Avatar

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Badges

laxie

About

Username
laxie
Joined
Visits
2,769
Last Active
Roles
Member
Points
905
Rank
Rare
Favorite Role
Healer
Posts
935
Badges
33
  • Kingdom Come Deliverance, too good to be true ?

    I'm 4 hours in and it's enjoyable so far.

    I haven't had any serious bugs. It's probably far less enjoyable if you're struggling with performance issues or inability to save. When it runs as it should, it is a decent game overall.
    SovrathMadFrenchie
  • Fortnite and Player Battle grounds has us all fooled

    PUBG's success is in large part due to the simplicity. Making the game more complex would dilute the mainstream appeal in my opinion.
    REd-Wind
  • Woah. / Quick Thoughts

    It's cool that you like SOTA, nothing wrong with that. I've seen a Youtube video of a lady storing human excrements in jars. Whatever floats your boat.

    My experience has been different. I followed Richard Garriot's initial pitch. Ultima Online was fun, and I even enjoyed Tabula Rasa ... SOTA seemed like a nice successor. Richard has always loved the RP aspect of games, so I was looking forward to what he comes up with.

    When I gave it a try, it was a pretty disappointing experience overall. The graphics felt fairly subpar and "flat", without much authenticity to them. The combat was enjoyable in its first iteration - it was a strange blend of card games and RPG. I believe they changed that now.

    The real killer for me were the zones. I'm a huge Everquest 2 fan, but something that objectively fell short in EQ2 was the explorable zone size on release. You were supposed to be exploring immersive environments, but ended up feeling boxed in right from the start. SOTA has the exact same problem, except it is 2018 now. People expect more from games these days.

    If it was a dungeon crawler, fair enough. But having forest environments as miniature zones with static NPC spawns is uncomfortable. That's my experience at least.
    hamlathis
  • Is there new release pulling everyone in?

    Most of my friends have moved to PUBG and Overwatch. At the same time, apparently Overwatch is losing players in Asia due to relatively slow updates. Hearthstone had a big event update yesterday. Fortnite seems to be fairly popular as well. And then you have some single player games releasing.

    It may be the case that people are leaving MMOs for other genres in general.

    Also, depending on what your game is, high budget MMOs tend to rapidly lose players unless they are constantly releasing big expansions. This is especially true for linear games with level systems. So it may also be the fact that your game is simply going through it’s cycle.
    Kyleran
  • What about a F2P game with this monetization system

    I don't think you get the premise. It's not about challenge, or not wanting to play, most of these games we play have a grind, which has nothing to do with challenge, competition, or experiencing the game. It's all about time and repetition. THAT is what myself and others don't mind paying money to avoid. Aside from gear items that might allow you to do content you would normally need to grind for, lots of simply cool items and convenience items are locked behind grinds, often just for in-game cash. I'd rather be able to just do everything once without grinding and getting some of the cool things in the game. Then I'm free to actually do the things I enjoy with my time instead of working at my virtual job. 
    I agree that people should not be prevented from enjoying the content. That said, if there is a grind with a paid "skip" option, that is a shitty game design. You are designing the game to be annoying on purpose, with the option to pay-to-skip. I'm not a fan of this idea at all.

    I understand that this is fairly common. It's a byproduct of theme park level systems, or any vertical progression system that has been releasing content for a long time. You end up with players who are at the very top, in a completely different realm to those just starting. And you are then presented with the option to either try to cater to all levels, or to just focus on the top (and let people pay to get there). World of Warcraft is an example of this, where they give level boosts with every expansion - meaning they effectively try cluster all players at the top.

    In cases like these, it's perhaps fine to pay-for-time. You are not directly competing with players, and a level boost simply gets you to where the content is - it does not give you an advantage. It's a bad design, but paying to skip may be making the best out of a flawed system.

    What I don't like though (and what I was referring to originally), is the mentality that "I can't beat this player because they have too much time, so let me pay instead." I've seen this view as the predominant reason for wanting pay-for-time mechanics. To me that's crazy. It's like saying "I can't play the piano because I rarely ever play it, so let me pay to be a virtuoso." That takes away all the amazement relating to people getting better through practice and time.

    Now if the piano needs you to practice 6 hours a day for months to even play a basic song, then that's a pretty shitty piano and should be redesigned. But letting people pay to skip the barrier seems like a band-aid solution. You're left with a shitty instrument, as well as a broken sense of achievement.
    Scot