|
Doh004 posted:What the gently caress? He does have a point about adaptative content (to gear and number of players in the group). It's 2013 already, past time for online games to have that.
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 02:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 05:43 |
|
|
It's been tried in a couple of games with how public quests scale - Rift and WAR both tried it. It doesn't work well, because you have to scale the quality of the reward as well or else you generate a route to effectively bypass content. Like it or not, people that choose to raid and run group content usually do it for the gear, not for the amazing social interaction or the engrossing lore. If you put a method in game to bypass or gimp content but still get the same quality gear as you'd get from doing that content normally, people will do it. And then bitch because there's no reason for them to do the harder version. The other problem with dynamically scaling content is that the lower the number of people, the easier the encounter typically has to be. You have less people to fill various roles, you have less firepower/healing available, etc. You could certainly make some things that scale, but there's a lot of stuff the concept simply doesn't work for worth a drat without gimping the fight. That was pretty clearly demonstrated with 25 vs. 10 man raids in WoW. When 10 man raids were first introduced, and really all the way through Wrath, the 10 man versions were largely a joke compared to the 25 man. It wasn't until guilds started specifically for 10 man raiding became A Thing that the difficulty appeared to reach parity, and even then that was just perceived - the 25 man raid guilds still wiped the floor with the 10 man versions, frequently even before they were using the gear from the 25 man versions, simply because the 10 man versions had to be designed to be less challenging to compensate for the lack of firepower/healing/bodies for roles. It was really just the guilds formed explicitly for 10 man raiding having any trouble with them, in large part because they were usually formed from the players that didn't have the drive/time/whatever to do 25 man raiding. That's why companies don't do it. It's a nightmarish morass from a programmatic standpoint alone, and that's not even going into the issues with balance, player retention, and effort vs. reward.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 04:10
|
|
|
Flarestar posted:It's been tried in a couple of games with how public quests scale - Rift and WAR both tried it. Was not advocating solo to several dozens of players in public quests level of adaptation. 3 to 5 men would be awesome already. Gear could look the same with better stats depending on the group size. Give it enough resources (say, instead of allocating them to the raid creation) and I really can't see why you couldn't come up with something that works.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 05:09
|
|
|
Flarestar posted:The other problem with dynamically scaling content is that the lower the number of people, the easier the encounter typically has to be. You have less people to fill various roles, you have less firepower/healing available, etc. You could certainly make some things that scale, but there's a lot of stuff the concept simply doesn't work for worth a drat without gimping the fight. That was pretty clearly demonstrated with 25 vs. 10 man raids in WoW. When 10 man raids were first introduced, and really all the way through Wrath, the 10 man versions were largely a joke compared to the 25 man. It wasn't until guilds started specifically for 10 man raiding became A Thing that the difficulty appeared to reach parity, and even then that was just perceived - the 25 man raid guilds still wiped the floor with the 10 man versions, frequently even before they were using the gear from the 25 man versions, simply because the 10 man versions had to be designed to be less challenging to compensate for the lack of firepower/healing/bodies for roles. It was really just the guilds formed explicitly for 10 man raiding having any trouble with them, in large part because they were usually formed from the players that didn't have the drive/time/whatever to do 25 man raiding. This is just patently false. The reason 10 mans were easier in WOTLK was because Blizzard DESIGNED them to be far easier. It was their last attempt to try and keep 25 man raiders feeling superior while still rewarding the other 90% of the player base with 'actual' content. Turns out even with inferior rewards 10 man raiding was still way more popular than 25 man raiding. So in Cataclysm Blizzard finally decided to let small group raiding be completely viable and balance them appropriately. This notion that because there are fewer people its always going to be easier is idiotic. A raid can be as difficult or easy as the designers want it to be, despite the number of people. Using your logic 40 man raids are brain dead easy compared to current 10 mans because all you needed back in Molten Core was 40 people who could stay awake at their keyboard for 6 hours. The only difficult thing in current WoW 25 man raids vs. 10 mans is maintaining the roster. Since between people dumping your guild to move to a more progressed one and people just saying gently caress it to the cat herding and forming a 10 man with their bros it can be hard to maintain a large enough active base/bench. I know your a hardcore raider and are excited in your pants that Wildstar is going to let you lord over the filthy casuals with your celestial armor and steed again, but lets try to stay in reality when discussing the raider vs. non-raider thing.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 14:03
|
|
|
Flarestar posted:It's been tried in a couple of games with how public quests scale - Rift and WAR both tried it. It doesn't work well So 40 man raids are actually awesome despite all of what we have seen of them so far being boring and terrible, this is just because nobody has yet managed to get them right (much like communism). Also sub-40 man raids are inherently terrible and bad and impossible to make fun and/or challenging, despite people seemingly preferring the smaller raid sizes. More people equals more skill, very simple. Less people you have doing something, simpler it has to be and that's why all single player games are completely trivial compared to the challenge of skill and wit that was Molten Core. quote:Like it or not, people that choose to raid and run group content usually do it for the gear, not for the amazing social interaction or the engrossing lore.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 14:05
|
|
|
Adding to what Rylek said (Which is 100% true), 10 mans now days are more difficult than 25 mans even though both of them are designed to be around the same difficulty. It has to do with the individual weight the player has to pull and human error. Someone is bound to make a mistake during a run and its far more punishing in a 10 man than in a 25 man.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 15:01
|
|
|
This is a subjective discussion.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 15:07
|
|
|
I dunno, my opinion is clearly better because it's what I want.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 15:12
|
|
|
Rylek posted:I know your a hardcore raider and are excited in your pants that Wildstar is going to let you lord over the filthy casuals with your celestial armor and steed again, but lets try to stay in reality when discussing the raider vs. non-raider thing. This right here is why any reasonable discussion of this issue will never happen. I have no problem with non-raiders. I absolutely want plenty of content for them, and I want them to have content that's challenging and engaging so they'll actually stick around. Yet you, and the other diehard anti-anything-large fanboys in this thread, are persistently characterizing anyone who doesn't agree with your viewpoint as elitist pricks that just want to feel superior to everyone else, despite what I've written not supporting that. I couldn't care less what gear you're wearing, unless it's impeding your ability to actually do the job you're in the group for. I don't feel superior to anyone for having done 40+ man raiding successfully, because MMOs have not had competitive raiding worth speaking of since EQ. The only level on which guilds actually compete is for members, and the issue with people using guilds as springboards is a player problem that will be inherent in any game, not a design issue. There is a subset of players that will always want the bigger better thing, and unless you are perceived as top dog they are always going to leave you sooner or later. It happens in PVP-centric games, it happens in PVE-centric games, it happens in almost entirely social games even based on who's viewed as the cool kids. In some aspects games reflect real life, and this is one of them. You can't design around that. You don't like 40 man raiding, and that's fine. You don't like 25 man raiding, and that's fine. Don't do it. You're effectively kicking up a shitstorm over theoreticals, and exemplifying precisely the behavior that caused many of the raiding crowd to have a problem with the more casual crowd to start with. Edit - to clarify what I meant by that behavior: You seem to have this idea that raiders want for companies to do absolutely nothing but design raid content and gently caress everyone else. That's not how it works. Raiders want them to spend time on it, yes, and keep content coming at a steady pace. But in all of the time I've played I don't know a single raider that genuinely wanted them to ignore or only vaguely touch aspects not related to raiding. The reason for this is because raiders still do all that other poo poo too, and most of us are fully aware that if the rest of the game outside of raiding doesn't get new content developed we get bored doing the same raids over and over, and then people burn out, and then they quit. In essence, we want broader depth of game features. And as long as they can balance that, there's not a problem. Flarestar fucked around with this message at 15:28 on May 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 15:21
|
|
|
Puistokemisti posted:So 40 man raids are actually awesome despite all of what we have seen of them so far being boring and terrible, this is just because nobody has yet managed to get them right (much like communism). On the former, yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. As I've said several times before in this thread, the problem with 40 man raiding was a lack of imagination for most of vanilla, not anything inherent to the raid size. There was a distinct tendency for the developers to treat the raid group as a single entity - or more specifically, as three specific entities, based on their roles. Healing, tank, and dps. Until late in vanilla WoW Blizzard never branched off into treating the raid force as a group of individual players. Once they did, starting with some of the fights and AQ40 and carrying through to most of the fights in vanilla Naxx, raids were much more interesting and engaging. And even those weren't particularly imaginative in how they were handled. i.e., 40 man raiding largely sucked because Blizzard didn't design encounters to provide meaningful roles for 40 players. That's a design failure, not a conceptual failure, and design failures can be addressed. On the latter, no. I haven't said that in the slightest. I've said that scaled down versions of raids and encounters are typically (and yes, there have been some exceptions) substantially easier than the normal size version. They're still fun, and they can still be challenging. Content designed specifically around a smaller raid size in the first place can actually be much more challenging than the larger raid size, particularly if, as I pointed out above, the larger sized encounter wasn't designed to actually take advantage of the number of players present. I wasn't even particularly arguing against the idea of automatic encounter scaling, I was just pointing out why companies don't do it. As far as the seemingly preferring thing, again, you're trying to conflate number of players capable of forming the small raid sizes with preference for those sizes of raids. While there is some correlation between those two factors, there's a shitload of other factors that go into whether or not a guild can viably field a raid force of a given size consistently. Server population, playtime availability, actually having someone willing to lead, etc. The smaller you make the size, the easier that stuff is to manage.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 15:43
|
|
|
They really need to have more machinery and science fiction stuff in their screenshots instead of just screens of their warrior during TBC.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 16:40
|
|
|
Flarestar posted:I have no problem with non-raiders. I absolutely want plenty of content for them, and I want them to have content that's challenging and engaging so they'll actually stick around. As long as that content doesn't provide equal rewards to yours of course?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 17:07
|
|
|
Flarestar posted:The smaller you make the size, the easier that stuff is to manage. Exactly. I want them to be developing content that is specifically "easy to manage". I don't want to have to go to a guild website and look at our dkp charts. I don't want to have to sign up for raids two weeks in advance and then hope I don't get replaced by a more active player. I don't want to have to worry that my guild is going to implode because the people who want to raid are forced to join guilds that are specifically doing that. The cries of "well that's fine, we can have raiding AND that" are fine, I just don't buy it. The entire idea of having raiders be something "to aspire to" turns me off intensely from this game, and regardless of whether you think this is a universal thing, market trends should illustrate that a good deal of customers agree with me. Competitive raiding destroys guilds, encourages a ridiculous playstyle (min-maxing) that's not at all condusive to the MMO format, and ultimately leads to a much more toxic social environment. I want to be able to get "the best" gear without having to team up with a legion of neckbeards. I like being competitive in games, and most games have realized it's a good idea to encourage that. I realize that MMO's have a persistent aspect to them, but the highest tiers of gear should not be restricted to people who choose to partake in an activity that most of the civilized gaming community has abandoned and with good reason. I don't want to have to choose between experiencing content and playing with my friends, and that's what competitive raiding does.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 17:15
|
|
|
Flarestar posted:I couldn't care less what gear you're wearing, unless it's impeding your ability to actually do the job you're in the group for. See this is elitist in itself. I lead one of the big GW2 guilds, Starfleet Dental, and this kind of attitude would find yourself quickly being shown the door. Who the gently caress cares if you can do your "job" or not? It's a game. Literally the only goal that should matter is having fun in any way you want. If you're not doing as much damage as someone else because your gear is worse, but you are still having fun, who the gently caress cares. If you take 25% more damage as a tank because you have a lovely non-epic turd shield of weakness, but you are literally running the dungeon with a huge smile on your face, then nothing else matters. Casuals don't just want to be thrown a bone because hey, raiders want the same "casual" content too! That kind of smug arrogance is why the hatred of raiders has come about.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 17:19
|
|
|
CLAM DOWN posted:See this is elitist in itself. I lead one of the big GW2 guilds, Starfleet Dental, and this kind of attitude would find yourself quickly being shown the door. Who the gently caress cares if you can do your "job" or not? It's a game. Literally the only goal that should matter is having fun in any way you want. If you're not doing as much damage as someone else because your gear is worse, but you are still having fun, who the gently caress cares. If you take 25% more damage as a tank because you have a lovely non-epic turd shield of weakness, but you are literally running the dungeon with a huge smile on your face, then nothing else matters. I'm not a raider, but don't you need to know how to play your class/role if you're doing any sort of group content? The alternative is repeated wipes and frustration all around 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 17:31
|
|
|
It's not frustrating if you're having fun. Some people just like to goof off with one another.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 17:35
|
|
|
Tezzeract posted:I'm not a raider, but don't you need to know how to play your class/role if you're doing any sort of group content? The alternative is repeated wipes and frustration all around I think Clam Down is referring to situations where bosses are dying but somebody could be considered not 'pulling their weight' on the meters or whatever. If bosses are dying and people are having a good time then how they are playing shouldn't be as important. Also, A Lovely Poster I want you to make a MMO so I can buy and play it! 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 17:39
|
|
|
Tyberius posted:It's not frustrating if you're having fun. Some people just like to goof off with one another. This depends on the group then. I enjoy being in patient groups of friendly strangers that like to tackle on challenging content. Getting pick-up groups for Heroic Missions in SWTOR was some of the most fun I've had in MMOs (the second being open-world Invasions in Rift.) Some people just want to rush through the content as quickly as possible and just get geared up and it's kind of lovely getting grouped with these folks when you're in the learning content phase of playing the game. VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV Sounds fun 
Tezzeract fucked around with this message at 17:47 on May 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 17:40
|
|
|
Tezzeract posted:I'm not a raider, but don't you need to know how to play your class/role if you're doing any sort of group content? The alternative is repeated wipes and frustration all around Tyberius posted:It's not frustrating if you're having fun. Some people just like to goof off with one another. Yeah that's what I mean. Who cares if you are terrible at your class if you're having fun. That kind of thing pisses of the hardcore and the raiders, which is why that attitude is so intolerable. When someone has crappy gear or isn't very good at the game they get annoyed or impatient or smug about it. My view is who the hell cares. I play videogames solely to have fun slaying space dragons and orcs with friends and to look cool doing it. I care about nothing else, and will definitely be playing with like-minded people.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 17:44
|
|
|
I have to agree. Even as a competitive player who loves a good challenge, I'd much rather see all content tuned low enough that anyone can do it. If you really need to support competitive play, I think leaderboards, titles, achievements, etc are more than enough. There's no reason to have a higher tier of gear for "better" players, being a "better" player should be a reward in of itself. I want to be able to group up with my nerdier friends and do a dungeon to get the speed achievement or what not and at the same time, be able to do the same dungeon with my fiance who's only been playing MMOs for a few months. Even though I wasn't a long time subscriber(Trion has got the most $$ of mine out of MMO producers in the past 4 years), I like the way that Rift has moved the theme-park mmo genre. I love being able to log in and queue for instant adventure, dungeons, pvp, and not drop a beat. Want to play with my friends? Mentor down, the rewards are still great. I want to see Wildstar embrace the "theme-park" concept of MMOs and make content as accessible as possible while still allowing for more skilled players to differentiate themselves without relying on creating a tier of gear that nobody else can have. If anything, the more skilled players should have WORSE gear.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 17:54
|
|
|
CLAM DOWN posted:Yeah that's what I mean. Who cares if you are terrible at your class if you're having fun. That kind of thing pisses of the hardcore and the raiders, which is why that attitude is so intolerable. When someone has crappy gear or isn't very good at the game they get annoyed or impatient or smug about it. My view is who the hell cares. I play videogames solely to have fun slaying space dragons and orcs with friends and to look cool doing it. I care about nothing else, and will definitely be playing with like-minded people. So you're okay to run a dungeon (in say GW2) with someone who's atrocious and constantly causes the group to wipe, solely because he's "having fun"?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 17:59
|
|
|
Doh004 posted:So you're okay to run a dungeon (in say GW2) with a someone who's atrocious and constantly causes the group to wipe, solely because he's "having fun"? If it's hilarious why not? When it stops being fun you can leave or replace him with someone who has a like minded mentality of getting poo poo done.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 18:02
|
|
|
Tyberius posted:If it's hilarious why not? When it stops being fun you can leave or replace him with someone who has a like minded mentality of getting poo poo done. How elitist of you to leave someone in the dust like that.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 18:02
|
|
|
Doh004 posted:So you're okay to run a dungeon (in say GW2) with someone who's atrocious and constantly causes the group to wipe, solely because he's "having fun"? Why is that so unbelievable? I play games so I and my buddies and guild members can have fun. If that fun is coming from repeated wipes and people are still having fun, then yup, I'm 100% okay with that.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 18:02
|
|
|
Doh004 posted:So you're okay to run a dungeon (in say GW2) with someone who's atrocious and constantly causes the group to wipe, solely because he's "having fun"? Dungeons should be tuned in such a way that a group of "competent" players should be able to carry one or two newer players. You can give them a bronze medal for being lovely at the end and 10 plat instead of 20 or something.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 18:03
|
|
|
Doh004 posted:How elitist of you to leave someone in the dust like that.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 18:03
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:Dungeons should be tuned in such a way that a group of "competent" players should be able to carry one or two newer players. You can give them a bronze medal for being lovely at the end and 10 plat instead of 20 or something. I want more dungeons where I can intentionally kill teammates on demand.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 18:10
|
|
|
Rylek posted:As long as that content doesn't provide equal rewards to yours of course? Not specifically. As long as the content is providing equivalent reward for equivalent challenge. That goes for all content, not just solo vs. raid. CLAM DOWN posted:See this is elitist in itself. I lead one of the big GW2 guilds, Starfleet Dental, and this kind of attitude would find yourself quickly being shown the door. Who the gently caress cares if you can do your "job" or not? It's a game. Literally the only goal that should matter is having fun in any way you want. If you're not doing as much damage as someone else because your gear is worse, but you are still having fun, who the gently caress cares. If you take 25% more damage as a tank because you have a lovely non-epic turd shield of weakness, but you are literally running the dungeon with a huge smile on your face, then nothing else matters. I'm sorry, so it's elitist now to expect someone to be able to actually do what they joined the group to do? How the gently caress does that even make sense? Sorry, if you're literally unable to pull your weight in a group as defined by the demands of that dungeon/quest/encounter/whatever vs the group composition, it doesn't make me elitist to have a problem with that. It just means that you're dead weight and loving up the group for 4-5 other people. If the group is succeeding at whatever that group's condition for success is, obviously you're pulling the amount of weight necessary. If it's not, there's a problem there. CLAM DOWN posted:Why is that so unbelievable? I play games so I and my buddies and guild members can have fun. If that fun is coming from repeated wipes and people are still having fun, then yup, I'm 100% okay with that. That's great. And when you stop enjoying running back to where you wiped and actually want to finish the dungeon? Success varies group to group. If your group just wants to have fun by screwing around and doesn't care if you're actually accomplishing anything defined by the game as an objective, then obviously the situation I brought up that you object so strenuously to as some form of elitism is totally loving irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 18:19
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:Dungeons should be tuned in such a way that a group of "competent" players should be able to carry one or two newer players. You can give them a bronze medal for being lovely at the end and 10 plat instead of 20 or something. There's a good reason to scale higher rewards with higher difficulty - if you look at lobby multiplayer cooperative games like Mass Effect 3 or Payday: The Heist, higher difficulty levels reward you with more of a progression currency (be it credits or XP). The decision becomes whether or not you want to risk tackling higher difficulties for more rewards or go easy and get a lower amount. There's always an incentive to do up the difficulty. The best part is that the levels themselves are fun and worth replaying over and over again. Relating this back to raiding, if the raid itself isn't fun to do then the designers failed - regardless of the gearing rewards.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 18:21
|
|
|
Flarestar posted:I'm sorry, so it's elitist now to expect someone to be able to actually do what they joined the group to do? How the gently caress does that even make sense? Sorry, if you're literally unable to pull your weight in a group as defined by the demands of that dungeon/quest/encounter/whatever vs the group composition, it doesn't make me elitist to have a problem with that. It just means that you're dead weight and loving up the group for 4-5 other people. If the group is succeeding at whatever that group's condition for success is, obviously you're pulling the amount of weight necessary. If it's not, there's a problem there. I disagree with you but respect you think that way. I don't play with people with your kind of attitude on this stuff so I don't have to deal with that. I feel it's completely acceptable for a group to repeatedly wipe because one or two people are bad at the game or have bad gear, as long as its still fun (and like-minded friends playing together would indeed still have fun!). You don't feel the same obviously, that's cool!
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 18:26
|
|
|
Doh004 posted:So you're okay to run a dungeon (in say GW2) with someone who's atrocious and constantly causes the group to wipe, solely because he's "having fun"? I've played with them a bit, and even if I was terrible I don't find it hard to believe that they would care. I've played with people like that for as long as I've played multiplayer games. Whenever someone starts being too competitive or angry about a video game, I stop playing. I don't really see how this is hard to believe. I don't think people even have a problem with 40 man raids, but I do think the devs might be overstating how important this userbase is to the community. In fact, I've always felt that 40 man raids were toxic to communities. I was in a few guilds that raided and we would always pick up members from less progressed guilds, and lose members to more progressed guilds. If you have to gather that many people at the same time and catherd them around to progress, you aren't really going to have sense of community.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 18:26
|
|
|
Lyer posted:I want more dungeons where I can intentionally kill teammates on demand. Not necessarily on demand but that's one of the perks of playing a healer/tank. One of the things that makes the holy trinity great.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 18:34
|
|
|
CLAM DOWN posted:I disagree with you but respect you think that way. I don't play with people with your kind of attitude on this stuff so I don't have to deal with that. I feel it's completely acceptable for a group to repeatedly wipe because one or two people are bad at the game or have bad gear, as long as its still fun (and like-minded friends playing together would indeed still have fun!). You don't feel the same obviously, that's cool! No, actually I do feel the same way. I've had plenty of groups in different games where we really didn't care what we accomplished, we were just screwing around and having fun. My point was, if you form a group with a specific expectation (clearing dungeon A) and you find out that player B isn't actually capable of handling his role in the group due to gear/skill/being a drooling retard and is causing your group to fail, it's not elitist to have a problem with that. They joined to do a specific thing in a specific role, and if their failure to be able to do so is causing your group to fail at the goal they've set, then that's a problem that player needs to correct, or find another group with a different goal. I'm not saying get mad at them or go super serious poopsock mode, that poo poo's beyond obnoxious for everyone involved. That being said, I'm not a big fan of, as someone mentioned, tuning everything so that only part of the group has to be competent to beat whatever that challenge is. First, because you end up with a lot of people that just slack their way through and basically rely on everyone else, and second because tuning things that way basically turns the entire game into an exercise in facerolling the keyboard. I don't think everything should be tuned around the best gear and perfect skill levels, but without substantial challenge your game dies. It's genuinely weird to me that MMORPGs are pretty much the only multiplayer video game genre where people actively demand that the game adjust itself to suit their level of competence/effort/involvement but still reward them the same as if they were playing it on the hardest difficulty.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 18:37
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:"Hi, could you switch to a healing spec? You'll gain nothing except the perception that you have sole responsibility for the success of the group and in exchange if any of us die, even to things that were entirely within our control, we will flood you with messages about it is how your fault during the rest of the run and for up to a day afterward!" The people you raid with are shitheads. Maybe try remedying that.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 18:39
|
|
|
Flarestar posted:That being said, I'm not a big fan of, as someone mentioned, tuning everything so that only part of the group has to be competent to beat whatever that challenge is. First, because you end up with a lot of people that just slack their way through and basically rely on everyone else, and second because tuning things that way basically turns the entire game into an exercise in facerolling the keyboard. I don't think everything should be tuned around the best gear and perfect skill levels, but without substantial challenge your game dies. Why is the top place on a leaderboard, or cosmetic items associated with achievements, not enough to establish that there is a "challenge". Why does completing the content in of itself have to be a challenge? I don't see how this is preferable in the age of wanting to maximize the exposure your customers get to content developers are getting paid to make.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 18:40
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:Why is the top place on a leaderboard, or cosmetic items associated with achievements, not enough to establish that there is a "challenge". Why does completing the content in of itself have to be a challenge? I don't see how this is preferable in the age of wanting to maximize the exposure your customers get to content developers are getting paid to make. Basic psychology.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 18:41
|
|
|
Flarestar posted:It's genuinely weird to me that MMORPGs are pretty much the only multiplayer video game genre where people actively demand that the game adjust itself to suit their level of competence/effort/involvement but still reward them the same as if they were playing it on the hardest difficulty. I think you got that backwards I'm not aware of any other genre that routinely punishes players for selecting a lower difficulty...isn't the whole point of offering varying difficulties to let people play the content that is most fun for them?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 18:49
|
|
|
CLAM DOWN posted:Why is that so unbelievable? I play games so I and my buddies and guild members can have fun. If that fun is coming from repeated wipes and people are still having fun, then yup, I'm 100% okay with that. I want to be in your Wildstar guild if you lead one. It's all about the fun.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 18:49
|
|
|
Cabbit posted:The people you raid with are shitheads. Maybe try remedying that. I was talking about PUGs. The post I was responding to was asking why some people are DPS players and don't like to regularly dip into other roles like healing.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 18:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 05:43 |
|
|
Reicere posted:I think you got that backwards That's the point, yes, and it does that well. And I'm not saying they "punish" the player for selecting a lower difficulty. They simply provide less reward. New endings unlock on higher difficulties, more achievements are available, missions and tasks have higher rewards associated, scores are higher, etc. And you virtually never see player complaints about that. Then you go to MMORPGs, where the pattern of player behavior/demand reverses, in a lot of cases. Not everyone, there's plenty of people that support standard risk/effort vs. reward dynamics. But it's become more and more common.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 18:54
|
|