Avatar

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Badges

Kyleran

About

Username
Kyleran
Joined
Visits
9,894
Last Active
Roles
Member
Points
12,275
Rank
Legendary
Favorite Role
Support
Currently Playing
DAOC - Uthgard
Posts
29,357
Badges
54
  • "Strength" vs "Dexterity"

    Back on topic its best to not over think games.

    Original designers of AD&D and similar games wanted to tie one or more "attributes" to each class and / or race.

    So Piety or Wisdom for Clerics, Humans, Dex for Thieves, Elves, Intelligence for casters etc.

    There are certainly very agile NFL defensive linemen, (especially compared to the average person) but none will ever perform a gymnastic floor exercise as well as  a 90 pound 15 year old female gymnast.  (Let's not even think about performance on the uneven parallel bars)   :#

    Conversely, while those young women are very strong, especially pound for pound, no matter their agility they would not survive running the ball up the middle for very long.

    Like some other things in life, sometimes size (and strength) does matter, and all the agility or intelligence in the world can't compensate for their lack.

    Archery is a good example where it really doesn't.  With enough practice my guess is the 14 year old 90 pound gymnast, the 33 year old 275 pound tackle and even a 160 pound, 55 year old man could all more or less shoot equally well as factors such as excessive strength or dexterity don't really impart any advantage.

    In fact, the whole point of ranged weapons, from bows to modern firearms is they permitted people lacking any extraordinary talents the ability to kill more or less equally as long as they had sufficient training and met a much wider range of criteria. 

    I would suck in broad sword fighting, but hand me a modern SAW rifle and yeah, I'm going to do some real damage, even if I'm up against an NFL tackle or 14 yr old gymnast.

    B)
    Jean-Luc_PicardHatefullAlBQuirkycraftseeker
  • Level Progression - Is Zone/Character Scaling the Future?

    I prefer EVEs skill based progression, which isn't on the poll.

    Still a vertical scaling system, but is capped across the various activites, meaning in a relatively short time a new player can be very close in "power" to a vet of many years in a particular ship type or craft such as mining.

    This makes every single system, from the first one new players start in to the furthest one in null sec or most dangerous worm hole equally viable to all players.

    It also permits me to experience almost unlimited progression (the primary pillar for me in any game) yet despite my 150M plus skill points my characters have from 8 years of training still very killable by a single player of 3 months in the right circumstance.

    I know of no other modern MMOs where this is possible, except perhaps ESO, maybe?

    There is still room for some gated content that new players cannot join (incursion running can't be done in a frigate) and while it's not perfect, it is the sort of system I'd love to try in a modern fantasy game setting.

    The only game with scaling that I might be able to tolerate is likely ESO, because it upscales everyone so they can wander where they will, so I've read.  

    Unfortunately there are other mechanics still in place in ESO I loathed when a I tried it back at launch so I can't really give it another go.

    I have played games such as GW2 and COH and dislike both the downscaling and mentoring systems.

    blueturtle13Blaze_Rocker
  • Amazon's Twitch Prime Free games

    Nyctelios said:
    Also, @Kyleran , not the first time you bring up that thing. What's your deal with the game?
    It actually is the first time I brought up this game, and in doing a simple Google search I ran into a single reviewer on a single website that increasingly slammed the series with each release.

    I have no idea at all what the game is about, clearly highly rated but then so are lot of things I find questionable in gaming as well as life.


    blueturtle13
  • Will classic servers be a long time succes?

    Kyleran said:
    Several things: 

    1) I don't think Blizzard is looking at classic as a major money maker, but as a GIFT TO FANS THAT WANT IT....I don't think Blizzard will care about population deviations, however they will care about quality upkeep and monitor it for future knowledge. 

    It will never shut down no matter what.  It will be a gift that will always be their and they will always pay for servers accordingly.  It will easily pay for it self for a long time, and possibly drop in profit at some point… One thing for sure, it will always be their.


    2) As time passes, Blizzard will evaluate and adjust accordingly.  This could lead to many different paths that are unknown at this point. 

    " Launch and see what happens " 


    3) Were looking deeper into this more so than Blizzard themselves.  

    Blizzard will never allow people to say " I told you so "... Because it's simply A GIFT ! 
    Actually they are doing it so that one lead developer who stated fans don't really want vanilla servers can say to everyone, "I told you so" when they inevitably crash and burn. 

    Though I believe they'll eventually add change of some sort once enough players clamor for it, after admitting to the error of their ways.


    That's not why they're doing it, according to Blizzard's statements on the matter.
    I knew I should have gone back and added an emoticon to that post, but it was early.....

    ;)


    MadFrenchieTorval
  • Healers Introduced Alongside the Giants of Terminus - Pantheon: Rise of the Fallen - MMORPG.com

    Mendel said:
    Mendel said:
    Kyleran said:
    Mendel said:
    Okay.  Clerics, druids and shaman.  Will all 3 be equally capable of keeping a tank alive?  That wasn't the case in early EQ1.




    Likely not, one or two will be slightly deficient in some manner.

    There might be some situations requiring the unique skills of a particular healer to help keep the tank alive by alternate means.
    That's my concern, too.  I don't want another game where 1/6th of the population *has* to be tanks and 1/6th of the population *has* to be clerics.  The population of a gaming community isn't likely to be so regimented.  Thus, it is likely to be difficult to build functional groups.  A very odd decision in a group-friendly game.




    I think it's more likely that they will be fairly equal in different situations.  No matter what game you're talking about there is no instance of all classes of the same role being exactly 100% equal in every situation.

    The idea is diversity, and you'll want certain healers for certain mob types, etc.
    While that might seem good, that also depends a lot on the distribution and frequency of the content.  If a tank-cleric is good for one situation, but a paladin-druid is better at another situation, you would need roughly an equal number of these situations throughout the world.  That seems very unwieldy from a development perspective.

    This is a rather old thought for me.  What happens with a non-optimal group?  Is all content being tailored to a predetermined 'optimal group'?  I've not seen it addressed, but then again, I don't pour over everything said about Pantheon.

    I am curious to see how VR addresses this, as EQ1 was filled with content that required a certain group mix to tackle that content without being grossly overpowered.  That's the model VR is basing Pantheon on, and yet they've claimed to improve the issues with some of the old-school titles.  If 6 level 30s are in a group, and they should be fighting level 30-35 mobs.  It is a design problem if those people have to fight level 20-25 mobs due to their class choices.



    I think in most trinity games Devs try to create content that permits some flexibility in approaches and build.

    It's players themselves who quickly break the game mechanics down to the "optimal" build, group composition, etc. 

    So what happens is they will take a sub optimal tank or healer only if they absolutely must and even then in more modern times I've seen players walk away and do something else if they think the current situation will waste any of their time. 

    I'm actually not like that, I'm up to try anything but that isn't typical.

    In fact, read Renfails latest post about players not knowing how to do group content anymore.

    He actually chides the actions of some of his alpha players for attempting to do overleveled content without a healer and their failure to reach out to other random players to help recover their corpses.

    If playing in an alpha isn't the perfect time to try stupid stuff to see what might work I don't know when is.

    Also he is asking the wrong question, and "failing" (see what I did there?) to address a very common problem in almost all old school games, why wasn't there any healer available for those folks to party up with?

    Players haven't forgotten how to group up, rather they well understand how much it sucks to play either a healer or tank these days.

    If devs can't come up with a sure fire way to keep these numbers up, they have no choice but to design the game around succeessful achievement with less than perfect compositions.

    I always felt the best design would include a way for a group or raid of nothing but stealth classes, or all healers to still manage to beat the content.

    Perhaps not at the same efficiency and I don't mean by waiting until they are 10 or 20 levels above it.


    rkipMendel