| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (28)

Posted: Feb 1st 2012 6:50PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
for the love of god please dont be a tab target combat system

Posted: Feb 1st 2012 7:40PM Celtar said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified)

Sounds like you need to be playing a FPS style game.
Reply

Posted: Feb 1st 2012 8:06PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Celtar He is just looking for something more exciting than the worst possible combat used even in big names today.
Reply

Posted: Feb 1st 2012 8:23PM oxlar said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified)

for the love of god, I hope its a tab targeting game.
Reply

Posted: Feb 1st 2012 10:09PM Celtar said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified)

Then he needs to focus on MOBA's and FPS games, not mmorpgs. Really that simple.
Reply

Posted: Feb 2nd 2012 7:54AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Celtar
I don't follow... how is tab-targeting so fundamentally linked to the MMORPG concept that you would rather recommend something completely outside of the MMORPG genre just to get away from tab-targeting?
And if all MMORPG must have tab-targeting as you purpose, then why isn't it called TTMMORPG? It would make sense to refer to a category of gaming by its defining characteristic, I think.
Reply

Posted: Feb 3rd 2012 9:06PM corpusc said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Celtar

having a massive amount of players has nothing to do with being forced into a crappy stand-still-and-throw-dice-in-each-others-faces mechanic.

you can have mass amounts of players paired with any kind of gameplay.

not just the typical NON-gameplay that all the sheep devs have been making for 15 years or so.
Reply

Posted: Feb 1st 2012 6:53PM DoctorSmart said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Games this early in development should refrain from making promises. It will always come back to haunt them when they inevitably can't deliver.

Posted: Feb 1st 2012 7:08PM Lafajet said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Each time I read news on this game I can't decide if I'm liking what I'm hearing or not. Or rather, if I'm liking what I'm hearing or liking the thought of what I'm hearing.

Posted: Feb 1st 2012 7:36PM Celtar said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I love what I keep reading from these guys, they apparently have done their home work and know what an mmorpg is supposed to be. Apparently they aren't going to be catering to a player base that should be playing a MOBA or FPS game.

If the following are tedious in a game world to you; the journey, crafting, role-play, trading, exploration and well designed IC immersion, then you are playing the wrong genre of game. If it is all about the cap(destination) then you should be playing a MOBA or FPS. Stop trying to get developers to change the mmorpg genre into a hybrid MOBA/FPS game. Play those please, those are fun too.

Posted: Feb 1st 2012 8:03PM Saker said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Celtar Agree! Well said! I like these peoples thinking as well, have high hopes for them!
Reply

Posted: Feb 1st 2012 11:17PM rhorle said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Celtar

You can be all of those things without being Tedious. Being tedious, annoying, or any other sense of the word is not a staple of RPGs. Just because developers designed that way back in the 80's and 90's does not mean it is something that make an RPG or should be around in today's games.
Reply

Posted: Feb 3rd 2012 9:18PM corpusc said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Celtar

and what will you do if they announce it will be action oriented combat?

lose all interest in the game?

thats a very real possibility, just going by the statistics. seems like most of the MMOs on the horizon are getting away from the typical RPG whack-a-mole that you apparently love.
Reply

Posted: Feb 1st 2012 7:58PM Space Cobra said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think I am in the same boat as Doctor Smart and Lafajet: I sense a nice bit of intention here, but I am not really seeing things that are all that different from what has been done in the past. I am seeing some wrinkles, but these charts sorta point to ways that may be easy to manipulate by some groups/players. That isn't a "bad thing" for a sand box, but I have to wonder what it will do for long-term affect.

I guess an analogy would be the American political Party system, their philosopies, and the reality of what happens in practice. While Republicans want more corporate freedom(s), they also do not believe too strongly in welfare and helping the little guy directly. (They love "trickle-down" and think it is a waste to help at the base/social level in theory, generally speaking). Democrats are supposed(ly) a bit more about Welfare and putting in controls/laws so that Corporations face the same laws as the little guy. Being big, corporations already have the money/force/contacts to weild, but the private citizens have no such benefits. They believe in "Trickle-up"). (And no, I don't want to get into a political discussion, this is an example that I use for this purpose to illustrate a point/analogy).

The thing is, IMHO, controls of a certain type work in the land of "humans and their interactions". You either have anarchy of a sort on one hand or too much control on the other: A balance is best and it is hard to maintain/keep that balance because whatever groups will always want to "come out ahead" for themselves; this is human nature and it is not "evil", it is just the way things are done. It's almost like the game philosophies I have talked about: If people see an easier way to do something in a game, they will do it for their benefit and that could be anything from exploiting a bug to playing certain powers a certain way to asking that they do not nerf their favorite class. The exchange of info on forums and other media act as a "political stage" of sorts. Many times, these advantages are not thought all the way out (just like in real-life) in that, if you get a strong power for a wizard class, they can wizard-players will nod and say now they can survive PvP and be in battle longer, but that may have tipped the power-balance cart in ways they had not considered for other classes, such as melee-fighters, who may now suffer because of that and have to argue for *their* powers.

I also am not too thrilled with some of their intent/charts, like the one at top talking about the Sandbox ecosystem. Too many intangibles and lop-sidedness IMHO. Everyone else gets a different benefit, but "crafters" get "Coin" and..."Coin"? Well, they get commodities, but really, if this is truly sandbox, the other sides can get or keep their commodities for whatever reasons. There is also the intangible "Espirit de Corps"... What would that be? Some sort of Guild XP or just the typical "good feelings" that cannot be measured in-game? "Food Supples"? What does that do? Is that like "potions" or a hint that the game needs your avatar to eat or it starves?

I see the same-old systems in that graph as in other sandboxes in the past that either somewhat worked, especially with low-pop, or didn't. Now, we know this game is limiting players and this may be another clue as to point out "why" they are limiting players; to control the player population and better implement "oversight/God-Mode controls over the server in small ways. But to go back to my political analogy, I am seeing a philosophy of "leave it up to the player" that could bite them hard if the player pop grows beyond a certain threshold and really, there is a distinct possibility this may happen: No one really know the "magic number" to sustain a specific amount of players per server in this type of system, particularly their version of it.

Going back to the chart, I see Crafters getting an uneven/preferred resource in Gold. If you argue that gold in this game is the weighter resource above all others, such as it is better to have gold over wood because you can't barter/trade wood but gold is accepted everywhere, already that is an imbalance and it is coming from TWO directions. Also, if you try to make these labels "equal" to an extent, like "consumables" could be equal to "commodities" and try to fit things on the other side of the triangle, the triangle still does not come out equal/even in benefits. Again, lots of it are intangible. In fact, this may indicate a severe system in that one could get a personal house, but without protection....well, the solo-player loses the house? Then you say, "Band with others" but what if a guild leaves the game and you still want to play or any number of scenarios?

When you see an equation, it can be a thing of beauty in how things balance on both sides and I am not seeing that from this triangle or even some of the ideas offered. I think this game would work best small-scale ("Tale of the Desert") but not large scale, but would many small servers done even in this way be sufficient in giving sufficiency to players or even solo players? I mean, this may be a grouped game and that could serve a niche, but it may ding the solo/casual player, so it would not be a game for them and "if they could kindly look elsewhere" is an excuse I can swallow without complaint because this may not be a game for "me". But, if it is a game for me, the info so far, which hasn't been too detailed and we do not know exactly how it will work in this game (All we have is previous examples from earlier games that can warn us). It may work, but I am seeing through a bit of the facts presented here and it's still very "iffy" to me from what I am reading.

Posted: Feb 1st 2012 8:50PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Space Cobra : I think you're misread some of those resource flows. Yes, crafters have gold gold gold flowing in - they get gold from the fighters in return for gear and consumables, and gold from the builders in return for materials and food.

But remember, the fighters get gold from the game's gold faucets (killing mobs and looting them). Builders get resources from the game's faucets too (the "common folk" in the second diagram). The activity of crafting is somewhat removed from the world, since it involves processing materials obtained from other play activities rather than the direct creation of wealth.

Additionally, it's probably way off base for either of us to think about "crafters", "fighters" and "builders". Those are three core activities but I think very few players will have the desire to only participate in one of them. Most will want to engage in all three.
Reply

Posted: Feb 1st 2012 9:46PM Space Cobra said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified)

Good description, but from there, I have to ask, where are the "golden faucets" for the other sides of the triangle?

Again, players will tend to do all three or two and some may just do one thing, in such a way, I can see some golden faucets filling themselves.

For example, you mentioned resource gathering of "gold" outside of the triangle, let's put two arrows on top to indicate that. Now, what about the other 2 items? See, in a weird sense, the player/adventurer is more self-sufficient than the other two sides of the triangle; they can choose to partake of crafted good (or housing) or not. There is no choice in most MMOs for crafters to start up immediately with crafting; they need gold input at least to buy materials and "machines" (looms/needle-thread/anvils/etc.)

Granted, I do not know a way to avoid this beyond just "giving" a crafter class to a player that they could possibly evolve into a fighter class and having some NPC quests that involve crating materials that pay in money or better materials/hammer/anvils/etc. But let's just assume crafters are "self-starting" for the sake of argument; in that they can craft from day one and sell the products of their craft. I hate to have a nebulous "golden fountain" for them, but let's just assume that.

Now, what of the builders? They are in a trickier spot than the crafters. Mind you, while you are right that most players will dabble in all these professions, what if some choose to do purely these professions? This is a bit of "fail" for the sandbox model as presented in most MMOs, although some do get by rather well, especially the crafters, but the builders have less of a customer base. Sure, they make more money at one time, but their crafting takes more time to learn and build. Once a place is overun with buildings, how can competing crafters make money? Normally, these guys would be supported by guilds, so maybe that would be the "golden fountain" for them, but that is more of a cheat because guilds/adventurers would be putting money in, so there is no outer "unconnected fountain of resource" for builders besides...other players. Granted, I am probably belaboring this and maybe a square would've been a better tool to show this. Builders are the odd ducks out. While I could suggest a "builder class" for the game and ways for such a class to become a bit sufficient, it mostly relies on people, whereas, adventurers again, are not so reliant. They can choose to consume or not (of buildings and even crafters, although there is more demand for crafter-services on a regular basis).

This may assume a player stating, "I want to be the best master builder (pokemon master) in all the server!" Maybe that's a bit silly and it doesn't quite work that way in "real life", but some players primarily dig making such things and a sandbox with PvP may or may not appeal to them, if they can "keep a stiff upper lip" if their building is destroyed...especially if it is destroyed frequently.

And, maybe to beat this philosophical horse more, where are the legs of this triangle for the "golden fountains" flowing from the bottom crafter/builders up to the players? Again, I'd have to "cheat" and say crafters give themselves this fountain that serves the players (in the sense of players finding gold and passing it along) but the builders are even more nebulous, unless, again, you are okay with adventures serving as a "golden fountain" which sorta breaks this triangle further.

So basically, adventurers "farm gold" but there is not much farming for crafters (unless they can farm/collect materials, but that would make the builders null/void in this triangle toward the builders). Builders, on the other hand are totally reliant on player's giving them start-up costs (especially guilds filling this role)...unless they can farm their materials of stone and wood (and it may be likely they can; perhaps that is their "golden fountain"?).

Apart from that, what really bothers me is the two-way interaction between adventurers and builders that has very nebulous and not-so-tangible benefits. You could say builders provide a home-base for players, but once that is built, what else can they do? "Repair" is not listed. "Espirit de Corps" is not well defined and can be meant to be totally "out of the game feeling" that doesn't benefit this interconnected economy. The other way, "Territory and Protection" assumes...what about builders? That they are actually players who are Mommy/Poppy buildings and players protect these "builder players" who can't move? I would assume adventurers would gain the biggest benefit to "Territory and Protection" given that's their property they paid for, why would Builders who's only supposed connection ended when they sold the deed to these players? (You'd think they'd be rooting for wars and dragons destroying buildings, so they could make more money by replacing those buildings, right?)

Again, I note this is all still very sketchy. Maybe Builders gain XP by the number of buildings they have up and adventurers protecting that and expanding territory would give benefit to builders (I would say expanded territory probably would require more building/profit, but I remember Pathfinder is very keen about overbuilding and avoiding it, so how would that work in the game? Limit only the building-class?)

Again, these questions may be answered in game, or not. Be nice to see either way, but sandboxes can be tricky beasts! ;)
Reply

Posted: Feb 1st 2012 9:54PM Space Cobra said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Space Cobra

For more Summary:

Again, taking a second to think/dwell on this more...

...I think I'd be better able to accept this graph if it was more circular or square, similar to your standard eco-system in real world. (Insect eats grass-> Animal eats insect-> Animal eats animal-> Animal dies and feeds the grass/ground -> Repeat)
Reply

Posted: Feb 1st 2012 9:57PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Space Cobra go outside
Reply

Posted: Feb 1st 2012 10:13PM Celtar said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Space Cobra

While good concerns SC, I think you might be over thinking it at this point. I think we need to see more from them before we get worried. Honestly anything that comes off as different from the current crop of mmorpgs and more inline with oldest online rpgs and table top gaming would be refreshing to me.

I've seen the new fangled, lived through it, got the T-shirt and various collectors edtions, now I want more of what I think was done better when software and hardware were a cruder then what can be done "now".

Reply

Posted: Feb 2nd 2012 12:13AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Space Cobra : are you just looking at the diagram reprinted on this Massively article? The second diagram on the actual post shows exactly what you are asking for - the flows between "PvE & Battlefield Combat" and the Fighters; and between "Common Folk" and the Builders.
Reply

Featured Stories

Make My MMO: December 14 - 20, 2014

Posted on Dec 20th 2014 7:00PM

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW