I am not a MMORPG player

Post by **Jonathan** » Fri Jan 23, 2004 10:19 pm

Alan wrote:
VLSmooth wrote:More randomness:
I'm seeing a distinction between easy treadmill leveling, more time than skill-based (as in a typical MMORPG), versus completely skill-based improvement, a la Unreal Tournament and Counter Strike (so-called, twitch games that some people dislike, but should satisfy the killer hunger). Does this mean FPS games are the answer for Alan and Jonathan? I don't know (rambling is fun).
</(pointless?) rant>
I do like the concept of your character getting stronger as you put time into playing him (or her, whatever). What I dislike is when the only measure of your skill at something is how much time you put into it. In other words, crafting. I mean, leveling up doesn't require a huge amount of skill, but it does require some minimum amount of knowledge and timing. As opposed to crafting, where the only thing is getting ingredients and pressing a button to make things.

There needs to be a game mechanic that compromises between these two forms of improvement.

For example, in a turn-based strategy with a lot of units, the person who is willing to devote several hours each turn to micromanaging each unit has an advantage. But, the person who has played a lot and knows the most effective unit combinations also has an advantage. Both types of effort or improvement are rewarded. I can think of no way to translate this to a MMOG or RPG.

Post by **Jonathan** » Fri Jan 23, 2004 10:23 pm

VLSmooth wrote:So... anyone for Warcraft III later then?
(hey, it's got progress, look at the ladder!)

We've been through this. WCIII is too twitchy for Alan. At this point, I forget why I haven't played it. Something about the emphasis on smaller numbers of units? Dunno.

At this point, I'm playing FFTA and waiting for D3 or HL2, whichever comes out first. I'm betting on D3 at this point.

Incidently, FFTA is more like FFXI than any other FF.

VLSmooth · Post by **VLSmooth** » Fri Jan 23, 2004 10:32 pm

Dwindlehop wrote:There needs to be a game mechanic that compromises between these two forms of improvement.

Yes

Dwindlehop wrote:For example, in a turn-based strategy with a lot of units, the person who is willing to devote several hours each turn to micromanaging each unit has an advantage. But, the person who has played a lot and knows the most effective unit combinations also has an advantage. Both types of effort or improvement are rewarded. I can think of no way to translate this to a MMOG or RPG.

I've learned to dislike turn-based games simple because you HAVE TO WAIT for the other person, which can get VERY boring and annoying.

Back to my FFXI mini-rant; skill is rewarded by faster leveling, time is rewarded by slower leveling.

Alan · Post by **Alan** » Fri Jan 23, 2004 10:37 pm

Dwindlehop wrote:
VLSmooth wrote:So... anyone for Warcraft III later then?
(hey, it's got progress, look at the ladder!)
We've been through this. WCIII is too twitchy for Alan. At this point, I forget why I haven't played it. Something about the emphasis on smaller numbers of units? Dunno.

At this point, I'm playing FFTA and waiting for D3 or HL2, whichever comes out first. I'm betting on D3 at this point.

Incidently, FFTA is more like FFXI than any other FF.

Yeah I gave up on FFTA because I can't bring myself to beat it without getting stuff like Steal:Weapon and Doublecast but getting the weapons that teach those skills will take absolutely forever.

I like games that give you either a very small number of units under your control (like Jagged Alliance) or very large numbers of units (Total War series). And I don't like real time for small numbers of units, but I do like real time for huge numbers. I guess it's just that I only like micromanagement if it's turn based. Total War doesn't require you to micromanage, just to jump in and change something every once in a while to either recover from something that goes wrong or to initiate an attack.

As far as games I'm waiting for, FF: Crystal Chronicles is one, R:TW and HL2 are the others. R:TW isn't coming out until like fall though. Which really means next spring.

Edited to fix spelling of "chronicles". Peijen is a bad influence.

Dave · Post by **Dave** » Fri Jan 23, 2004 10:58 pm

alan gives up on every game he's ever played! (ok, every other game) mad ups to vinny for beating chorono chross in 5 years. loleol

It just that the entire purpose of MMORPGs is to make the company money. and to do that they need to keep their customers happy, which means they dont want to make everything easy so everyone can be on teh same playing feild unless they dont invest time into a) playing the game and b) paying them to play the game. The farming, nm camping, and crafting are basically the same in all MMORPGs to various degrees. AC2 didnt even have NMs ><.

MMORPGs are not for the casual gamer.

I think quite a few NA players are hitting this same "roadblock" in FFXI and quittting as a result. Basically, not being able to find a "Decent" PT.

VLSmooth · Post by **VLSmooth** » Fri Jan 23, 2004 11:03 pm

Dwindlehop wrote:We've been through this. WCIII is too twitchy for Alan. At this point, I forget why I haven't played it. Something about the emphasis on smaller numbers of units? Dunno.

I find it strange that the number of units is an issue. Granted, Warcraft III has less units then say Starcraft or Total Annihilation (ugh), but the number of groups you control is essentially the same (heck, more with wc3 imho). I can't think of a game with 100s of units you don't control via abstraction.

Therefore, in a sense, the number of units is meaningless. The number of groups you control is key. Incidentally, I think the 7 +/- 2 philosophy has recently been put under scrutiny (the belief human beings focus best with only 7 +/- 2 simultaneous objects).

On the other hand, if you're talking about number of unique units and diversity, Warcraft III has PLENTY

VLSmooth · Post by **VLSmooth** » Fri Jan 23, 2004 11:05 pm

Dave wrote:mad ups to vinny for beating chorono chross in 5 years. loleol

How did 2 (at most 3) turn into 5? o.o

Dave · Post by **Dave** » Fri Jan 23, 2004 11:09 pm

I still have no proof of your accomlishment! so the clock is still running!

VLSmooth · Post by **VLSmooth** » Fri Jan 23, 2004 11:14 pm

Dave wrote:I still have no proof of your accomlishment! so the clock is still running!

"dik si alahcs", good enough for you?

(damn you and your original "ief si di"! >_<)

Post by **Jonathan** » Fri Jan 23, 2004 11:28 pm

VLSmooth wrote:I've learned to dislike turn-based games simple because you HAVE TO WAIT for the other person, which can get VERY boring and annoying.

Not Stars!. This is why we still play it, in spite of its age, warts, and limitations.

For a slightly more modern feel, try Combat Mission. It's fully 3D WWII turn-based strategy. You have an order phase and then an action phase. All actions are executed simultaneously. You lose a little bit of control compared to say, WCIII, because you can't give orders during the action phase, but it seems a reasonable compromise. The main reason I haven't played more CM is because play is limited to 1P or 2P. And no one I know plays it.

Does anyone remember simultaneous mode on Scorched Earth? It was only available on later versions of Scorched Earth, probably circa '94 or so. I think the basic idea was that each player was assigned a set of keys, kinda like Gladiator, and then the shots were resolved simultaneously. It wasn't particularly popular in my Scorched Earth circles, because the keys were all different and we could never remember which ones they were.

Post by **Jonathan** » Fri Jan 23, 2004 11:33 pm

And, finally, FreeCiv has some kinda weird pseudo-realtime mode which is not really real time, but all units are moved simultaneously. I find it difficult to grasp, much less explain.

Basically, what I remember is the turns are timed, and Neal would be scanning all his little cities looking for somebody sneaking up a unit next to them. Then Neal would get his unit and try to engage. They'd do a little dance, depending on whether they both wanted to engage, and then the fight. Kinda like simultaneous Heroes would be, if they had that.

Post by **Jonathan** » Fri Jan 23, 2004 11:40 pm

Dave wrote:alan gives up on every game he's ever played! (ok, every other game) mad ups to vinny for beating chorono chross in 5 years. loleol

It just that the entire purpose of MMORPGs is to make the company money. and to do that they need to keep their customers happy, which means they dont want to make everything easy so everyone can be on teh same playing feild unless they dont invest time into a) playing the game and b) paying them to play the game. The farming, nm camping, and crafting are basically the same in all MMORPGs to various degrees. AC2 didnt even have NMs ><.

MMORPGs are not for the casual gamer.

I think quite a few NA players are hitting this same "roadblock" in FFXI and quittting as a result. Basically, not being able to find a "Decent" PT.

Ha! Dave's post gives me a great idea. Instead of paying per month, pay per mission. Or per equipment. Or per experience point. I haven't decided. Someone should start a company based on this idea and give me lots of stock.

Alan · Post by **Alan** » Sat Jan 24, 2004 1:32 am

Response to Dave's point:

Yeah I know how MMORPGs work. Doesn't mean I have to like every single element of MMORPGs to enjoy playing them. And I do, generally.

Response to Vinny's post:

I outlined what I think in the Rome: Total War thread. Basically I don't like how combat in RTS's is so unstructured. Your units run around in a mash and swarm over the other units. Individual battles last on the order of seconds. What I like about TW is that enemies can't break your lines unless it's a cavalry charge through a unit that you've spread too thin. Or something to that effect. Everything has structure, and you can look at the pattern of what your army looks like compared to what your enemy's army looks like to know who's winning. In RTS I feel like I can prepare my army before the fight, but once the fight starts I have no idea which units are in trouble, where a weakpoint in the enemy's army is, etc. Most of all I feel like none of that really matters.

Oh, and I hate zerg tactics. And related to that, I hate being pressured to build shit as fast as possible. That's the biggest thing I hate about RTS's. It's like, there's formulas for building that maximize your chances of success, and you have to build build build to win. I don't want to think about building when I'm fighting. And vice versa. I don't like the idea of sending your army against a bunch of enemies, switching over to your home base and click click to build more shit and then switch back over to make sure your army won.

Alan · Post by **Alan** » Sat Jan 24, 2004 1:38 am

Oh, and I can respond about the 7+2 objects thing too.

The digit span of human working memory is 7 digits, basically. Through memory devices people can remember many many many more. But 7 objects isn't the absolute limit of how many objects people can remember, even without memory devices. Chunking allows people to remember many more objects than 7. Basically, instead of remembering individual units, you remember the relationships between some number of units, which allows you to remember a lot more. Chess experts (masters, whatever) use chunking in order to memorize hundreds (or thousands) of chess games, and this ability also lets them see the board much more quickly. Well not "see" so much as "understand" I guess.

Post by **Jonathan** » Sat Jan 24, 2004 1:44 am

So would an example of this chunking be remember area codes as "Atlanta area code" instead of "404"?

VLSmooth · Post by **VLSmooth** » Sat Jan 24, 2004 2:12 am

Dwindlehop wrote:I think the basic idea was that each player was assigned a set of keys, kinda like Gladiator

GLADIATOR!
(Sadly enough, the cause of my first all-nighter at CMU...)

Post by **Jonathan** » Sat Jan 24, 2004 2:33 am

Really?

You know, for being a homebrew shareware game, Gladiator had some excellent level design.

VLSmooth · Post by **VLSmooth** » Sat Jan 24, 2004 2:57 am

Er, um... you, Joe and I played Gladiator until we beat it when we got to CMU, or is my memory hazy?

Alan · Post by **Alan** » Sat Jan 24, 2004 4:09 am

Yeah I remember you people and Neal I think playing Gladiator. I played it a little too but sucked at it.

Yeah I guess remembering area codes would be chunking. You don't remember 4-0-4, you remember 404. Association is different from chunking I think. But in general, memory isn't all that well understood, as opposed to something like vision, where they have a good idea what parts of the brain do what.

quantus · Post by **quantus** » Sat Jan 24, 2004 4:13 am

I don't think we actually beat it so much as gave up for some reason I can't recall. Also, the inherent limit of the computer keyboard to only recognize about 2 or 3 keys at a time serious fucked with us when all three or maybe even 2 of us resorted to button mashing (which is very easy to do when you get bleary eyed).