f13.net

 Linkey (http://archive.gamespy.com/landing/ddonline/)



So, it sounds like D&D meets Guild Wars. They also went on to mention that combat is very simplistic. ummmm... AC2 anyone?

EDIT.

Read some more about it. D&D this is not. It is a very fast pased combat system, more like an adventure game. Also, it is set in the world of Ebberon, which doesnt even feel like old D&D to me. Also, one of the races is a Golum, but they didnt include Gnomes, Halflings, Half-Elves, and some others. Did we expect anything less? nope.

The more I read, the less I am happy or excited by this game.

Turbine doesn't deserve attention. Despite their licences.

Sounds like a TR-like design to me.  Central meeting hub; instanced adventures.  Not surprising.

Bruce

Combat may be more player skill based though. With main attack mapped to left mouse and guard mapped to right mouse with the possibility of tumbling, special moves, etc. when movement is combined with them, it may be interesting.

On a side note, AC2's combat is identical to WoW. That is all.

And that's exactly how UXO was doing combat, too.  Sigh.

Bruce

Really?  AC2 is the worst MMOG combat I have ever played.  How can anyone like WoW if that is the case?  No quests would ever save the stupidity of AC2 combat.  And ambiance sure as hell won't.

For what it's worth, it's not really meant to.  Ebberon is a new campaign world Wizards has just come out with this year (it was the winning entry in a "design a d&d campaign world" contest).  I haven't looked at it all myself, but from what I've heard, it's meant to be different than the "classic" worlds of Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms.  I mean, it has fucking trains and shit.

I miss ol' Iuz.

I played AC2 a month (though that is mostly suppressed) and WoW a couple.  They are similar in some ways in solo combat, though much (to the billionth power) more balanced.  Group dynamics are totally different though.

If you are hot for "<-,A,X,->,->,<-, X combo for the secret mighty blow and teh win" gameplay like our hot French babe from the 'burgh here, you won't be thrilled with it, though.

I broke down and got the ebberon campaign book the other day. It is pretty a pretty interesting setting.  In many ways it makes more sense than alot of fantasy worlds. I mean if magic is so common why does it not show more in society.

In ebberon magic is very integrated into their world and economy. Using things like continual light spells for street lamps and harnassing elementals to power vehicals that work like trains and what not.  

It seems pretty well thought out and after reading the book it stays consistant with itself which some campaigns do not.

Kaid

Actually I think the combat in ac2 that alluvian is talking about was the early levels where you can just hit the attack button to charge the opponent and the next target button for the win.

AC2  at least early on is only matched in utter boredome with lineage 2. Nothing but auto attack goodness and maybe one special that dosnt seem special.

I hear ac2 gets more involved later but at the low levels I could make level 10 by watching tv while a pair of dipping birds pecked away at two keys.


kaid

Combat in AC2 didn't even work that well. Aside from the mindlessness of it, the special moves either didn't a) work as advertised, b) work at all, or c) were so subject to latency that you never knew if it'd go off or even hit.

Bad sysem and worse implementation. Looked pretty, but there was no point in fighting that I could see. Aside from the meaningless stats on armor and...gah...enough already. It's gone and good riddance.

I have been saying for years that I think MMOG's need to focus on putting fewer people on individual servers, to create more of a MUD feel. I'm glad to see them doing that.

The game sounds like City of Heroes, in a fantasy setting, with Descent to Undermountain or fighting-game type of controls. It COULD be fun.

But if AC2 is any indication, it'll suck. I like that they are taking away crafting in order to make the game ready for release; perhaps the focus they can put on combat will make it interesting.

This preview gave me a little (very little) hope for the game, which is moer than I had before. The Eberron world setting, however, reminds me entirely of Everquest's lore.

Do any of the detractors to AC2 combat currently play the game? I do and you are way off the mark now. But, everybody needs a scapegoat and god forbid a game actually get better and become rather engaging. Ah, well.

The first 10 levels still go by rather quickly as they serve as a continuation of the tutorial to familiarize new players with the game and get them started on some of the storyline and quest related to it. By level 10, you should have no less than 4 special attacks and they work the same way the special attacks in WoW do. As to group combat, it probably does vary with WoW a bit especially as the levels go up, but in AC2 there are still roles that need filled and a group dynamic, especially in the higher levels of the game and the Hero levels.

So yes, the first few levels maybe boring after having done them with a few characters already, but then again, the first 5 levels in DAoC, EQ, <insert any MMOG here>, were never exactly scintillating either.

Anyhow, I'm sure some smartass remarks will follow since "I must be stupid" for playing such an obviously flawed game. But then again, I'd wager most haven't tried it in over a year, so it'd be like me bitching about DAoC pre-ToA.

I haven't played it lately. It could very well be an entirely new game and (heh) maybe even worthwhile.

However, I'll never know. It left crippling emotional scars in its wake.

Seriously, the frustration factor from this game was so high, I just can't see resubscribing. Moreover, I usually come to these games with friends, and there is NO way any of them would touch this hound again, even if I were inclined to. There aren't sticks or carrots big enough to persuade them.

I did give AO another chance after the MA revamp (before they screwed it up again) and had quite a bit of fun. AC2 would have to be an almost entirely new game to fix what was wrong with its combat system. Lets just say that my initial experiences with the game were so bad I'm not willing to risk $14 to find out if they managed to fix it. Not with competitors like CoH around.

I am with sable on this one. I will never know if it got any better because it was so horrible and pointless that I would never try it again.

When I played it you had the "special" aka wack it when the mob glows for no reason special that was pretty pointless and the other powers I had simply did nothing noticable or were broken.

I was scared by AO and I still resubbed and had fun because I could see where things could be if the crashing and eating my hard drive problems wern't there. With AC2 it was just so unfun like L2 that I would never think of trying it again.

kaid

Very understandable. There are certain games that I wouldn't touch ever again no matter what, but those are from burnout. The funny thing is, I currently play AO and AC2, the two MMOGs with quite possibly the worst launches ever and I'm having a really fun time in both of them. The Shadowlands storyline and quests really help with the enjoyment of AO and the AC franchise (heh) has always been really good at integrating lore into the game so both are right up my alley and can be enjoyed in small time segments. Hopefully WoW will turn out that way as well.

Back on the topic of D&DO, a new original world is enticing. The worlds that have been done to death would be an easy way to provide lots of content quickly, at least in terms of lore. The only problem with the worlds that have been done over and over again is that players could tire of them quickly and notable characters have to be accounted for and, well, really any of the same problems that one would encounter when trying to hold true to an already fleshed out world (like Star Wars, Star Trek, LotR, Matrix, etc.).

Ebberon is basically the same setting as Harry Potter, but with more swords and fewer automobiles.

And from the info in this thread, the online game sounds like ass. "Instanced dungeons" is already played out - its officially no longer a "new approach" now that 5 games are doing it, and 10 more say they're gonna.

Sounds to me like they're attaching the AD+D franchise onto a game they already were working on, using gigantic, unsightly barge rivots. Its the flashing, seven color neon sign that invites you to a flea infested, six suite motel.

It also sounds like I'm just going to (continue to) say no.

...

It's not played out; it's the right way to provide hand-crafted content to thousands without having to trip over 1700 other fuckheads who want to get to the same goddamn thing.

Instancing is a tool. If you use it to serve shitty content, that doesn't mean instancing is played out, it means your content is shitty.

Agreed. In the absence of a full-PvP world with an empowered and active "anti" playerbase, instancing is also the best way to reduce the occurance of grief in MMGs. Since full-PvP doesn't sell and players don't enjoy having to play cop, I expect instancing will remain the preferrred method of limiting it.

It's not played out; it's the new paradigm. The only risk I see at the moment is that it will become so dominant that designers will forget the first M in MMG, and produce games with only lip service public spaces.

Sometimes Hammy reminds me of the twin I ate in the womb.

Anyway, I've said this a few times (esp. over at grimmy's, hi geldon!): I think the best current compromise would be public zones as EQ has now, an option for a raid-instanced zone (for guild or multi-guild fun) and an option for group-only instance. It's all about the options, minimizing problem situations and maximizing fun for the most people possible.

Not to bring this thread to WoW also, but they have done the best instancing so far to date IMO. You ahve large zones, with the major dungeons instanced, so this way the dungeons that follow a story line, keep the story line intact for each player.

I think instancing is a good tool, but overused can cripple a game (CoH anyone? again IMO).

We will have to see how Guild Wars plays out to see if my theory on over instancing is true. But GW is a different beast.

That's what EQ2 is doing - almost exactly. Raids, epics and large quests are instanced for groups. The rest of the world is not. At least this is what I get from reading the pre-release information. We'll find out when beta arrives. That said, has Blizzard done anything NEW yet?

I'm not a WoW beta tester but I've been following the beta boards pretty closely and so far I haven't read about anything new from WoW except for maybe the rest system and the scriptable UI. Otherwise they are just borrowing ideas from other games, focusing on user friendly gameplay (e.g. the super lenient death "penalty" if you can call it even that), and putting it all together in the colorful cartoon world of Warcraft (pun not intended). I predict it'll be a huge hit with the unwashed masses. Hard to say if the hardcore players will stick around since none of the end game content has been released yet.

WoW is simply a well-designed game. It will be a masterpiece not on ots own merits, but simply because the mmorpg panorama is incredibly lame.

WoW has extremely strong points in those parts that are never considered from the players, like the accessibility. Not only WoW has a wonderful engine that moves on every kind of hardware, but it also provides the best newbie experience possible. The rule system isn't twisted and messed like DAoC, for example. From the ground up WoW is sleek and polished.

Yes, there's nothing new. But the game is damn solid and offering a quality that is science-fiction for what the market offers now.

Im just curious why there is an obsession with every game needing to have something new?  If I had a choice between something new that was poorly implemented and something old that was implemented well, I would go with something old/implemented well any day of the week.

All I see Blizzard doing is taking lemons (current MMO scene) and making lemonade.

Trying to be OMG RADICALLY INNOVATIVE is what turned this genre into shit.    

I am not much of an instancing fan.  Maybe for some high level content.  But I think that public dungeons (and enough of them) are key to developing community.  Almost all my long term friends from EQ I met in pickup groups in dungeons, back when people actually did that.

Also, when you instance even just high level content, you are really putting yourself behind the 8-ball, content-consumption wise.  Even EQ, which threw out unfinished expansions as fast as possible was unable to keep up with the players, even with long lines for its non-instanced content and lengthy timesinks to slow players down.  I don't think that you will see a game with good, instanced content and minimal timesinks last a long time until players are willing to pay $50/month and buy 4 $100 expansions a year.

I predict that WoW will be a much more insular and anti-social game than EQ ever was.  It will rock (until you blow through the content) if you come in with a group/guild, or if you are pretty much a dedicated soloer though.

because its like playing for the Yankees - only the really talented apply, and only the best of those applicants actually achieve.

If that is the same as two or three months of where I enjoy playing the game enough to log into it rather than play some other game, where is the problem?

Once the game is no longer fun I'll quit and play something else.  Then maybe in a year or two I'll comeback to it and play for another month to experience the 'new stuff' and then quit again.  I don't see where there is a problem with this, or where this is not an acceptible goal for an online game.

EQ manages to keep people playing for years but via the mechanism of horrible, viscious, head-pounding-on-the-wall gameplay where achievement is measured in increments that can only be determined with a micrometer.  Sure some people seem to enjoy that or at least don't mind it particularly much but I don't see where anyone wrote in stone that that was the way to play a MMOG and all other ways are lesser.

I find it quite the opposite myself.

Screw a bunch of community.

You can have a fully non-instanced game with NO intanced anything and have a real nightmare--it's called EQOA. Great game, but the dumbassery is of such a high and pervasive level it's almost unplayable. One look at any WoW board is enough to give me serious EQOA flashbacks.

Back in the Day(tm), there were games called EQ and AO. They had dungeons with very desirable loot (AO) and fundamentally necessary loot (EQ). They had overcrowding to such a degree that you literally couldn't find mobs up around primetime. Throw in waiting lists for named spawns and I'll take intancing any day. Avoiding the sheer unadulterated stupidity in the chat channel in these dungeons would simply be icing on the cake.

You pretty much have to come to these game with your own friends anymore. Sure, there are worthwhile people to meet, but there are far, FAR more idiots, griefers, and assorted misanthropes--so much so that it's less mental wear and tear to avoid pickup groups entirely.

Can you tell I'm a big CoH fan and play a scrapper?

I have to agree with you, but I'm one of those who detests enforced grouping. Some days I just want to log on and play by myself and have an enjoyable time of it. If WoW can provide that, then I'll be pleased.

Orcs doing the "Hammer" dance.

Instancing is also NOT the death of community.  Stop believing McQuaid's hype to the contrary.

I can meet plenty of people if I so choose doing JUST EQ LDONs or CoH missions with pickup groups.  It's also easy to sort out the fuckheads from the competent people, drop the competent ones on my friends list and hook-up with them later.  Or, I can solo for a bit, a-la Sable's mindset (at least in CoH) and chat with those folks that don't make my brain bleed.

It's NO DIFFERENT socially than when I was fighting in Crusbone and met the folks who I joined my first guild with, or when I was getting into pickup groups on "the Orc Highway" in Oasis, or when I was in a rotating group that kept a list in SolB's "window room."  These are the places where I met the other bulk of my EQ-related friends.

   The ONLY difference in the experiences between those places and an LDON or COH mission, is that I find the latter two experiences far more enjoyable than the first group.  There's no BS downtime or forced limits to your gameplay enjoyment where you have to shoehorn in awkward social banalities just to pass the time.

I don't need the 'downtime' from waiting on mob respawns or for the puller to go get mobs to let me meet people.  If I choose to do it, it's easily done, I just have to put forth the effort to do so.  The same as I had to do in EQ, and MUDs before it.

I don't think that it is Blizzard's goal to get you to pay for 3 months and then pay for one month every two years.  It might be your goal,  but I don't think you will continue to see any big-budget MMOGS made ever again if that becomes the standard.

There are also folks who like to treat these games as long term worlds, and not another game to play in the 2 months between Madden2k4 and NHL2k4.  Not everyone agrees, obviously.

Some more D&D Online info:

http://dnd.warcry.com/scripts/news/view_news.phtml?site=37&id=27647

In fact it's just the death of virtual worlds.

Oh, stfu. Seriously. The people who bitch about instancing would be more unhappy with camping. The former done well essentially removes the latter - if you'd rather have camping, you are just a terribly stupid person.

A flaw coming out to excuse another flaw isn't my idea of "working good".

MOTHERFUCK. I had like a one page response written out here and I hit escape. GODDAMNIT. Alright, I think I can remember the end.

Hrose, until you make a better game mechanic than instancing, shut the hell up.

I've never been a fan of the 'virtual world' concept.  I have a real job, a real life, and real issues to deal with.  I don't need to pay for vitual problems, jobs and angst on top of it to convince myself I'm doing something meaningful with my life.

To date, virtual worlds are bigger time sinks than any other games.  Therefore, IMO, they're worthless.

And to preempt the "but EQ" artument.   Yes, I include EQ in that, because early on it tried to be a world.  When it got over that nonsense and decided to provide gameplay over world mechanics it got better.

http://www.cesspit.net/mt/ravings/archives/2004-07/wow_isnt_a_mmorpg.html

That's an old thing I wrote about WoW. The point is that PvE is an opposite concept to a MMO. As simple as that. If you want to offer PvE, considering it the same as it was presented till now, the best choice is to instance it.

Instancing is perfect if you want to offer a decent cooperative experience. But it has nothing to do with a virtual world. It's simply an RPG with cooperative and persistent elements.

So I agree that *this* form of PvE is *always* better if instanced. There's no choice. But MMOGs are able to offer a lot more due to their nature. Something that isn't being used in a game like CoH.

Those issues are surely important. But not specific to a virtual world.

And respawning, including the associated camping, isn't? Automated resurrection? Hello?

"Virtual worlds" would be permadeath, no-respawning and you would need to eat and drink to stay alive.

Only one game fits that bill: Nethack.

What in the heck do permadeath and eating have to do with virtual worlds? That's like saying if the game doesn't make you go to the bathroom or sleep (in game, not real life) you aren't in a virtual world either, thereby disqualifying Nethack. And Nethack is only one in a long line of Rogue-like games so it's hardly the only game that fits your odd definition.

Edit: Fixed some typos

You seem to be equating "virtual world" with "massively multiplayer". I don't see that to be the case. In your article you also seem to be equating MM with PvP which I don't agree with either.

I do agree with you that instancing can reduce some of the MM aspects of gamplay but I agree with the others who are saying instancing improves the gameplay experience for the vast majority of players.

And "instancing" has been around for as long as multi player games (computer or otherwise) have been in existence and yet somehow games still seem to be around. Even in the early days of MMORPGs you've had instancing -- what do you think UO "shards" or EQ "servers" are? If instancing is the death of virtual worlds then UO or EQ should not have survived this long and yet they have.

The Sims has all the trappings of a virtual world. <sarcasm>How scintillating!</sarcasm>

I don't think that all instancing is bad really.  Just all the instancing I have seen.  I have found the instancing in WoW and EQ to be anti-casual.  You can't just pop in and out like you do at an old-style camp.  You need to set aside a few hours and focus 100% on the game without interruption for that stretch.  Baby wakes up?  Important phone call?  Cat barfs?  Oops, sorry, that first two hours is down the toilet not only for you, but most likely for everyone in your group.  That's a quick ticket to popularityville, I tell you what.  

There is also a tendency in EQ and COH to use instancing as an excuse to throw together shitty, soulless, modular crap in some random way and call it a dungeon.  Fortunately, WoW has bucked this trend, and EQ is starting to (we got shitty and soulless but non-modular instances in GoD!).

My view is that instancing should take big, handcrafted dungeons and make copies of them to prevent overcrowding.  Think Sebilis or Chardok, or whatever well-designed dungeon gets your rocks off.  Each instance (and some non-instanced area outside the instance) should share the same public channels, and there should be some easy way to get from the common area to groups in the instances.  You wanna camp, go camp. You wanna crawl, go crawl.  Usually, I prefer camping, because sometimes I need to answer the phone or take a crap, but I am funny like that.  MMOGs are not a replacement for Counterstrike for me, they are more a replacement for going fishing.  Not everyone is like that (I seem to remember Soukan and I talking about this in one of the many similar threads in the past, he views MMOGS as a substitute for more action-oriented video games).  But I like a good crawl now and again too, usually on a weekend when I can set aside the time.  I don't have children, when I do my crawling days will probably be over, since I cannot function reliably on less than 8 hours of sleep.  People who constantly rave about upcoming games where PvE raiding has small numbers "so everyone really matters" should realize that is pretty anti-casual for the same reasons, but that is another thread.

What you cannot overlook, though, is that instancing drastically increases the rate of content consumption.  If you have pervasive instancing, you have to put up with running out of content quickly, really rushed and buggy expansions, or paying a hell of a lot more than you pay now.

So, yeah.  I was wrong when I said instancing necessarily destroys community.  I will stick to my guns on adhering to the old Law of Online Worlds that says you need to build downtime into your primary activity to have community though.  At least until vice-to-text or voice chat actually works.

Good fucking riddance, and dance on the goddamn corpse while we're at it.

A world implies that I must LIVE in it to really get anything out of it. I have a life, thank you very much, I don't need to recreate it in pixel form.

Much better argument, El Gallo. Now you've got some stuff I can agree with, and some bits to pick at.  



I'm assuming you mean COH instead of WoW here, (I could be wrong and you're in the WoW beta), and that you're using 'casual' as time-starved.  I'll agree with this segment in that light.  Instancing in EQ isn't good for the guy who might have to pop offline suddenly. Instancing in COH is much shorter in duration (I can complete a mission in about 45 mins with my scrapper.) but still, if you have to pop offline suddenly you've lost all progress on that mission. You get to keep the XP, but EQ gives you a "fail" while COH requires you to restart the mission the next time you login.  In all COH is friendlier because you aren't punished and you CAN just /afk in a safely cleared spot in your mission (most times) without worrying that you're going to fail because of a timer.

   Outside of giving MMOs 'save games' and turning them into monthly single player games, though, I've conceded the fact that you have to be able to set aside a block of time to play for crawls like this.  It's nice to HAVE crawls, but they can't ever fully replace having the ability to do 'grinding' for the guys who want to pop on for a few mins or who want to play but know something might happen shortly to drive them offline. That's just going to be the nature of the genre, IMO.



You will get NO arguments from me here.  There is no reason, outside of laziness or wanting to force people into the more interesting handcrafted dungeons, to provide the banal layouts of some of the LDON dungeons.  COH's layout could use some more pieces, and they would definatly be better served by having handcrafted dungeons for at least the 'important' battles in a storyline.

   Still, their current model provides them a small footprint on my hard drive that was probably wiser for a game they weren't sure how popular it was going to be.  They could put more time into polishing their mechanics than worrying about pathing/collision issues in Dungeon_05 or Dr. Vaz's lair.  If they don't work to expand the offerings now, after they've seen how the game is doing, I'll be dissapointed.



I'll agree that a common channel would be a bit nicer.  It does get damn lonely in COH missions all by myself if nobody in my SG is on.  I have this problem less in EQ because I'm in so many OTHER channels (friend, and server-wide channels, not to mention /tells and guildchat) that I don't miss the /ooc spam.

I've never had a problem with taking a quick (or sometimes an extended) AFK in COH.  Because the missions aren't always timed, taking a break to step away after I've gotten pissed off, need to use the john or answer the phone doesn't hinder me.  EQ is much less friendly in this regard, and I'd love to have some way to stop the timer.  However, it DOES grant the advantage of me knowing that I only have to be there for X length of time.  Since you HAVE to do each LDON with at least 2 other people, it also means that you don't have to worry about one of the other two people taking off for 30 minutes, a problem I *DID* have in COH when I was doing missions with pickup groups.



Fishing requires a lot of time set-aside to do it.  I'd rather have a get in-get out experience that was methodical in nature and requiring some critical thinking, but not necessarily time consuming.  Smaller chunks of time to get smaller bits of content completed is ok with me. It's the 5-hour raids and required 72-person encounters at the current EQ endgame that drive me nuts. Personal preference, though.  

I don't see 24-person raids as anti-casual.  It's more 'anti stupid gamer.' You need to know your class and abilities better, and the content needs to recognize not everyone is the upper 1% of their skills when it's designed.  But, yeah, like you said that's a different thread.



The only difference in content consumption is the upper end isn't cockblocking the lower end.  I still don't have a character over level 20 in COH.  I'll advance at my own pace and get to things when I feel like moving forward to them. I don't have to worry about some level 50 sweeping in and killing Dr. Vahz on me.

That's what affects the content consumption in EQ more than anything, currently.  For example, my current guild is trying to key itself for Vex Thal.  It's a pain in the ass, but a lot of the players have jumped through SOE's hoops.  However, we're getting cockblocked by the few guilds still going there on a regular basis because they're jumping the emperor as soon as he's able to be raided, and keeping us out of their 'personal playground' zone.

   They're consuming content almost 3 years after it was published, because that's the rate of their consumption.  This kind of restriction drives away more people than it retains, IMO.  I know I'm not up for giving out my phone # so I can be called as soon as ubermob_01 spawns so we can jump in. I'd rather we continued with our scheduled 2 encounter days a week and get there when we get there.




I think it's more important to provide the opportunity for downtime more than enforcing it.  If players want to socialize, they will, and providing the downtime for it is a good thing.  Forcing socialization mechanics and downtime in the name of getting players to talk really just leads to more hate and pissiness than anything else.  The players will band together AGAINST you, but that's not really the type of community you want to enforce.

Or they will come up with ways to get around the downtime and forced grouping by doing stupid shit like two-boxing. The fact that game developers don't seem to mind two-boxing, because of the second revenue stream, is a testament to the short-sightedness of the genre. Mainly because when Mr. TwoBox gets done, you lose two account streams as opposed to one, and he spends less time in your game because he was able to complete the content twice as fast.

However, instancing can allow Mr. TwoBox to be able to handle the content on his own (or with friends) without the necessity for a second account, if the content is worthwhile to do solo.

That's funny, your description above is exactly how things used to be like when I was playing EQ (pre-PoP days). If you didn't have at least 2 hours to play it wasn't worth logging on at all. The first half hour or so was spent trying to find a group. If you were lucky and managed to get one, then the next half hour was spent trying to get everybody to agree on where to go first and then getting them there. Then when you got there, chances were most of the good camps were already taken. Then you spent another 15 minutes traveling someplace else just to find out that place was pretty much camped out as well. Once you finally found a zone with a suitable camp spot inevitably your cleric would have to leave screwing over the entire party.



I haven't seen any of the newer EQ dungeons but I agree that the level design of the CoH indoor missions that I've played through are underwhelming at best.



I've only seen a video of one instanced dungeon in WoW so far (Wailing Caverns) but it looks to have all the attributes you described above. It's a huge handcrafted cavern that has a common area in front with mobs you can kill if want to pass some time waiting for a pickup group. Once inside you can either just find a nice place to camp or you can crawl through and kill some of the quest mobs.



Personally I would rather just take a break from playing and wait for the next expansion if I plow through all the (instanced) content than put up again with the incredible grind games like EQ put you through to slow your progress down in the game. And it's not like the non-instanced EQ high-end quest content ever worked properly the first time either even after giving the developers those extra months after the release of an expansion to finish that content. Inevitably the first uber guild to reach the end of an end game quest would find a) the final mob was broken somehow (e.g. wouldn't spawn), b) be incredibly easy to kill thanks to some level design/pathing bug, c) have an empty loot table.

I agree with you, but I have to ask, what's better: Mr. TwoBox for three months, or Ms OneBox for six months?  ;-)

I don't think so. As I said I don't see a real tie between the "virtual world" idea and the issues you consider.

/blush  Yeah I think we agree on most things here, as all right thinking people would do.  Just to pick some nits...



I am in the WoW beta, mostly play a tauren warrior (level 40 and catassing as much as I can!).  Getting 3/4 of the way through an instance and losing a player *sucks* (yes, I know there are a few ways around it, but they are kludgey at best).

WoW instances are not that conductive to old fashioned grouping because it is hard to replace players and because the good mobs don't respawn.


kinda.  Time-starved in the sense that we can't give undivided attention very often or very long.



Yes. My issue is not that I can't have the game on for 3 hours most nights.  It's that I cannot lock the doors, turn off the ringer and keep my eyes glued to the screen for even half that amount of time.  I don't know what the title for the "powergamer where things pop up" demographic is, but I do think that we were served pretty well by EQ, once the overpopulation era ended.  Good old "farming blues" pickup groups and most EQ raids worked well too, since the "eyes peeled or wipe" times were few and typically spaced out.  These two play models have been the whipping boy for years now, and I am sympathetic with the whipping.  But, there is a cost.  You want edge-of-your seat action, you have to stay at the edge of your seat.  



I have no doubt it would require better play.   But it would also require undivided focus (see above re: popping up).  More importantly, it would require much higher attendence percentages to do effectively.  Unless you can schedule events very well, it will be hard to have just the right number.  With large numbers, you can be more lax.  I like my current EQ guild (only RC to go for time) because we have a pretty wide variety of players, ranging from 95% attendence down to about 35%.  Usually aim to have about 60 or so on for raids, and get 50-70, which is fine for just about anything we do.  I log on when I want.  When I don't log on, I don't feel bad about it.

If you have raids tuned for 24, not only is everyone who shows up over 24 locked out, you are probably going to need at least 20 to win.  That's a pretty tight range.  Easy for 24 person guilds with 99% attendence rates, but very hard for most guilds.  Easy for 24 person guilds who have 2 encounter nights with 99% attendence, too.  Bad for the guy who often does not know if he'll be able to raid that night untill well into the afternoon (me).  Now I do feel bad when I miss raid night.  If I miss it a few times, I will need to be replaced.   Not undoable, but again, everyone likes to harp on Velious+ raids where everyone is just a number.  I have harped on that myself.  But there is a real cost when you move away from that.



Yeah, imagine how shitty EQ expansions would be if they had to churn them twice as fast?  Without cockblocks, I have no doubt my guild (and at least 8 others on my server) would have been finished with GoD months ago, and they'd have to spit out OOW even faster.  As you said, cockblocking chokes content consumption.  I don't like being cockblocked (we were blocked out of Vex Thal by 2 European guilds and one of their EST allies for months, weer CB'd out of the elementals a while too).  But if you take away cockblocking, you are going to have to pony up lots and lots and lots of content, pronto.  That's expensive as hell.  This is a real issue, unless you want to go with the Trippy solution of taking a few months off regularly.



Here I think you and I just disagree.  I don't think that opportunity is enough.  Nobody is going to go hang out at the tavern in the hope of finding someone to socialize with (I know you meant something more robust than that).   A lot of people would feel uncomfortable acting affirmatively to initiate socialization (that's where my fishing example comes from. Lots of guys go fishing/golfing/whatever as an excuse to BS, even though they would never just pick up the phone and BS).

I think you have to give your players regular breathers where they have time to chat a little (NOT old time EQ-level downtime).  WoW may be taking a good step in this direction by removing combat drinking.  This is not to say that soloing with relatively little downtime should not be an option, I think it should.  But it should always be better, game rewards wise, to be in a group with a little downtime.

Then you haven't been paying attention to the MMOG genre, you silly man.



Ms. OneBox for six months, IMO. Ms. OneBox doesn't bitch, moan and complain in 3 months that there's no content. She gives me an extra 3 months to create more content to slake her lust. She also gives me 6 months of steady revenue, as opposed to 3. In that 6 months time, I have the opportunity to wrangle up twice as many new accounts as in Mr. TwoBox's 3 months.

Figured I'd do some cutting and pasting here. Since you're all talking about instancing already, I'll take those bits out. There's a lot more going for it:





From what I can tell, the combat system is more than I could ask for in a MMORPG. All I've ever wanted was "Defense", blocking and dodging, not entirely dependent on stats. It sounds like DDO will be offering even more than that.

I don't remember ever trying to create a virtual world for my AD&D players.  I was making adventures.  And the D&D "worlds" (Forgotten Realms. etc.) were described as "campaign settings" for a reason.  Each was a location for a series of adventures which centered around the players.  So I don't see any precedent for Turbine to bend over backwards to create a plausible, virtual world for the franchise.

I'll agree with you. I like the direction they're taking, which is more true to the spirit of Dungeons and Dragons, but if there's anything worth making a plausible "virtual world" out of, this would probably be it. There's at least some precedent for it (you could pretty much make a virtual world about anything). I like the little details a virtual world provides, but only enough to enhance the game. When it starts determining what that game is, then I get pissed.

I've been waiting for years for someone to say "slake her lust" on these forums.

I understand why people want twitchier gameplay, but AD&D Online seems like an odd choice for it.  AD&D is the epitome of stats-based mechanics.   Unless you are really smooth with the dice.

I would really love to see an actual video of someone playing the game and doing all of this. It's leaps and bounds beyond any action in any other MMORPG. Until I see this in action with someone sitting at the computer doing those things, I have a feeling I should also expect proper implementation of the fetuspault.

A word of caution, from a video you can't tell jack shit.  NWN can show videos of everything there except wall climbing and shooting a lightsource.

The rest of the text stated blocking and dodging was player driver timing based, but a video won't confirm that.

Yeah, I guess I'm full of shit, because in one post I praised them for making it a group oriented game, which is being more true to the spirit of D&D...Yet here I am excited that it'll be more action rather than stat oriented. I'm more interested in what a player can do, not a "character". I'm sure stats will play a factor somehow, but just the idea of any twitch gameplay will probably turn off true PnP D&D'ers and role players (these people are probably upset that it isn't turn based too). Good riddance. It sounds like it may be fun for "gamers" though.

One other thing worth mentioning that I picked up at the Vault (ahem):

http://vault.ign.com/articles/520/520943p1.html



Sweet. Here I was thinking they were just going to recycle the AC2 engine. Hopefully though, it's not all about combat. CoH might be able to get away with it, but DnD needs more.



http://www.stratics.com/content/portals/ddo/content/ddomovie.avi

23MB. Not exactly what you're asking for, but good enough.

P.S. Think you could hook up an interview with these guys?

Ambitious.  Hooking up HL:Source to an MMO.  Bah, damn my girlish infatuation w/ MMO.

Schild, I'd like to see thier answers to some of your hardball questions.  Official second nomination.

I'll get right on that, I've already got the PR emails. Start sending me questions in PM. Over the next 3 days I'm moving, so I won't be talking much. Goddamn RSX won't hold shit.

Edit, I take that back. I have the emails for Middle Earth Online...I'll see who I can get ahold of before Friday.

Oh, and that video is great. The game looks like some sort of hybrid between Die by the Sword, Ninja Gaiden, and erhm well, that's all I can say about that, couldn't see the UI. (I think the wall climbing bit was prerendered cgi).

God what great irony it would be for Turbine to smack down EQ with AD&D.

All that tumbling around in full armor while wielding a weapon *and* carrying a shield is just too goofy. Why can't they just have the guy do a side step?

Yeah, you may be right about that. It doesn't look like he's wearing plate, but a Fighter with a shield should probably be doing more blocking, while Rogues do the dodging. Armor class should definitely be a factor, but maybe he's a Barb wearing Light? I heard that these skills still have to be purchased/trained and all, but I wonder if there's prerequisites or classes prohibited from training them (for example: I read that Clerics won't be able to train "Bluff". Something similar should be done with Dodge. Are all classes in tabletop DnD able to train "Evasion" or "Tumble"?).

Still pretty impressive though. I can't think of another MMORPG with realtime maneuvering (besides moving behind a structure or whatnot..and even then, that barely works). If there was one, I'd be playing it.

EDIT: Dev reply on the Vault..

Yup, it's cross-class for some (class for others) but all can rank in it. Thing is, armor has progressively higher penalties (-10 for full plate iirc) as do shields. So a heavily armoured fighter or cleric jumping around is usually a no-no.

The lighter variety of fighters (monk, ranger, barb, fighter/thief, fighter/bards, fighters who spec in ranged weapons) sometimes go for Tumbling as they wear less cumbersome armor and can actually put the skill to use.

Furthermore, iirc Tumbling as such is not used for "dodging" attacks. You would roll a check on it if you are moving through someone's 'threat range' (and thus provoking an 'attack of opportunity') or if you are attempting to say, dive and roll under a table to get cross a room. There are a few feats you can that simply add a 'dodging' bonus to your AC (as opposed to a Miscellaneous or a Magical one) but it's not actually used to avoid attacks.

 - Meg