Howdy, Stranger!

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




Last Active
Favorite Role
  • EC Tunnel - Why Mmo's Need This

    EC Tunnel, also known as Eastern Commonlands Tunnel. This was a place that transitioned you from Eastern Commonlands to Desert of North Ro in Everquest. This tunnel was simply for travel and hardly had any mobs in it. From my knowledge, correct me if I am wrong, I believe that EC Tunnel in EQ had no intention to what it famously became. Players in Everquest used EC Tunnel as their Bazaar to set up mules for trade with other Characters. 

    The community of Everquest was beyond fantastic as most players took the game world serious and wanted to immerse themselves in it. EC Tunnel is something that use to be a place where you'd travel to trade, buy or set up shop. 

    Today, most mmo's are structured with rail upon rail and everything is already assigned. EC Tunnel is one of the many things that made EQ great and brought the community together without the hand holding from the developer. These little moments of player interaction and the community acting together is what we need more of in this genre. The perfect middle ground between a themepark and a sandbox game is a Sandpark, and that's what EQ was. 

    Do you agree that MMO's needs more "EC Tunnels"? 

    Shout out to the Greater Faydark Bazaar as well.

  • Why are so many MMO games filled with toxic players ?

    I would conclude that most MMORPG players are not passionate about the genre nor understand the community aspect of it. In other words, they're "not true mmorpg gamers". This was partly due to the influx of players that WoW brought into the genre and the accessible game that WoW is. 

    Sure, there were asshats and elitist in old school mmorpgs but as a WHOLE the communities of MMORPG's to my knowledge were not as toxic as communities we see today. Not saying all new school mmo players are toxic but a good portion of them are unfortunately.

    We have to remember that the genre was founded on D&D and single RPG players who were looking for an innovative approach to gameplay which involved a massive world with a massive community, hence the acronym, MMORPG. 

    I think players who have a passion for the RPG elements and gameplay respect the genre more and thus have a better understanding of community. I am not touting that old school mmo players are saints, far from it, but with my personal experience, the communities now and then are different.

    My conclusion is lack of respect for the community aspect of the genre. One can argue solo gameplay is another deterrent for a toxic community or at least promotes it. I personally feel that a 60/40 ratio of group to solo gameplay would help wean out the toxic players. Having a server reputation is a means of negation for that. It helped in Everquest.
  • Your feelings on whats available overall

    <--- Waiting on Pantheon - Will save the genre for me. 

    I am in the camp that MMORPG titles need to go back to niche gaming and instead of trying the wow monopolize all player base model. That way developers can be loyal and design a fun game that fit's their specific market. 
  • Are MOBAs and Other Match Based Games MMOs?

    No, they're not MMORPG's. They're MOBA's, simply categorized differently based off their core design. 

    *Pro-Tip* When doing a poll if you really want decent results, make all options black or white, don't involve unnecessary options like, "I like turtles" trolls will vote for that and you won't get the sample you're looking for. People won't take your poll seriously.
  • The current state of combat in MMOs is pathetic, apparently it's based solely on PVP

    Lokero said:
    Eronakis said:

    So in essence the only way combat will change in this genre is if the AI also changes with it. I would love to see a group based PVE heavy mmo that doesn't rely on heavy class composition in most facets of content but for higher level areas it does. A game that focuses on player groups vs. NPC groups, with a new approach to the trinity gameplay model that provides tactical strategy of your group composition with adaptable AI.  
    Even without dipping heavily into complex AI, the simplest of changes could drastically improve current PVE combat.

    Take, for example, games like ESO and GW2:  Players have stamina/endurance for blocking/dodging and can "see" AoE attacks.
    Something as simple as supplying the NPCs limited stamina to use with the ability to dodge out of an AoE or put up a block when a player is charging up a big attack would drastically alter combat.

    Player casts a bonfire in the middle of a group, maybe they could have enough sense to try and spread out instead of all piling into the fire like lemmings.

    But, developers aren't often even using simple strategies like that -- the most basic of awareness.

    Sure you can ad in those combat elements like GW2 did to make things more twitched/action based. From my perspective that still wasn't enough to alter combat. Over time, the combat became super stale. The only really interesting part was your 2 dodges that you could use with your stamina bar. 

    There are 3 facets that go into developing combat. 

    1. Combat Mechanics
    2. NPC AI Combat Mechanics
    3. Class Design

    I think before we even consider specific mechanics for combat, the first thing that has to change is the approach to combat. Since I am a fan of tab targetting, not so much twitch, that is were I am coming from. The current approach to the trinity model has ran it's course and provided one dimensional/stale gameplay. I believe there needs to be a new approach to the trinity model without sacrificing the traditional elements. Instead of the 'tank & spank' by focusing on 1 NPC or mindlessly AoE a pack of NPCs, I think it would be more interesting if a Group of Players fought a Group of NPC's. Let me expand on that.

    You would still have your traditional roles, tank, dps, healer, with added secondary roles of cc, debuffing, buffing. The only way for the trinity model to change without sacrificing the classic roles is to simply reinvent the tank role. 

    The tank role is the crux to the trinity model as the tank is the focal point of it. So what if we reinvent what the tank role means. What if the tank role isn't necessarily a defensive role anymore but rather jumps to the melee archetype of classes. So that changes the strategem of melee class design. What if melee classes have unique ways to defend themselves against attacks? Of course there would be varying degrees of defensive abilities per class. What if melee class roles were not distinguished by tank or dps? But rather the type of fighter they are? Actually take in account parrying, countering, striking. 

    To go back to the overall picture, I think that if you treat a battle of a player group vs. npc group and discern the funniest way to implement that. For me, I think it makes sense that melee vs. melee and caster vs. caster. Essentially, there would be 1v1 fights in the encounter. Think of it like American Football.

    [i]The game of American Football is a team sport but with individual responsibilities. Your Quarter Back distributes the ball (Attacks) while your Offensive line blocks and protect (support) your Quarter Back. There are other different types of attackers that complement your QB such as your Running Back and Wide Receivers. Each player on the team performs individually but when executed correctly it's a team effort.[/i]

    Before a player group engages into an NPC group, the players discern the best strategy for victory based off their current class/role composition. This also creates community. If there are 3 melee players and 4 NPC melees, then 1 NPC melee is not accounted for. So then if you have ranged casters in your group, depending on other various such as, race, class and NPC AI rank, the caster classes could either cc the unaccounted for melee npc or kill it quickly, if there are no other caster npc's in the encounter. 

    To me, I think the strategy of the approach of how you fight a group of npc's would be very rewarding. It would provide depth for combat mechanics and class design. That is 3 layers of depth. Sure, this style may not be for the super casual, but I feel like there would be enough players that would at least try it to justify such a system.

  • Pet Classes - Do you like Control?

    Typically there are a couple of pet classes per game. Pet classes are either fun or hated. There is quite the niche for them. This is for those who enjoy pet classes and the ones who would consider playing a pet class. So my question is this.

    Do you prefer to have control over your pet, meaning your pet is granted pet abilities that you can use in combat?


    Do you prefer to have the pet auto cast or auto attack with special pet abilities that randomly proc?

    *Note* That every pet regardless should have, an Attack, Assist, Defensive and Passive actions.