EQ 'Next'

[Mrbloodworth]

Yeah, I should have said "Just not a lot in MMO's".

[tmp]

Spectating a game has always boggled me. Why not play?

No, I don't particularly enjoy watching sports, either.

If you don't get much of enjoyment out of watching other people pull off amazing feats you could never do personally, you will indeed not get it.

Why not play? Because like you said yourself, we don't all excel at every type of the game. If my FPS experience boils down to dying over and over, i'd rather watch the game of someone who doesn't. For MMOs in particular I may watch someone play class different than my own, to see what it's like without having to spend X hours developing that new class first. Or to see them go through encounter that I have no chance of beating.

[shiznitz]

The outlier in all of this is with a F2P model, it's about making the best game possible for a large number of people, it's about attracting the small percentage that are going to drop ludicrous amounts of money in the cash shop.

And this is the crux of it.  You need a game that appeals to a very broad base from which 5% will spend $200+ a year and another 10% that will spend $50.  The larger the base, the larger the 5% and the 10%, the larger the money hats.

PS2 has 5 million registered.  If 10% actually play, then the numbers from my "out of the blue" math above is 25,000 X $200 and 50,000 X $50 = solid 7 digit revenue

[Trippy]

From a personal perspective, I really want to see an end to the holy trinity, and more personal responsibility for tactical "twitch" reactions and skill selection in my MMO's.

TERA is like that. It's a twitch game and there are only a handful of skills that auto-track targets. It still has the trinity and in fact the tank role is even more important in most of the high end encounters than in most other MMORPGs but the skill of individual players is critical. The healing classes in the game can not save a party in the end game if the other group members suck. Conversely if the non-healers are highly skilled the healer doesn't have to do much if any healing.

[Mrbloodworth]

The outlier in all of this is with a F2P model, it's about making the best game possible for a large number of people, it's about attracting the small percentage that are going to drop ludicrous amounts of money in the cash shop.

And this is the crux of it.  You need a game that appeals to a very broad base from which 5% will spend $200+ a year and another 10% that will spend $50.  The larger the base, the larger the 5% and the 10%, the larger the money hats.

PS2 has 5 million registered.  If 10% actually play, then the numbers from my "out of the blue" math above is 25,000 X $200 and 50,000 X $50 = solid 7 digit revenue

Last I read, Planetside 2 has 750,000 Regular log ins and has a intake of 300% over their existing titles.

The monetization of EQnext is likely to be less invasive, as they seem to be relaying on Player studio, and Landmark asset exchanges. I'm sure cosmetics will be sold, as well as account stuff.

[tmp]

Conversely if the non-healers are highly skilled the healer doesn't have to do much if any healing.

Yup, in the top level encounters they basically include mechanics like various forms of unavoidable damage, just so the healers aren't there only to make smiley faces with their heal orbs on the floor. (and some still do, anyway)

[Merusk]

If they're selling "Action RPG combat" they need to just state it and let the fallout happen now.  They're being cagy and instead are letting people continue to think it's the old MMO model with new thought applied to it.

Isn't it pretty obvious from the videos?  I mean, you're right, the buzzwords and bullshit are infuriating.  But I'd basically bet my ass that it's action RPG combat.  That is the new hot thing.  Didn't you know?  GOD OF WAR!  SKILL-BASED COMBAT.   HAVOK PHYSICS FULLY DESTRUCTIBLE ENVIORNMENTS WOOOOOOOOOOO.

Ahem.  Sorry, got a little carried away.

It's only obvious from the videos if that's the mindset you're coming at it from.  It's equally obvious that it could be the old tab-target hotbar combat, just like The Secret World, if that's what you want.   Nothing at all shown in the videos is impossible from either approach.  So one group is going to be very disappointed.  

Not every customer who views the videos are hanging around F13, Rerolled or the like. We're a subset of a subset and that's often forgotten.

Spectating a game has always boggled me. Why not play?

No, I don't particularly enjoy watching sports, either.

If you don't get much of enjoyment out of watching other people pull off amazing feats you could never do personally, you will indeed not get it.

Why not play? Because like you said yourself, we don't all excel at every type of the game. If my FPS experience boils down to dying over and over, i'd rather watch the game of someone who doesn't. For MMOs in particular I may watch someone play class different than my own, to see what it's like without having to spend X hours developing that new class first. Or to see them go through encounter that I have no chance of beating.

Yeah, see, still don't care. It's a game.

[Abelian75]

It's only obvious from the videos if that's the mindset you're coming at it from.  It's equally obvious that it could be the old tab-target hotbar combat, just like The Secret World, if that's what you want.   Nothing at all shown in the videos is impossible from either approach.  So one group is going to be very disappointed.  

Yeah, that's fair.  I'm pretty sure I know which way it's going to fall, but admittedly past experience is probably coloring the way I see the videos and hear the noncommittal mutterings.

[Falconeer]

Not sure how many of you watched the classes panels that someone posted half a day ago in this thread, but at this point in the conversation they mention specifically Magic the Gathering and League of Legends (23:52 in the video). They say very clearly that's the direction they are going, saying they want to keep the game fresh the same way those games do by releasing new heroes and the likes (they want to do that with new classes and items, which don't boost stats as in all the other games, but gives you different powers, as in Magic the Gathering).

They also say a little earlier that the game will be "skill based".

I am sure some of you got these principles already, I am just trying to clear some dust and makes sure everyone gets it.

[Nebu]

Not sure how many of you watched the classes panels that someone posted half a day ago in this thread, but at this point in the conversation they mention specifically Magic the Gathering and League of Legends (23:52 in the video). They say very clearly that's the direction they are going, saying they want to keep the game fresh the same way those games do by releasing new heroes and the likes (they want to do that with new classes and items, which don't boost stats as in all the other games, but gives you different powers, as in Magic the Gathering).

They also say a little earlier that the game will be "skill based".

I am sure some of you got these principles already, I am just trying to clear some dust and makes sure everyone gets it.

When devs say they're trying to be "like game X", all they end up doing is making a shitty version of Game X.  Look at the laundry list of failed WoW clones. 

[Falconeer]

I am absolutely not pointing it out as a cool thing (not yet). Just as an element that seemed a bit lost in the conversation. Obviously some were pointing at it, but sounded more speculative than fact. We don't know how well they'll pull that off, but we know that's the design direction.


League of Legends + Minecraft + Magic the Gathering + Tera

[Ingmar]

Question: Is MOBA combat too far from TAb Target to be broadly acceptable? ( I am speaking of the 3ed Person variety that has gained popularity )

I think it is too simplistic for a character that you play constantly. MOBAs have a shitload of depth but the depth comes from playing lots of different heroes and their interactions and matchups with each other. If you had to be Skeleton King or Sven every day, it would get real old, real fast.

[Falconeer]

At least according to what they say classes will be like MOBA heroes, yes, but you will be able to mix together all the skill from all the heroes you own, for countless combinations. And new classes will be added constantly.

[Abelian75]

Seems like it should be pretty easy to create interesting/challenging encounters using that model.

[Draegan]

"MMO-LOL" is exactly what I get from it too, not that far from Wildstar as well. I think its really reconcilable that its very close to Third person MOBA combat.

Well, Wildstar is WOW with GW2 combat where you can see shit on the ground.

[Nebu]

MOBA games work great as PvP because you're constantly trying to find synergism in your team while simultaneously finding enemy counters.  Somehow this just doesn't hold up the same when playing PvE.  It's a tough balancing act.

LoL PvP is fun as hell.  The PvE gets old fast.

[Draegan]

MOBA games work great as PvP because you're constantly trying to find synergism in your team while simultaneously finding enemy counters.  Somehow this just doesn't hold up the same when playing PvE.  It's a tough balancing act.

LoL PvP is fun as hell.  The PvE gets old fast.

LOL PVE is boring because it's a pale version of the real thing. However if you incorporate more into just killing bots(mobs) and towers you can make it very entertaining.

[Nebu]

LOL PVE is boring because it's a pale version of the real thing. However if you incorporate more into just killing bots(mobs) and towers you can make it very entertaining.

You can also fight AI toons in the lanes.  AI will always be less interesting than playing against people.  That's my point.

Blizzard got past this by making the encounters a bit more varied.  They still get boring fast.

[Merusk]

They also did an encounter where mobs acted like players.  It went over like a lead balloon.

There's always arguments along the lines of, "if the game had been training players for that from the start..."   They have some validity, but you also have to accept that the population would have been much smaller.  People don't like it when the game wins.

[tmp]

Yeah, see, still don't care. It's a game.

No one but you cares you personally don't care. Nothing in "it's a game" excludes it being enjoyable just to watch, and for literally millions out there, it is.

You asked "why not play?", that's the answer.

[Nebu]

People don't like it when the game wins.

Which brings us back to the old argument that PvE MMOs are less games and more chat interfaces attached to slot machines.

[Merusk]

In the way it was used, the question was general and intended to be rhetorical.   So responding to it by saying, "if you don't get..." is trying to convince a specific person - me - not providing a greater answer.  So by responding to it, yes, you did care that I didn't care and continue to do so.

People don't like it when the game wins.

Which brings us back to the old argument that PvE MMOs are less games and more chat interfaces attached to slot machines.

Pretty much.  It's a question of how many times you pull that lever or how much pay-to-win you allow.  PvE has always been more a social experience thing than a competition thing to me.  Yeah there's achievers who desperately want to make it competition but it always seems rather hollow.

Which probably goes back to the whole, "It doesn't get me paid, laid or advance my real life, so why do I care beyond the entertainment?" mindset.

Sure I'll get angry in WoT, vent about shitty WoW groups or assholes in groups but it's not driving me and it doesn't last more than a few minutes.  It's about folks ruining that entertainment by being deliberately shitty, failing to ask questions or just not learning the game.

[Nebu]

Which probably goes back to the whole, "It doesn't get me paid, laid or advance my real life, so why do I care beyond the entertainment?" mindset.

Sure I'll get angry in WoT, vent about shitty WoW groups or assholes in groups but it's not driving me and it doesn't last more than a few minutes.  It's about folks ruining that entertainment by being deliberately shitty, failing to ask questions or just not learning the game.

I love it when we agree.   

[Nonentity]

I'm honestly happy with the class system borrowing from DotA.

Whoops, your character got nerfed? Play another character.

Now that is considerably easier with this system. Does it give less iconic feeling to any individual character that can be anything? Sure, but I think for the sake of gameplay it's important.

[Nebu]

I struggle with it.  One of the things I loved most about RPG's was the sense of connection I had with my character.  I also liked that I had a unique role in a group and a skill that I was 'the best' at.  Seems that things are getting homogenized. 

[Malakili]

I struggle with it.  One of the things I loved most about RPG's was the sense of connection I had with my character.  I also liked that I had a unique role in a group and a skill that I was 'the best' at.  Seems that things are getting homogenized. 

I actually like this quite a bit to be honest.  It is a bit like what World War 2 Online did which I thought was always underrated.  As a reminder, as you ranked up in the army, you could access different set loadouts.  You started with the basic rifleman, unlocked a submachine gunner, unlocked a sapper, unlocked a sniper, and so on.  All of them have specific uses to the point where even as you unlocked new things you often used the others.  You still get the feeling of progression there (from your rank in the army), and can spawn in as whatever is needed in the current battle.

[proudft]

They also did an encounter where mobs acted like players.  It went over like a lead balloon.

The fake PvP fight in Magister's Terrace w/Princess Delrissa?  That is easily in my top 3 favorite instance fights.  But yeah, most everyone else hated it.   

[Draegan]

I struggle with it.  One of the things I loved most about RPG's was the sense of connection I had with my character.  I also liked that I had a unique role in a group and a skill that I was 'the best' at.  Seems that things are getting homogenized. 

I used to agree with this, but since getting into LOL recently I can see the draw to having 40+ classes in a game to pick and choose from. Especially if they're easy to learn by having 4 abilities instead of jumping into a level 90 WOW character day 1.

[Merusk]

I struggle with it.  One of the things I loved most about RPG's was the sense of connection I had with my character.  I also liked that I had a unique role in a group and a skill that I was 'the best' at.  Seems that things are getting homogenized.  

Same concern, but nothing says you *have* to branch-out in to other classes.  "I am a wood-elf druid" can work from day one and you never need to expand your base.

From what they've been saying that individual character's story that is *supposed* to be different from the next and that's what makes them unique to you.  Not just, "this is my dark elf, this is my human, this is my LegoChimaLion," but "this is My dark elf who helped defend Queynos against the orc invasion of 2016"

How successful the individual character tracking and 'emergent AI' storybricks are will have a huge part in that connection.  If your 'story' is only "well this one did phase alpha instead of gamma!" then it's as engaging as "I leveled my paladin through Stonetalon instead of Barrens."

[Ingmar]

They also did an encounter where mobs acted like players.  It went over like a lead balloon.

The fake PvP fight in Magister's Terrace w/Princess Delrissa?  That is easily in my top 3 favorite instance fights.  But yeah, most everyone else hated it.   

That was one, the other one was the Faction Champions thing in the arena fighting raid. Which I also enjoyed, but most everyone hated. It's a fight that required people to play differently than they were used to, I like that kind of variety. Shade of Aran comes to mind as another one like that in its own way, that caused a lot of complaining.

[tmp]

Which probably goes back to the whole, "It doesn't get me paid, laid or advance my real life, so why do I care beyond the entertainment?" mindset.

Counterpoint to that would be, "If my idea of acceptable entertainment is only the absolutely laziest, least active form of it that doesn't involve any sort of effort or skills, why do I bother with computer games at all and not just get drunk instead?" After all it's even simpler, and the results are far more guaranteed.

It may seem crazy, but some people voluntarily pick up hobbies that require something from them. To them that is the entertainment.

edit:

In the way it was used, the question was general and intended to be rhetorical.   So responding to it by saying, "if you don't get..." is trying to convince a specific person - me - not providing a greater answer.  So by responding to it, yes, you did care that I didn't care and continue to do so.

In the way you asked the question (following the admission you don't understand the behavior) it seemed like request for someone to try to explain it to you. My "no one cares" was in the sense, your not caring about the people's motives doesn't influence their choice to just watch things and enjoy the show. A different kettle of fish. I did care about what seemed like an actual request to explain the motives, obv.

[Malakili]

They also did an encounter where mobs acted like players.  It went over like a lead balloon.

The fake PvP fight in Magister's Terrace w/Princess Delrissa?  That is easily in my top 3 favorite instance fights.  But yeah, most everyone else hated it.   

It was a fine fight, but the problem is that it required a different kind of teamwork than normal fights.  When you were with a guild group on vent, it was kind of a fight where you just had to try to control the chaos from getting out of hand while bringing down the enemies and could be a lot of fun.

With randoms it was "I hope these guys aren't idiots" because eventually most people at least figured out the basic tank stuff, dps stuff, heal stuff mechanics.  But put them in a position where they have to make decisions only the fly based on various stuff happening and I sure as hell don't want to play with randoms.  

I guess if your combat model is based on that from the beginning maybe more players will develop the necessary skill set.

[Kitsune]

I struggle with it.  One of the things I loved most about RPG's was the sense of connection I had with my character.  I also liked that I had a unique role in a group and a skill that I was 'the best' at.  Seems that things are getting homogenized.  

Same concern, but nothing says you *have* to branch-out in to other classes.  "I am a wood-elf druid" can work from day one and you never need to expand your base.

Yeah, as long as you don't mind being bored to tears with your eight abilities that never change or grow in power after the first week of playing.  Eliminating vertical progression in a game is not a good thing.  Part of the entire point of MMORPGs is the progression to become a swank badass over time, to grow and be able to power through things that would once have flattened you.  Eliminating levels can be a good thing, if it's replaced with being able to unlock classes and abilities that better suit your play, but there still needs to be a vertical element to them.

Take WoW's warlocks.  You start with an imp.  He mostly sucks.  You progress, get more powerful and useful pets, and more powerful spells.  The warlock player has a couple of potential goals.  One is 'I want a huge badass pet that devours souls while kicking ass'.  Another is 'I want to be all crazy necromancer and have spells that animate the skeletons inside other people and make their own skeletons devour them while I cackle'.  In neither case does the warlock start at that level when first getting the class.  They have to build up to that point, at which time they get to feel all uber.

If, however, when you sign up to be a warlock you just get handed your doom death reaper and your demon plague spell, you have nothing more to gain.  You're pretty much done.  You can go out and blow up some stuff, but what does it get you?  Not a better doom death reaper.  Not a cooler evil spell.

You can say, 'Oh well in our very horizontal game players can pick and choose many classes so they'll have lots to do.'  No, they won't, if all they want is to be evil with a big evil pet.  They get their one class and then they're done and then they quit when they realize there's nowhere else to go from there.  If, on the other hand, there were other classes to gain to get a bigger eviler pet, they would have something to do and a reason to play the game.

[Malakili]

If, however, when you sign up to be a warlock you just get handed your doom death reaper and your demon plague spell, you have nothing more to gain.  You're pretty much done.  You can go out and blow up some stuff, but what does it get you?  Not a better doom death reaper.  Not a cooler evil spell.

Or the game actually has to be fun to play for its own sake rather than just chasing carrots.  People play games with 0 progression for years on end, there is no reason an MMO can't as well if the actual gameplay is worth playing.  There can also be alternative progression (like housing) which have to do with world building rather than character building.

[Ingmar]

What games with no progression do people play for years on end? Outside of very basic Bejeweled sort of stuff and FPSes (and only some of those to boot), almost every single game any of us play here has progression of a sort. MOBAs have character levels and progression, they just compress it into a single match and you reset and start over. The progression is still essential to the entire experience. Likewise with an RTS - you have to climb a tech tree to get to the fancy units, buy upgrades for them, etc. Every game of Civ is an exercise in progression.

Is there a game where you play a persistent character that is completely devoid of progression? I can't think of one. Even in Minecraft you essentially level your way through different tools and gear and such.