Raids and the games before them...

[Telemediocrity]

Dungeon trains, I think, are one of the best community-building tools around.  They take on a "So, how about that local sports team?" kind of quality, something for everyone to gnash about next to the watercooler bindstone.  A few games I've played recently have tried to remove them, in an attempt to make everyone feel like others aren't infringing on their play experience, but I think that's shortsighted.  A game doesn't work as well if the players don't have any points of common reference to bitch about together.

[Rasix]

 

[Telemediocrity]

Roll your eyes if you must, but I think we all remember things like Fansy from back in the day.  Hell, I remember, even though I never reallyplayed EQ. I'd rather have a game that gives me strong memories, even if some of them were frustrating ones, than one like Space Cowboy - which despite its pretty interesting combat system  has not yet given me a single real "take-away" memory from my time playing.  I attribute a lot of that to the fact that nobody can do anything to the monsters that affects anyone else, except for ten of you taking down an ubermob together; most of the time, it's like we're all playing a single player game in parallel, and just watching each other play as we go.

[Rasix]

Roll your eyes if you must, but I think we all remember things like Fansy from back in the day.  Hell, I remember, even though I never reallyplayed EQ.

And there is where just about all of your arguments fall apart.  That and the fact that you lack basic empathy.

You know what, most of us that played EQ hated trains.  Most of us hated being the brunt end of griefing fucktards.  Most of us hate goddamned scammers.  People didn't like losing hours of playtime to some fucking jerk that thinks the game is his own personal playground of misery (hey, ringing any bells?). 

Sure they're funny to read and some of the stuff that they pull off is incredibly complex and does take a modicum of creativity.  However, that doesn't excuse the fact that people on the receiving end hated every second of it.  You may think that someone needs to be griefed or is better for it (we've heard it, so fucking spare us), but that doesn't make it so.

Nostalgia is fine and dandy, but it often falls flat upon revisting.   Everyone that remembers Karnor's castle would probably rather eat glass than exp in a zone line group there.   

Not everything that we take away from these games has to be misery. And for those of us that aren't fundamentally broken as human beings, we're managing quite fine.

[Telemediocrity]

I sympathize somewhat with your line of reasoning - and I'm not saying that the game has to provide a lot of those kinds of moments.

Hell, one might argue that it's best off if the game has those features at the start, but then the devs remove them under pressure - so people don't have to deal with them anymore, but they still have the memories.

But also, a lot of what you're describing in EQ was painful for other reasons that are outside the scope of what we're talking about - the awful death penalty, for instance.  AC still has trains to this very day, but the death penalty is much lighter, so it doesn't feel as bad when you die - it's just "LOL train" and then get on with things.

Trains can still be a communal event even if they lack EQ's nasty sting of death.

[Morfiend]

I have to agree with Telemediocrstrider on this one. Maybe not on the EQ trains, since I also wasnt there, I wont tell you that you liked it. But I do agree that when people can effect others, you can have much more exciting and memorable experiances. To this day UO still is the shining star in my memory of online gaming. The fact that some one could kill me and loot me, it made it more exciting. Yes, I spent time as a PK and a griefer (never super nasty), and I didnt like to be greifed, but for me it made the world more exciting and more alive.

[Rithrin]

You know what, most of us that played EQ hated trains.

Nostalgia is fine and dandy, but it often falls flat upon revisting.   Everyone that remembers Karnor's castle would probably rather eat glass than exp in a zone line group there.   

Not everything that we take away from these games has to be misery. And for those of us that aren't fundamentally broken as human beings, we're managing quite fine.

The funny thing is, I played, and I never took my train experience away as misery. I can't tell you how many times I'd make my way down some relatively easy hallways in a dungeon, to see a horde of undead or something running down the hallway chasing someone and thinking, "Holy crap! What am I getting myself into?" That only helps set scene/mood for where you are. And of course the social aspects already mentioned.

[Rasix]

See, my first thought was "fucking moron", followed by a quick FD. Then me having to drag some dumbass's corpse back to the zone line.  Then having to wait for my group to get rez'd because they all bit it.  Then listening to my group and the moron spit back and forth over OOC. 

You're acting like a train was a magical, beautiful moment to be experienced and savored for it's majesty (I had a bunch of obscene analogies I was going to insert here, use your imagination).  For me it was just a constant, annoying occurence and made me cry in joy when MMOs starting instancing dungeons.

However, small scale social aspects are about the only ones I tollerate.  I'm quite affable on a group or guild scale, beyond that I just get stabby. 

[Telemediocrity]

The problem is that you were playing a game with rezzing and complicated corpse recovery, so those duties were shunted onto you - the problem was not the train itself.

The joy in the moment is sort of like Johnny Depp in Pirates 2 being chased by all the islanders; you're going one way, and you see a huge Wall Of Many Bad Things That Will Eat You coming at you, and all of a sudden it's "go the other way and quickly!".  It's very Benny Hill.  You can almost imagine Yakkety Sax playing in the background.

That may not be the best explanation for why it's fun, but it's off the top of my head.

[Venkman]

No. The problem was the trains itself. But not just the trains, because those were a symptom of the bigger issue.

EQ wasn't about socializing any more than WoW. Socializing is what happened as emergent behavior after the fact, or because just enough interaction is required to get people together. Remember, a lot of people were expected to play these games with a core group of folks they already knew (ala D&D). They needed ways to talk, but it literally took years for things like LFG tools to come along. And those came along when devs woke up and realized just how many people were falling into these games by buying a random box-o-MMO at retail instead of Diablo.

Diku-inspired games are about acquisition (XP, gear, whatever). EQ was all public space though. So now a bunch of people broken down into sub-social-groups were in the way of other people vying for the same content. That doesn't build community. It builds Lord of the Flies.

Instantiating content, loot-rolling systems, scheduled events and raidIDs and all that shit was built because RPG-based item acquisition by itself is not great fun for thousands of people when there's only a few dozen things to get. It sets up competition in a system not designed for it, one of the basic problems people (rightly) had with Trammel as well. There was little one could do against an asshat except ostracize them. And that only works for as long as the local community gives a shit, or even remembers.

If you want a PvE-centric item-based game, you need these tools. You can't expect people to wake up one day and be all happy-go-lucky about their progress upward being thwarted by the mistakes of people they don't even know. This genre just keeps growing, more people keep coming in, by the millions, and this awakening hasn't happened.

And I can't even recommend those people who weren't there go back and play EQ1. Why? Because even EQ1 has changed so much, to fix these problems.

There may be a game or three someone can point to as an exception. I invite them to do so here, because I think we'll find that each game has a specific reality to it that makes it very different from trains to zone. For example, if someone were to say Eve, they can't ignore that the vast majority of stuff used in Eve is built by other players. Lose it and replace it. It's not uber, but just like pre-Trammel UO, it gets the job done and is cheaper/easier to replace if you know the right people and/or are part of the right group. And, of course, you can't ignore just how few people actively play Eve in comparison to anything that smacks of EQ.

[edlavallee]

A little on both sides here, which qualifies me for just about every job in Washington.

I think you (the plural you) are creating a false dichotomy between "memorable moments" and "annoying moments". Memorable times come from intense emotional experiences, both good and bad -- so annoying experiences qualify just as much as magical, beautiful moments. Some people tend to gloss over these unpleasant experiences with the thin veneer of nostalgia.

The danger quotient is one that I remember with both good and bad feelings. It made me feel great when I escaped mortal danger with a huge penalty, yet made me curse the fucking game when I failed. Both memorable in their own rights. But, it had that golf-like feeling... you know, that one straight long drive is enough to get you to come out the next time, no matter how horrible you hit all other 100 strokes.

[jpark]

Another way of looking at trains is a mechanic to see player actions materially affecting the world (zone) for other players.

I support trains - it brought danger - and it built a sense of community.  You can't have one without the other.  WoW has no real danger compared to EQ - and no real community as a result (it has other strengths but this is its major Achilles heal).

If you're not a fan of trains - let's restate this in broader terms - should the actions of other players affect the world in a way that affects your game play? (of course there are degrees of this)

WoW has a great mechanic here - but not widely used - where players can initiate or choose to participate in ongoing events and disputes (e.g. the Centaur battles on orc outposts in the Barrens).  However, whlie these events take place - players have a choice about whether they are caught up in it.

[Kail]

If you're not a fan of trains - let's restate this in broader terms - should the actions of other players affect the world in a way that affects your game play? (of course there are degrees of this)

I'd say that the answer to that can be either yes or no (hey, edlavallee, can I be vice president?).

If no, you don't want people to screw up your game, then play something like WoW, where they can't.  I don't know if this has a detrimental effect on the community (there are a million reasons why WoW could have a relatively weak community), but even if it does, that's a price a lot of people are (obviously) willing to pay.

If yes, you do want other players to impact your game, then make it an open PvP system like EVE or something.  If someone is being a dick to me, I can shoot them.  Simple, relatively fair, relatively straightforward.

Putting in stuff like trains seems like the worst of both worlds.  You've got jackasses screwing up your game, but you can't do anything about it (unless you want to be a jackass yourself).  Someone trains a bunch of mobs on me, what can I do?  I can't attack him, I'd have to try and use some cheap ass loophole myself (like trying to train mobs back at him).  Game systems like that tend to weed out the meek people who don't fight back, and they reward the vengeful "VICTORY AT ALL COSTS" hardcore types who exploit the systems as far as they can.  That's a community I don't want to be a part of.

[stray]

I like danger, but I don't see why "danger" should be so one sided. Competition between equal parties should be "dangerous" and exhilarating enough. Why does "danger" have to be getting 10 mobs trained on you? Or why does "danger" have to be an enemy player character 50 levels higher than you? Or worse, an enemy player character 50 levels higher than you who's also looking to train 10 mobs on to you?

Why can't it be dangerous enough with one equal level player popping on the minimap, ready to attack you? I could fear any one given player in, say, Battlefield or Counterstrike, and find it "dangerous" if they spot me.

If a game can't accomplish that level of "danger", then it's a worthless piece of shit.

[Koyasha]

the vengeful "VICTORY AT ALL COSTS" hardcore types who exploit the systems as far as they can.

Ah, I am oh so very big on vengeance.  Nothing more fun than sicking an angry dragon upon those who have wronged you, even if you have to die yourself to accomplish it.  Gorenaire.

I do so miss the Kunark Age, at times.

[Rithrin]

Why can't it be dangerous enough with one equal level player popping on the minimap, ready to attack you? I could fear any one given player in, say, Battlefield or Counterstrike, and find it "dangerous" if they spot me.

If a game can't accomplish that level of "danger", then it's a worthless piece of shit.

Because very few people want open PvP like that. Which is why "danger" gets implemented in other ways. The only game that accomplished that for me was Shadowbane, but it also had glaring class imbalances so that's where a lot of the danger was coming from. But its the same deal... "Hmm, never seen this guy here before, better pull out my sword and hope for the best"

[stray]

Why can't it be dangerous enough with one equal level player popping on the minimap, ready to attack you? I could fear any one given player in, say, Battlefield or Counterstrike, and find it "dangerous" if they spot me.

If a game can't accomplish that level of "danger", then it's a worthless piece of shit.

Because very few people want open PvP like that.

Sure, very few people want a game like that, but I'm just speaking to some of the people here...Who seem to want "danger" enhanced in far more severe and extreme ways than just the threat of equally powered matchups and opponents.

Either way though, the truth is, nobody who wants trains actually wants "danger". They just want others to have that feeling of danger. Which is a completely different thing. If they themselves wanted danger, then they wouldn't be the ones advocating for mob trains to begin with. "Danger" would be letting other players gear and xp in these dungeons you like to train them in, and then facing them in a fair fight afterwards. Wanting mob trains, otoh, just shows that they want the most pussified, imbalanced gameplay possible.

[edit] Umm...A few edits.

[edlavallee]

Part of me thinks that trains are just bad game mechanics and ripe for exploitation be the dickheads out there. However, dicks will be dicks whether they can train you or not.

The other part of me thinks that if I were a mob and I was chasing someone out of my house/castle and I could not catch up to them, it would make me very angry. And, if I were sauntering on my way back to my lovely home and noticed some intruders whacking on my servants, I would certainly head on over there to expel the interlopers (I am fondly remembering Mistmoore here). Wandering placidly back to my spawn point is not all that realistic. Too bad the dickheads feel the need to use this game mechanic to rain grief on my parade.


edit: oh crap, I said realistic, I better do some damage control. Is it more PC to say immersive? How about that then...

[damijin]

The argument about trains isn't really the issue. Trains were the result of poorly coded AI manipulation. But what the trains did for the emotions of those involved are what is important. I would not want to play an MMO that I could not become emotionally involved in. I do not play them "just for fun", either. I have plenty of other games that fill that void in my life. Trains, while "bad" in and of themselves in EQ1, represent a focal point on which emotional situations were formed. Everyone who was trained had the same feeling of frustration, the trainee had a feeling of glee, and those who avoided it had feelings of superiority and tact.

I would not advocate trains to be reimplemented in any modern game, but I feel that a system that causes these emotional situations are important for an MMO to really be a "second life", separate from your real one. Whether it be PvP or NPC danger, it is important that players have both the ability to impact each other negatively as well as positively. Without one, the other seems significantly less important. Sure, this will not be for everyone who takes part in this genre; many people play WoW as "just a game", and perhaps that is the reason behind it's success. However, for those of us who look to MMOs as a separate world for a separate life, it is not possible to be fulfilled without experiencing both bad and good, and having those experiences be the direct result of the society that these games, and these games alone, have the ability to create.

If you're only there to play with your friends... why be "massive?"

[Koyasha]

While 'equally powered matchups' may be great for certain games, they just don't really make sense in the world of an MMOG.  If I'm wandering with four friends and we come across two enemies, that's not an equally powered matchup, but it is the situation that came about without being artificially set up or contrived.  If I'm wandering alone and run into ten enemies, same thing.  As Damijin said, it's two different mindsets and types of players, those who want the game to not feel like a contrived pre-arranged thing, and those who want 'just a game' and thus want every situation to be 'fair' to them.  As is often said, life isn't fair, so for MMOG's that are attempting to imitate a life for your character, fairness is irrelevant.  MMOG's that don't mind being contrived and are just a game must pay close attention to fairness, because games should be fair.  Equally powerd matchups just seem silly, as this comic illustrates quite clearly.  http://play-closeup.blogspot.com/2005/10/one-shots-3.html

I don't think trains are either poorly coded or bad game mechanics.  In fact, like Edlavallee says, they make sense.  They aren't coded in a complex and safety-net manner like say, WoW mob chasing is, but EQ's train and agro system is just fine the way it is and it's exactly what one would expect monsters to do.  In some ways, I also distinctly agree with the 'chases you forever until you zone' mechanic, too.  Or at least, large areas of influence, much larger than WoW's chase range.  If you want to escape, you have to basically, 'get out of the mob's territory'.  Same idea as in WoW, but the 'territory' is ridiculously small there.  And on the way back to their spawn point, if a mob spots something they want to attack, they shouldn't ignore it and shuffle on back to their spot.