well as SP video games, are typically about much more than that. It's not just story either that is different about them, it's not challenge, it's not half the crap we complain about. It's how they connect you to their worlds, it's much more natural of a transition.
For the most part they put you right into the experience they're offering, while they may have a small area designed to learn the basics, they almost always incorporate it in a way that has a natural flow from opening story, to getting on with doing what you want to do. MMORPGs offer 100's of hours of this type of drudgery, where as RPG's offer about 10-20 mins of it.
In short less I'm learning to be and more I am...
Shadows of Mordor is a great example of how entertaining a simple game with a great AI design and responsive controls can be.
It's very entertaining just sneaking around and watching the AI interact with one another. The developer's were definitely influenced by Assassin's Creed but at the same time it is so much different. It's a great example of ways to make a gaming world feel more real and open ended gameplay.
It has won game of the year awards for good reason.
Edited my previous post, but too late. The only one I haven't tried in your list is "From the Depths". For all the others, despite their additional gimmicks, they didn't hold a candle to the original for me.
can we just disagree rather than getting into a poop throwing match over 'minecraft must have structural integrity because I havent played it' debates and 'no features' meaning 'no features I like'
I have been amazingly accurate in the games I look into. I watch videos, I pay attention to my response and I know what I like. When I see videos of Minecraft I say to myself 'no way in hell' when I saw videos of those other games I said to myself 'now that looks cool as sh*888T!'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I have a subscription to DFUW. It's the closest thing I can find, I don't play it because it's too stressful. I love the grinding, the crafting, the prowess system. It just stresses me out and I'm a nervous wreck when I'm playing because if someone kills me I have to go get another full set of armor out because you drop everything. I have like 15 gear bags prepared and ready to go, I just can't shake the constant stress and anxiety that goes with it. Not to mention the community gets pretty ugly about things and it's obsessively political.
Probably the problem with many thread. It's hard to find perfect game.
Someone says Archeage is perfect for them... but the cash shop stops them from playing.
I really like a few of the niche game, but the cash shop drives me away. Some of my favorite mmorpg are niche games.
You seem serious, so I'll give you a serious response.
What does "rare drop" mean? It means for the next hour, you're killing one type of mob.
What does "questing" mean? It means for the next hour you're doing 10-15 different activities, killing 10-20 different types of mobs.
What does "variety" mean? It means doing different things. (Not killing one type of mob repetitively.)
Pretty sure he mentioned at least four types of mobs.
And questing does not mean doing 10-15 different activities. It means doing the same three activities 10-15 times.
So how is that any worse than doing one activity on 4 types of mobs, or even 20 different types of mobs. The AI puzzles behind mob behavior aren't any more varied or complex than the repeated behaviors and puzzles of quests.
That is part of the point that Axe managed to miss.
The best his rebuttal offers is that drop rates are imbalanced, which doesn't even address the point of what variety is being offered where. I gave examples previously in the likes of Asheron's call though for non-quest activities that contribute to player progress, including an often overlooked component with guild management and the vassal system.
Why I pointed out the mobs specifically in that case was because axehilt's excuse previously was exactly "changing mobs = more variety". So I pointed out that he is actively devaluing a form of "variety" that he had just previously espoused. In other words he's wrong or he's wrong, but he's got his head too far up his ass to keep his bullshit straight any more and is instead piling new crap on top in hopes of burying it.
Farming the same mobs for an hour or more is it's own issue, if he wants to use that as an excuse then he has to form an argument around it that's not, as he (incorrectly I might add) put it, is objectively false.
The thing I was correcting was succinctly this; variety is offered through the differences in challenge and and means of engagement.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Pretty sure he mentioned at least four types of mobs.
And questing does not mean doing 10-15 different activities. It means doing the same three activities 10-15 times.
I don't un-block you often, but you deserve to understand the magnitude of your ignorance.
The guy was talking about Darkfall. In Darkfall you literally will be grinding one type of mob for over an hour (I said an hour to be politely conservative). Here's a post where one player got it in 50 kills and another in 500 kills.
The other 3 types of mobs you have to farm would probably mostly also require 1+ hours worth of farming to get enough materials. So in our discussion on variety, you've brought nothing but ignorance. You're still blocked, because this is a typical post from you. But you deserve a chance at realizing what you're doing, which is why I respond on occasion to point out how objectively wrong you are.
"What does "variety" mean? It means doing different things. (Not killing one type of mob repetitively.)"
"...mob A casts a powerful spell that must be interrupted and so it actually is variety compared with mob B which does a powerful forward cone attack which must be dodged. That's variety."
Now, here we have him very explicitly stating more mob types = more variety. This also ignores the fact that his presentation sets up a false example, as in games like WoW most typical mobs have little in the way of meaningful behavioral differences and that sounds more like a comparison vet mobs or bosses.
His only counterargument when posed with a point that uses his own claims against him? That it takes too much time to farm those mobs.
Which makes his post ironic, because he chooses to claim something is objectively false by making an argument that is objectively false.
And here's how.
The claim singularly that the variety is lacking because the predictability of a drop from a given mob is too random so as to make it take in average a long time, based on a single anecdote.
The case that the game offers multiple means to obtaining the items beyond farming the one mob apparently. "drops from different mobs OR can be mined for random drops."
The fact that it is a social game and you're talking about crafting an item that is being made by a group, not one person.
The fact that such items aren't player/account bound and are actually part of a player economy. "What makes it all better is: 1. you dont have to do any of it to still progress, it depends on what you are making or the mats you are selling"
The fact that you are not being directed or controlled by any finite limitations, meaning how, when, and where you choose to do something (or if you wish to try an entirely different method) is not limited to the task you have on-hand, and you can in fact plot out multiple things to do while farming or otherwise. "2. you dont have to do them in order, you collect the mats in the order you want"
So, Axe might not see this because he doesn't like people proving him wrong, seeing as he goes as far as insulting me without even offering any even half-decent logic for a counterargument. However, everyone else can be treated to the proper showing of what is objectively false in this scenario he's trying to sit there and misinform people about.
EDIT: Did a quick google of the astrolabe he mentioned. Turns out it can drop from a variety of mobs, and "Astrolabes can be obtained from chests and trade routes."
In other words, aside form all the things he said that was wrong about his premise/argument, he also straight up lied and presented a false scenario where the reality is that players have quite the freedom of means in obtaining these items in their course of play.
Granted, this all also ignores a fundamental case of comparing apples to oranges any ways. Looking at one game where variety is defined by a sequence of activities you are told to do and comparing it to a game where you are given a variety of activities that rewards you regardless of sequence kind of comes with a lot of qualifiers that have to be ignored or serious assumptions made by certain people in order to bridge the game in the differences in game-play.
EDIT: He also apparently didn't read the post he linked, because the two posters are talking about two different mobs from the same overarching set of mobs, not the same one.
Post edited by Deivos on
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
It's not so much about creating AI that's too smart for the player. It's more about creating AI that gives a better entertainment experience.
The video was literally about creating better entertainment experiences. It was about identifying which elements of AI matter to players and improve their experience, and delivering an AI which satisfies.
In MMORPGs' case AI is a critical component of the combat puzzle and needs to remain predictable. Within that constraint you can have a lot of variation (and a lot of non-WOW MMORPGs fail to vary things as much as they should) but the fundamental idea behind the AI being a static puzzle isn't going to change because that's the core of what makes gaming fun: it's a pattern to be learned and mastered. To vary the puzzle, you don't mess with the AI but the details of the encounter (mob abilities, quantity, environment, etc)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
It's not so much about creating AI that's too smart for the player. It's more about creating AI that gives a better entertainment experience.
The video was literally about creating better entertainment experiences. It was about identifying which elements of AI matter to players and improve their experience, and delivering an AI which satisfies.
In MMORPGs' case AI is a critical component of the combat puzzle and needs to remain predictable. Within that constraint you can have a lot of variation (and a lot of non-WOW MMORPGs fail to vary things as much as they should) but the fundamental idea behind the AI being a static puzzle isn't going to change because that's the core of what makes gaming fun: it's a pattern to be learned and mastered. To vary the puzzle, you don't mess with the AI but the details of the encounter (mob abilities, quantity, environment, etc)
To me it sounds like you think there is a right way to do it. This is what kills creativity. If everyone studies a video and does things a way that is proven to draw more people then we will never get anything different. People just need to experiment and find new things on their own.
I invite everybody to read axe's post right here, then scroll up to read my post and see how ridiculously far from reality he just leaped.
I covered seven distinct points that rather solidly not only debunk the lie just repeated, but pointed at a much more extended form of variety in play, and he skipped all of them to present this post which is wonderfully illustrative of just how ironically backwards his insults are.
EDIT: Seems his offending post was removed.
Post edited by Deivos on
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I invite everybody to read axe's post right here, then scroll up to read my post and see how ridiculously far from reality he just leaped.
I covered seven distinct points that rather solidly not only debunk the lie just repeated, but pointed at a much more extended form of variety in play, and he skipped all of them to present this post which is wonderfully illustrative of just how ironically backwards his insults are.
I don't think old MMOs had to be played by camping a single mob. That was just the easiest way to do it. I did find I often was switching to different areas in the same level range just to try something new. It was also easier in terms of finding a group because there was almost always someone around killing things. I didn't have to worry about being on the same quest as my friend. I don't think mobs were every made with the intention of being camped for an item. I believe they were made that way so some people might get lucky and an item would drop off the boss. Players just didn't utilize it in the way it was intended because they wanted the items more then the developers had originally envisioned.
There's a reasonable amount of players who have a habit of reducing games to a lot of statistical potentials, metagaming, and gaming the system. It's perhaps the most visible crowd because it's part of the competitive crowd, who tends to be more vocal about their games than others as they are trying to constantly be "on top".
As a result, rather than playing the game for the convenience or entertainment, there tends to be those that obsess on a very narrow band of a game's play and value as they are trying to maximize the potential for progress in a specific task.
The point of my previous post was mostly just deconstructing a false argument. The one that was posed (and repeated) was a suggestion that one game requires killing the same mob under such a context for ~ an hour while players can supposedly complete 10-15 (or now 20 it'd seem) quests for "variety.
Not only was that demonstrated as false from the perspective that quest variety isn't actually all that varied, but the game in question for the example was deconstructed a bit to point out that farming a single mob was actually only one of several ways to achieve the same goal, and that players were pretty free in such games to stack multiple activities of interest to maintain variety in gameplay without being at a loss for it.
So yeah I agree with you overall. The main reason people farm mobs is generally not because it's actually the best method, but it's the simplest ans consequently most convenient. You have to heavily structure and incentivize activities to deter players from taking the path of least resistance. "Challenge" apparently isn't all it's cracked up to be.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
It's not so much about creating AI that's too smart for the player. It's more about creating AI that gives a better entertainment experience.
The video was literally about creating better entertainment experiences. It was about identifying which elements of AI matter to players and improve their experience, and delivering an AI which satisfies.
In MMORPGs' case AI is a critical component of the combat puzzle and needs to remain predictable. Within that constraint you can have a lot of variation (and a lot of non-WOW MMORPGs fail to vary things as much as they should) but the fundamental idea behind the AI being a static puzzle isn't going to change because that's the core of what makes gaming fun: it's a pattern to be learned and mastered. To vary the puzzle, you don't mess with the AI but the details of the encounter (mob abilities, quantity, environment, etc)
To me it sounds like you think there is a right way to do it. This is what kills creativity. If everyone studies a video and does things a way that is proven to draw more people then we will never get anything different. People just need to experiment and find new things on their own.
Maybe so many of these games are duds because they're so predictable. There is a term I often see used "Content Locusts" IMHO the line of thinking you're explaining is a big reason why this type of behavior exists.
So AI in MMORPG's was perfected 20 years ago? I take it that, that's why it hasn't changed.
So yeah I agree with you overall. The main reason people farm mobs is generally not because it's actually the best method, but it's the simplest ans consequently most convenient. You have to heavily structure and incentivize activities to deter players from taking the path of least resistance. "Challenge" apparently isn't all it's cracked up to be.
Convenience and challenge are not mutually exclusive.
Just have a game mode that is easy to get into, and hard to beat .. and there you go.
Just look at Greater Rift pushing in D3 .... it is the pinnacle of convenience. You can play one whenever you have 15 min. It is also the pinnacle of challenge ... only one can be at the top of the leader board.
I don't think old MMOs had to be played by camping a single mob. That was just the easiest way to do it. I did find I often was switching to different areas in the same level range just to try something new. It was also easier in terms of finding a group because there was almost always someone around killing things. I didn't have to worry about being on the same quest as my friend. I don't think mobs were every made with the intention of being camped for an item. I believe they were made that way so some people might get lucky and an item would drop off the boss. Players just didn't utilize it in the way it was intended because they wanted the items more then the developers had originally envisioned.
Who here is arguing that you "had to" camp a single mob?
What I'm describing is the typical experience.
Why was it typical? Because of the game rules.
Darkfall as a specific example set up its game rules so that you need an Astrolabe to build a boat, and it has a low drop rate which is calculated to force players to take longer than an hour of grinding to get it.
Early MMORPGs enforced non-variety in an even simpler way: travel and killing both take time, and only killing gives you XP. So naturally, with the game strongly encouraging players not to experience variety, that's what happened.
So it's really not relevant that you could deliberately sabotage your rate of progress by choosing more variety, because that simply wasn't the typical experience of early MMORPGs.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
To me it sounds like you think there is a right way to do it. This is what kills creativity. If everyone studies a video and does things a way that is proven to draw more people then we will never get anything different. People just need to experiment and find new things on their own.
You seem to think I'm describing a narrow concept.
Are all paintings exactly the same because an artist gives you a broad rule "paint the front of the canvas"?
Are all wheeled vehicles the same because an engineer gives the broad rule "use round wheels"?
This broad rule for game AI has allowed a tremendous variety of games to exist.
Look you're free to go off and design your square-wheeled car, or your wrong-AI'd videogame, but nobody professional is interested in making obvious mistakes like that.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Who here is arguing that you "had to" camp a single mob?
Well, you are, seeing as you repeated an example that was noted at patently false. But hey, no one said you have to agree with reality.
And it's safe to say you are still talking from an either misinformed or intentionally inaccurate point of view, mostly from the perspective of talking about EQ as if it is "the" old game. Seeing as it was pointed out other games that had quite a range of xp-fueled activities, you're just repeating something that's not true to try and press an opinion.
As for AI experimentation, your analogy is rather hyperbolic. So to provide an equally meaningful counterpoint. Drones and planes are neat, but I still appreciate the people that went out on a limb to invent quadrotors. Novelty needs to be explored because it expands understanding of what works and does not work.
The only obvious mistake is making a game that you don't yourself enjoy.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
So yeah I agree with you overall. The main reason people farm mobs is generally not because it's actually the best method, but it's the simplest ans consequently most convenient. You have to heavily structure and incentivize activities to deter players from taking the path of least resistance. "Challenge" apparently isn't all it's cracked up to be.
Convenience and challenge are not mutually exclusive.
Just have a game mode that is easy to get into, and hard to beat .. and there you go.
Just look at Greater Rift pushing in D3 .... it is the pinnacle of convenience. You can play one whenever you have 15 min. It is also the pinnacle of challenge ... only one can be at the top of the leader board.
That does not counter my point in the least. Sure, people can scale up and down in the challenge of Greater Rifts, and I can guarantee that just like raids in MMOs that there is a remarkably small percentage of the userbase actually swinging for the hard content and rewards. Just look at the leaderboards and you will find a point where the numbers of the top players will dramatically drop off as the rest of the userbase's average sits considerably lower.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Maybe so many of these games are duds because they're so predictable. There is a term I often see used "Content Locusts" IMHO the line of thinking you're explaining is a big reason why this type of behavior exists.
So AI in MMORPG's was perfected 20 years ago? I take it that, that's why it hasn't changed.
You might re-read a particularly juicy book multiple times to suck out the patterns it offers. But each time you re-read it there are diminishing returns to the entertainment value you get out of it. So "content locusts" isn't at all related to the discussion, but rooted in the fundamental way people enjoy entertainment.
The most common way entertainment is enjoyed is rooted in learning. Koster covers the games side of this in A Theory of Fun, but it applies to all entertainment. We observe an experience, learn from it, and if we learn we experience a delight at learning, and in games we call it "fun". If the experience fails to teach us anything -- like if we've already read that book several times before and didn't notice anything new this time -- we're basically done with it. The content is consumed.
Blaming it on AI is a bit like blaming uninteresting books on the fact that they were printed page-by-page in justified format. Sure, you could print them in a heart shape, but that's a strange argument to make for trying to improve books.
A good book is reliant on its content quality: it's not about the shape the words make on the page, it's about whether the content itself is interesting. A good game is exactly the same: it's not about the broad framework of AI, but about whether the content itself is interesting.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Comments
If you look at my follow up post, That's exactly what I tried to touch on.
7 Days to Die
From the Depths
Space Engineers
StarMade
Those are the ones I have first hand play time on, there are others that look very compelling but I am in the middle of something else at the momment
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
minecraft has ballastics, boats, spaceships?, infinite planets?, structural integrity physics?
I think you didnt give those games are real look
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
It's not so much about creating AI that's too smart for the player. It's more about creating AI that gives a better entertainment experience.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
that said..(you said)'None of those has more features' does not mean 'features yes but non that I like'
I havent played Minecraft. You know why? because I dont see anything appealing to me. I DO however see a lot appealing to me in the games I listed.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
you have played 7 days to die?
you have played From the Depths?
really?
interesting however me having played something or not doesnt make what I say not true unfortuntatly for you
minecraft either has structural integrity physics or it doesnt. me having not played the game doesnt change that
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
It's very entertaining just sneaking around and watching the AI interact with one another. The developer's were definitely influenced by Assassin's Creed but at the same time it is so much different. It's a great example of ways to make a gaming world feel more real and open ended gameplay.
It has won game of the year awards for good reason.
I highly recommend trying it.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
I have been amazingly accurate in the games I look into. I watch videos, I pay attention to my response and I know what I like. When I see videos of Minecraft I say to myself 'no way in hell' when I saw videos of those other games I said to myself 'now that looks cool as sh*888T!'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
The best his rebuttal offers is that drop rates are imbalanced, which doesn't even address the point of what variety is being offered where. I gave examples previously in the likes of Asheron's call though for non-quest activities that contribute to player progress, including an often overlooked component with guild management and the vassal system.
Why I pointed out the mobs specifically in that case was because axehilt's excuse previously was exactly "changing mobs = more variety". So I pointed out that he is actively devaluing a form of "variety" that he had just previously espoused. In other words he's wrong or he's wrong, but he's got his head too far up his ass to keep his bullshit straight any more and is instead piling new crap on top in hopes of burying it.
Farming the same mobs for an hour or more is it's own issue, if he wants to use that as an excuse then he has to form an argument around it that's not, as he (incorrectly I might add) put it, is objectively false.
The thing I was correcting was succinctly this; variety is offered through the differences in challenge and and means of engagement.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Commentary from @Axehilt .
"What does "variety" mean? It means doing different things. (Not killing one type of mob repetitively.)"
"...mob A casts a powerful spell that must be interrupted and so it actually is variety compared with mob B which does a powerful forward cone attack which must be dodged. That's variety."
Now, here we have him very explicitly stating more mob types = more variety. This also ignores the fact that his presentation sets up a false example, as in games like WoW most typical mobs have little in the way of meaningful behavioral differences and that sounds more like a comparison vet mobs or bosses.
His only counterargument when posed with a point that uses his own claims against him? That it takes too much time to farm those mobs.
Which makes his post ironic, because he chooses to claim something is objectively false by making an argument that is objectively false.
And here's how.
The claim singularly that the variety is lacking because the predictability of a drop from a given mob is too random so as to make it take in average a long time, based on a single anecdote.
The case that the game offers multiple means to obtaining the items beyond farming the one mob apparently.
"drops from different mobs OR can be mined for random drops."
The fact that it is a social game and you're talking about crafting an item that is being made by a group, not one person.
The fact that such items aren't player/account bound and are actually part of a player economy.
"What makes it all better is:
1. you dont have to do any of it to still progress, it depends on what you are making or the mats you are selling"
The fact that you are not being directed or controlled by any finite limitations, meaning how, when, and where you choose to do something (or if you wish to try an entirely different method) is not limited to the task you have on-hand, and you can in fact plot out multiple things to do while farming or otherwise.
"2. you dont have to do them in order, you collect the mats in the order you want"
So, Axe might not see this because he doesn't like people proving him wrong, seeing as he goes as far as insulting me without even offering any even half-decent logic for a counterargument. However, everyone else can be treated to the proper showing of what is objectively false in this scenario he's trying to sit there and misinform people about.
EDIT: Did a quick google of the astrolabe he mentioned. Turns out it can drop from a variety of mobs, and "Astrolabes can be obtained from chests and trade routes."
In other words, aside form all the things he said that was wrong about his premise/argument, he also straight up lied and presented a false scenario where the reality is that players have quite the freedom of means in obtaining these items in their course of play.
Granted, this all also ignores a fundamental case of comparing apples to oranges any ways. Looking at one game where variety is defined by a sequence of activities you are told to do and comparing it to a game where you are given a variety of activities that rewards you regardless of sequence kind of comes with a lot of qualifiers that have to be ignored or serious assumptions made by certain people in order to bridge the game in the differences in game-play.
EDIT: He also apparently didn't read the post he linked, because the two posters are talking about two different mobs from the same overarching set of mobs, not the same one.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
In MMORPGs' case AI is a critical component of the combat puzzle and needs to remain predictable. Within that constraint you can have a lot of variation (and a lot of non-WOW MMORPGs fail to vary things as much as they should) but the fundamental idea behind the AI being a static puzzle isn't going to change because that's the core of what makes gaming fun: it's a pattern to be learned and mastered. To vary the puzzle, you don't mess with the AI but the details of the encounter (mob abilities, quantity, environment, etc)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I covered seven distinct points that rather solidly not only debunk the lie just repeated, but pointed at a much more extended form of variety in play, and he skipped all of them to present this post which is wonderfully illustrative of just how ironically backwards his insults are.
EDIT: Seems his offending post was removed.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
As a result, rather than playing the game for the convenience or entertainment, there tends to be those that obsess on a very narrow band of a game's play and value as they are trying to maximize the potential for progress in a specific task.
The point of my previous post was mostly just deconstructing a false argument. The one that was posed (and repeated) was a suggestion that one game requires killing the same mob under such a context for ~ an hour while players can supposedly complete 10-15 (or now 20 it'd seem) quests for "variety.
Not only was that demonstrated as false from the perspective that quest variety isn't actually all that varied, but the game in question for the example was deconstructed a bit to point out that farming a single mob was actually only one of several ways to achieve the same goal, and that players were pretty free in such games to stack multiple activities of interest to maintain variety in gameplay without being at a loss for it.
So yeah I agree with you overall. The main reason people farm mobs is generally not because it's actually the best method, but it's the simplest ans consequently most convenient. You have to heavily structure and incentivize activities to deter players from taking the path of least resistance. "Challenge" apparently isn't all it's cracked up to be.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
It's the Book and the Science of making fun.
@Axehilt ;
Maybe so many of these games are duds because they're so predictable. There is a term I often see used "Content Locusts" IMHO the line of thinking you're explaining is a big reason why this type of behavior exists.
So AI in MMORPG's was perfected 20 years ago? I take it that, that's why it hasn't changed.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Just have a game mode that is easy to get into, and hard to beat .. and there you go.
Just look at Greater Rift pushing in D3 .... it is the pinnacle of convenience. You can play one whenever you have 15 min. It is also the pinnacle of challenge ... only one can be at the top of the leader board.
What I'm describing is the typical experience.
Why was it typical? Because of the game rules.
Darkfall as a specific example set up its game rules so that you need an Astrolabe to build a boat, and it has a low drop rate which is calculated to force players to take longer than an hour of grinding to get it.
Early MMORPGs enforced non-variety in an even simpler way: travel and killing both take time, and only killing gives you XP. So naturally, with the game strongly encouraging players not to experience variety, that's what happened.
So it's really not relevant that you could deliberately sabotage your rate of progress by choosing more variety, because that simply wasn't the typical experience of early MMORPGs.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You seem to think I'm describing a narrow concept.
Are all paintings exactly the same because an artist gives you a broad rule "paint the front of the canvas"?
Are all wheeled vehicles the same because an engineer gives the broad rule "use round wheels"?
This broad rule for game AI has allowed a tremendous variety of games to exist.
Look you're free to go off and design your square-wheeled car, or your wrong-AI'd videogame, but nobody professional is interested in making obvious mistakes like that.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
But hey, no one said you have to agree with reality.
And it's safe to say you are still talking from an either misinformed or intentionally inaccurate point of view, mostly from the perspective of talking about EQ as if it is "the" old game. Seeing as it was pointed out other games that had quite a range of xp-fueled activities, you're just repeating something that's not true to try and press an opinion.
As for AI experimentation, your analogy is rather hyperbolic. So to provide an equally meaningful counterpoint. Drones and planes are neat, but I still appreciate the people that went out on a limb to invent quadrotors. Novelty needs to be explored because it expands understanding of what works and does not work.
The only obvious mistake is making a game that you don't yourself enjoy.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
That does not counter my point in the least. Sure, people can scale up and down in the challenge of Greater Rifts, and I can guarantee that just like raids in MMOs that there is a remarkably small percentage of the userbase actually swinging for the hard content and rewards. Just look at the leaderboards and you will find a point where the numbers of the top players will dramatically drop off as the rest of the userbase's average sits considerably lower.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
You might re-read a particularly juicy book multiple times to suck out the patterns it offers. But each time you re-read it there are diminishing returns to the entertainment value you get out of it. So "content locusts" isn't at all related to the discussion, but rooted in the fundamental way people enjoy entertainment.
The most common way entertainment is enjoyed is rooted in learning. Koster covers the games side of this in A Theory of Fun, but it applies to all entertainment. We observe an experience, learn from it, and if we learn we experience a delight at learning, and in games we call it "fun". If the experience fails to teach us anything -- like if we've already read that book several times before and didn't notice anything new this time -- we're basically done with it. The content is consumed.
Blaming it on AI is a bit like blaming uninteresting books on the fact that they were printed page-by-page in justified format. Sure, you could print them in a heart shape, but that's a strange argument to make for trying to improve books.
A good book is reliant on its content quality: it's not about the shape the words make on the page, it's about whether the content itself is interesting. A good game is exactly the same: it's not about the broad framework of AI, but about whether the content itself is interesting.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver