Blizzard tries to nerf catassery

[Soukyan]

The basic problem here is that a lot of people think MMOGs are what people do instead of Counterstrike.  They think that MMOGs therefore need to be more like action packed video games.  On the other hand, I tend to think of MMOGs are what people do instead of going fishing, which is more of an excuse to socialize than an action packed event.

For me, MMOGs are an alternative to online FPS play. They offer a different type of gaming experience, but one that I still want to be fairly fast paced. Perhaps I'm in a minority, but when I want to socialize, I go out of my house and do it. Unless I'm at work, in which case, these and a couple other boards suffice quite well. I enjoy socialization in MMOGs as a nice perk to playing that type of game. I don't think the game should be built around those who wish to waste their time chatting online. There are lovely programs for that called mIRC and AIM and MSN Messenger, etc. You get my point. Enforced downtime to encourage socialization is just an excuse to cover for lack of fun gameplay.

[HRose]

Enforced downtime to encourage socialization is just an excuse to cover for lack of fun gameplay.

That's another point. It's obvious that noone will pass active time at an Inn. You have various ways to fill holes in the game. One is by adding a timesink another is to enforce the players in a direction.

When you need rules it means things are already not working as they should.

[Soukyan]

When you need rules it means things are already not working as they should.

Good point. This harks back to the text MUD days where you would encounter a MUD with more rules than players and too much Administrator intervention to prevent breaking of the rules.

I've always been an advocate of hard-coding rules, which I suppose Blizzard is attempting to do here. Rather than just saying no killing mobs for more than X hours and if we catch you we nerf your experience gain, they just programmed the rule into the game. I'm all for that. This is not to say I like the rule, nor do I think that the gameplay is as fun as it could be in its current state.

[tanandae]

The old-fashioned pull-low-bues-to-camp xp grind is successful because (a) it provides the stability (and time to chat) necessary for community that the RUN RUN CLICK CLICK RUN RUN "fun" dungeon crawl does not and (b) it makes it easy for people to AFK when needed or to swap characters when someone logs.

So you are saying that someone who takes this easy, no attention, no strategy, socializing aspect of grinding, should get just as much experience as the person who is doing quests or participating in combat that actually take an attention span? How dare Blizzard reward you for  looking at something other than your hot pocket and the TV while playing.

PS- I have read of people who do groups in WoW dungeons getting fatigued much, much faster than 9 hours.

This is the first time I've heard anything about the rest state that I don't think is good. Dungeon crawls should never drop below well rested if you started out that way.

[El Gallo]

No, I was saying that players play that way for reasons other than "the developers didn't give them any other option."  It had no direct applicability to Blizzard.

But if you want to talk about Blizzard, explain why you should get full, no-fatigue XP for doing utterly mindless, trivial FedEx or "collect bunny ear" quests for 20 hours straight.  Your "Hot Pocket and TV" rant is irrelevant, because there are just as many "Hot  Pocket and TV" quests are there are "Hot pocket and TV" xp spots.

And yeah, players who hit dungeons hard are claiming that thet get fatigued in under 3 hours. http://fohguild.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=190324#post190324

[Daeven]

To really help casual players they have to allow  play 6-8 hours on weekends without penalties .

Jesus H fucking christ on a pogo stick the size of Texas.

NO casual player has 6-8 hours to string together for anything. Unless they decide to forgo sanity and sleep. With a job and a couple of kids, I'd be unbelievably freaking lucky to get *2* hours to sting together, let alone 6.

And you twits wonder why people like me don't play MMOG's.

[gith]

my bet is that it is a general attempt to mitigate combat macroing

[Merusk]

my bet is that it is a general attempt to mitigate combat macroing

Considering the link El Gallo provided was people talking about combat macroing and how it was proving to be a less efficient way of netting XP, I'm beginning to think you're right.

Folks who macro, then think their complaints about getting fatigued in under 3 hours are valid make me laugh.

[Dren]

*Common Casual Player Complaint*

Agreed.  6-8 hours is the definition of catass/hardcore even if you only limit it to the weekend.  Although I do get more time on the weekend sometimes, I still can only play for at most 4 hours straight and that is if I am playing after my kids go to bed and I stay up way too late. (9-1am)

Just by having this argument it shows that no matter what they code into the game, the hardcore will continue to be hardcore and casuals will continue to be casuals.  Yes, having your guildmates burn through more content than you is annoying and takes some fun out of the game for you, but live with it.  Such is the life of a casual player.

Even if the hardcore players are limited to 8 hours a day per character, they will have 8 hours a day consistently.  If they can put that kind of time into a MMOG, they are by definition hardcore still and will level their characters up WAY faster than the casuals.  It would still be that way if the limit was made 4 hours.  What's the difference?

You could say it is that the hardcores are slowed down, but that doesn't matter.  If the hardcore players are just 4 levels higher than the casual, they probably won't group together anymore.  That gap will continue to grow.  It doesn't matter how slowly that gap grows.

I think they should drop this constraint personally.  It just doesn't seem worth the time, effort, and pain (players and devs.)  I'd rather see the devs turn their efforts towards the "fun" of the game rather than trying to restrict players that might actually have time on their hands.  That sounds just as bad as forcing players to go through a dreadful treadmill to get to the good juicy stuff.  Oh wait, it sounds exactly the same!

[El Gallo]

Merusk, people are claiming that they get fatigued in 2-3 hours, sometimes less, not by macroing but by playing hard in the instanced dungeons.


Generally,
I think that there is the usual nomenclature problem here.  I tend to think of "hardcore" and "casual" as styles of play not directly related to the number of hours played.  I think that the rest penalty breaks down as follows:

1. hardcore player with lots of time to play every day: hurt a little by the system

2. time-starved hardcore player who plays a lot on the weekends and very little during the week: brutally assraped by the system

3. time-starved hardcore player who play a couple hours or so every day: this system is the best thing that ever happened to them.

4. casual players, whether time starved or not: don't care, because "keeping up with the Furors" is not what their gameplay is about.  Maybe casual players who play massive amounts of hours benefit from the system because the developers will be able to make less hardcore content in future expansions.

[El Gallo]

For me, MMOGs are an alternative to online FPS play.

Yeah, I did not mean to suggest that these people don't exist, and I have no idea who is in the minority.  I think that the problem with catering to these people is that you have to make persistence worth a monthly fee when the base combat is always going to be less pure and laggier than free FPS combat.  But I do think that "Planetside or Shadowbane done right" could be very successful just like I think that "Everquest or Trammel done right" could be.

I don't think the game should be built around those who wish to waste their time chatting online. There are lovely programs for that called mIRC and AIM and MSN Messenger, etc.

I think you missed my point about fishing.  I have an uncle who I consider myself close to.  We used to go fishing together a few times a year.  We learned some tricks of trade and had some fun with the actual game of fishing, but it was obvious that the real reason we did it was to have an excuse to sit around and shoot the shit all afternoon.   Now, at any time we could have called each other on the phone (or AIM) and talked for 5 hours straight.  But we never did.  I don't think that me and my uncle are some bizarre psychological outliers, either.  I think that this is pretty typical for people, or at least for men.  

The game for these people gives them an excuse to socialize, something to talk about and something to bond over.  It isn't a replacement for the "press back, up, A, back, X, X, right in a second for the powerup" games.  It is a replacement for fishing.

[Merusk]

Merusk, people are claiming that they get fatigued in 2-3 hours, sometimes less, not by macroing but by playing hard in the instanced dungeons.

I'm not saying this is right, but it makes sense according to a few things I've read.  I've seen a few threads that indicate the fatigue bar drops based on your avg XP/Hour.  If you're fighting harder creatures then you're getting more xp/hour and your bar is going to drop faster.  They need to tweak their fomula to correct that glitch, if in fact, anti-macroing is the goal and not anti-catassing.

[gith]

well, ac1 is the only other game to have an exponential end-game leveling curve with no cap (IIRC, same as WoW is planning on having) and the only way that people really reached level 126 back in the day was to combat macro. Sure that one sword guy on Thistledown hit level 100 back in the day after the BSDs were released, so it can be done, but he was nowhere near the cap of level 126.

Anyways, this is the best answer I've seen yet to combat macroing, and if AC1 implemented it or something like it on thier new servers (the ones with no allegiance xp passup) along with thier graphics engine update then it would make for a great-great game.

Really though, everyone's take on this change all depends on what games you've played in the past: people that come from EQ/DAoC will hate it, while people that come from AC1 (where combat macroing killed the game, for pretty much everyone) will not mind it, realizing what macroing can do to games (Hackeron's Call :d).

[El Gallo]

If the game can be combat macroed with any degree of efficiency, the game sucks ass, period.  Not because macroers mess things up, but because if a bot can play the game pretty well, it is way, way, way, way, way too trivial for a human being to enjoy.  

The "best answer yet" to combat macroing is not to make a game like Asherons Call where a monkey hitting random keys plays 95% as well as the best gamer in the world.

[Daeven]

4. casual players, whether time starved or not: don't care, because "keeping up with the Furors" is not what their gameplay is about.  Maybe casual players who play massive amounts of hours benefit from the system because the developers will be able to make less hardcore content in future expansions.

This is a very good point. I don't geive a damn if John Q. Catass plugs his brain into your game 24x7. What pisses me off are mechanics that ACTIVELY PREVENT me from playing with him 2 months from now.

[Morfiend]

Just thought I would share a few gems from the Beta Forums.

So if I understand this correctly, I can play my character in 1 hour intervals, taking a 7 hour break in between each (for a total of 3 hours /played per day), and I'll eventually be "exhausted" by doing this. While the guy who plays 3 hours straight per night and logs off until the next day, will always be raking in the "bonus" exp.

I sure hope so, the 3 hours a night is about what I get. Perfict.

I hate the idea all together. However I tested it. I got to level 7.5 or so in about 3.5-4 hours. I went from well rested to rested. So this made me log off and go play a competetor's game. I went to bed and woke up my normal time and watned to play before work. Well I am still in "rested" state because I only sleep 6 hours a night. I guess I should be punished for that.

Jesus, the guy couldnt even take 8 hours off between logging out, getting ready for bed, sleeping, waking up, getting ready for what ever he does.

Got to lvl 9 before it dropped from well rested to rested.

Sounds good.

If having the rest state makes even ONE fat geek logout in disgust after 6-7 hours and go jog around the block a few times, then it is worth having.

Heh heh

the people that this new system helps either don't really see the effect or would not care either way if this system was there or not. i.e. they're not intensely hardcore min/max players. they're here for fun and so long as the game is fun systems such as this aren't going to matter.

point in fact: look at the figures and numbers and speculations being thrown around in threads such as this. i can say for a fact that i don't care if it's 50000 or 49999 for x level or we should rest x then y then play z then go for n on a different character, etc. etc.

the "casual" sort of players that focus on playing for fun typically don't scrutinize about these figures. so in essense you're getting feedback only from the min/max, number efficiency, "have to be ahead of the pack have to be pumping out best xp rate ever!" players. it's supposed to be an rpg after all, not an algebra study.

I love this. I mean, after writing this, didnt it ever occure to him that maybe every one should be playing online "games" for fun?

Thats whats fucked up with MMOGs now, and lets not get in to it, but this just struck me as really funny that poeple actually admit they are not playing for fun.

[Raven]

My concern is that Blizzard gets backed into the same corner that SOE did when they started designing content around guilds/players who log 40+ hours a week.

How many zones in EQ are designed from the ground up to challenge raiding guilds, and any zone designed for raiding guilds will most likely be forever off limits to casual players.

Raven

[Sloth]

To really help casual players they have to allow  play 6-8 hours on weekends without penalties .

Jesus H fucking christ on a pogo stick the size of Texas.

NO casual player has 6-8 hours to string together for anything. Unless they decide to forgo sanity and sleep. With a job and a couple of kids, I'd be unbelievably freaking lucky to get *2* hours to sting together, let alone 6.

And you twits wonder why people like me don't play MMOG's.

Why wouldn't a casual player have 6-8 hours to string together? You seem to be defining casual player too specifically. There is a huge range of casual players out there. From people who only have 2 hours a night to people who only play once or twice a week. You can't label them all as people who never have 8 hours to play.

if you define a casual player as someone who can't play more than X hours consecutively, then your definition would effectively be only a minority of people who define themselves as casual

[HRose]

What is wrong in the system is that it has side-effects. It isn't important if it will affect you or not. Having a timer upon your head still makes the whole expereince worst.

From the start to the end. Everyone here plays games to have fun and also to relax. The system Blizzard introduced increase the stress on you.

Even if it's logically impossible.

[kuro]

So you don't get optimal xp if you play for a long period of time. Big deal.  In any of the current mmorpgs you very seldom get optimal xp.  If I think about the best times that I had playing EQ or DAoC or any number of muds, those times had nothing to do with how fast I was gaining xp.

If you're playing just because you're getting good xp and you log as soon as  you're out of the bonus then you're totally missing the point.   If it's fun you'll play even when you're losing xp.

[Pantalaimon]

This is a very good point. I don't geive a damn if John Q. Catass plugs his brain into your game 24x7. What pisses me off are mechanics that ACTIVELY PREVENT me from playing with him 2 months from now.

Hi, long time lurker, first time poster. Why would you *want* to play with John Q. Catass?  I mean, based on your posts here, you don't like, or should I say, hate the catass players. So, why would you want to play with them? And why does it matter to you that they could level and go through the content quicker than you?

[Luxor]

The endgame is PvP no? So you and John Q Catass will have to interact at that point, unless of course you are secretly Abashi and like being a 'victim'.

[Mesozoic]

The endgame is PvP no?

No, the endgame appears to be raiding.

[Soukyan]

This is a very good point. I don't geive a damn if John Q. Catass plugs his brain into your game 24x7. What pisses me off are mechanics that ACTIVELY PREVENT me from playing with him 2 months from now.

Hi, long time lurker, first time poster. Why would you *want* to play with John Q. Catass?  I mean, based on your posts here, you don't like, or should I say, hate the catass players. So, why would you want to play with them? And why does it matter to you that they could level and go through the content quicker than you?

It's not that we want to play with the catasses of the world. It's the the catasses rip through the content and then start to bitch and whine non-stop on the boards and via email to the devs that they want more catass mechanics added to the game. And if history shows us anything, it's that they end up being catered to and that ruins the game for those who do not wish to devote their lives to it. It's destructive of fun game mechanics, etc. I could go on, but I think you get my point.

[Daeven]

Hi, long time lurker, first time poster. Why would you *want* to play with John Q. Catass?  I mean, based on your posts here, you don't like, or should I say, hate the catass players. So, why would you want to play with them? And why does it matter to you that they could level and go through the content quicker than you?

Ok. Let me try again. I don't care in the least of they 'level' or go through 'content' faster than I do. Not an issue. But when I start to play a game with some friends who may have significantly more free time than I do, I should reasonably expect to be able to continue playing with them 6 months down the road. Further, if there is direct competition, it would be nice if something other than time played dictated the outcome of any encounter between me and Mr. Catass. If I loose because someone understands the game better than I do then cool – I probably learned something in the exchange. If I loose because I’m level 15 and they are level 20Bafinity, what’s the point?

So in a sense, you are correct - I don't really want to play with John Q. Catass. But it really pisses me off when the game mechanics actively removes the option from consideration.

[Alluvian]

Like so many threads this one seems to be suffering from peronsal definitions of terms varying.

Hardcore gamer vs casual vs catass.

I think a lot here thinking casual are really imagining a hardcore gamer suffering from time constraints so they can't play much.  That does not magically turn them into a casual gamer.  If you game for 8-10 hours on a weekend because you don't have time during the week, I am sorry but you are a hardcore gamer who has time constraints, NOT a casual gamer.  Regardless if you only play 20 hours.

The way I see it the casual is actually a casual gamer.  Who will put in less hours because they feel like it not because their wife is beggng them to get off the game.  The casual to me is someone who would log out to read a book or watch tv or just take a walk without being pried away or leaving because they dont like it.

I don't think the introduction of artificial time constraints magically turns the hardcore gamer into a casual gamer.  A hardcore gamer with unlimited time is a catass, a hardcore gamer with limited time in not a casual by my definition.

Some of your definations may (and obviously do) vary.

[Pantalaimon]

So in a sense, you are correct - I don't really want to play with John Q. Catass. But it really pisses me off when the game mechanics actively removes the option from consideration.

That's a bit...I don't know what's the word for it. It's like, I hate oatmeal, I do not want to eat oatmeal, but I'm pissed that there's no oatmeal on the breakfast table because now I don't have the option to eat it..even though I do not want to eat it.

[Soukyan]

So in a sense, you are correct - I don't really want to play with John Q. Catass. But it really pisses me off when the game mechanics actively removes the option from consideration.

That's a bit...I don't know what's the word for it. It's like, I hate oatmeal, I do not want to eat oatmeal, but I'm pissed that there's no oatmeal on the breakfast table because now I don't have the option to eat it..even though I do not want to eat it.

Exactly. Nothing wrong with that. Consumer want options, even if they don't like those options. I have a friend who hates iced tea and we were recently at a restaurant that only serves raspberry iced tea and he noticed that on the menu. He actually bitched about them not having regular iced tea. It's an amazing phenomenon.

[Daeven]

So in a sense, you are correct - I don't really want to play with John Q. Catass. But it really pisses me off when the game mechanics actively removes the option from consideration.

That's a bit...I don't know what's the word for it. It's like, I hate oatmeal, I do not want to eat oatmeal, but I'm pissed that there's no oatmeal on the breakfast table because now I don't have the option to eat it..even though I do not want to eat it.

My above statement, taken by itself, can be mapped to the allegory you created above. Unfortunately, in the process of making the clever analogy, you have completely ignored the point I’ve been trying to get across (missing the forest for the tree as it were): don’t artificially segregate the player base.

For the third time: I don’t have a lot of time to play these games. Friends of mine have significantly more free time – to the point that some could enter the magical category of ‘catass’.  I find it frustrating when a game implicitly removes the option of me playing with these people six months for now simply because of time they have played.

And if an explicitly multiplayer game forcibly removes the option of me playing with friends, I won’t bother with playing it.

Why is this a difficult concept to grasp?

But what any of this sub-conversation has to do with WoW is beyond me at this point.

*shrug*

[El Gallo]

In the interest of decreasing jackassery 'round these parts, I have edited meandering, verbose crap into the following straightforward, non-verbose crap:

PROBLEM:You have a 100 players, who play from 1 through 100 hours a week. The 1 hour guy and the 100 hour guy are friends. How do you let them play together?

WRONG ANSWER TO PROBLEM: Limit all 100 people to 1 hour of advancement per week.

POSSIBLE ALBIET INCONVENIENT ANSWER TO PROBLEM: Have your friend play an alt with you when you are online sometimes, or voluntarily handicap himself in some way to play with you (by farming in a zone you can get xp in or something).

[Daeven]

I'll choose option three: make player skill more important than time played. thanks.

P.S.
We won't  get into how self-centered / assanine it would be for me to expect everyone to switch to their 'alts' just because 'married dude with a day-job' managed to find an hour to play....

[Soukyan]

I'll choose option three: make player skill more important than time played. thanks.

I can agree with this. Of course, in a lot of activities, skill has a direct correlation to time invested as well. Unfortunately, most MMOGs remove the neccesity of skill altogether.

[Alluvian]

I have a friend I golf with. I play maybe once a month. He plays a couple times a week. He is much, much better than I am because of that. I cannot really play against him meaningfully.

Worst.  Analogy.  Ever.

You must realize that.  So why even waste the time to type it?

And your oatmeal analogy was fucking awful as well.  I sometimes wish there was some king of analogy license so we could take it away from people like you while batting you with a rolled up newspaper.

Your oatmeal analogy would only be vaguely be accurate if he once said "I don't like oatmeal" after eating some really bland oatmeal and then you took it all away from him.  When the reality is that he likes strawberry oatmeal, oatmeal cookies, and oatmeal breakfast bars.  A statement like "I don't like catasses" is not something that will EVER be global, and you know that.  Some of those will be his friends, and the friend part means more to him than the catass part.  Except in a game that separates the catass from everyone else.

It is avoidable.  CoH does not do this.  SWG does not do this.  UO did not do this.  EQ is a huge culprit and all indications are that WoW is following in its tracks (in this regard).  This system will do fuckall to stop the problem, and everyone knows it.

[Daeven]

Which explains why I'm giving CoH some serious thought. I may never be 'Superman' in that game, but You damn betcha I could give 'The Moth' a run for his money.

[WayAbvPar]

Daevan, you can play with your friends all you want, if your friends either slow down or develop alts at your level to play with you.   Or you can nerf the everloving shit out of your friends and everyone else in the world who plays more than you do.

I have a friend I golf with.  I play maybe once a month.  He plays a couple times a week.  He is much, much better than I am because of that.  I cannot really play against him meaningfully.  So that leaves me with two options:

1. When I play with my friend, he takes a handicap/doesn't use his driver/gives me a few Mulligans/etc.
or
2. Pass a law that nobody in the world is allowed to play golf more than once a month so that I can play with them whenever I want.   If anyone is discovered breaking this rule, I'll smash their hands with a sledgehammer to keep me competitive.

Two never really occurred to me before.  It might be a better idea, but I would be worried about the people who only play every other month coming after me.

The golf course does not PREVENT you from playing with your friend (as many MMOGs prevent disparate levels from grouping together).

If you play with your friend, the golf course does not prevent either one of your from putting out (in the way that MMOGs prevent one of the characters of disparate levels from gaining XPs).

Should I even bother pointing out that golf HAS A BUILT IN HANDICAP SYSTEM TO ALLOW GOLFERS OF DISPARATE SKILLS TO PLAY TOGETHER?

I have to agree- worst analogy ever.