Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Joystiq)   Blizzard defeats Skynet   ( massively.joystiq.com) divider line
    More: Cool, blizzards, World of Warcraft  
•       •       •

6836 clicks; posted to Geek » on 19 Oct 2013 at 1:43 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



52 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-10-19 11:25:53 AM  
If you consciously purchase a bot to play parts of your game, that is your subconscious thought process saying "this game is crap", and that you should go play another game.

That said, anyone want to explain to me why these morons thought they had any chance of winning their case against Blizzard when they already destroyed the creator of the Glider bot? I presume the legal justification would have been the same: Game content loaded into memory is subject to Blizzard copyright, bot changes the memory, etc.
 
2013-10-19 11:32:24 AM  

Mike_LowELL: If you consciously purchase a bot to play parts of your game, that is your subconscious thought process saying "this game is crap", and that you should go play another game.


I don't agree with you too often, but I definitely agree with you here.

Although I do wonder how many of those people running bots were doing it as a business model. Like all those gold farmers selling crap.
 
2013-10-19 12:01:37 PM  
The only time I ever used a bot in WoW was to max out fishing on my alts. BOOOOOOORINNNNG!
Mind you, I stopped playing about 3 years ago when I noticed I was only logging in for dailies then logging right back out.
 
2013-10-19 12:26:43 PM  
Adults actually went to court over this. I realize there's a lot of money involved it's just sort of ludicrous.
 
2013-10-19 01:26:11 PM  

scottydoesntknow: Although I do wonder how many of those people running bots were doing it as a business model. Like all those gold farmers selling crap.


Probably a ton of them, though this practice was also prevalent in Asheron's Call, a game which was not nearly as commercialized by its player base.  Most players did it for their own character's progress.  If you wanted to actually make money selling your crap, then Everquest was the way to go, being a much more popular game.  But the common sentiment in Asheron's Call was that "macros" helped close the divide between those who played all day and those who didn't.  Which kind of misses the point, but if developers really wanted to take care of bots, they would give their players more agency to do that through player-versus-player and "griefing".  But alas, the modern development philosophy of the MMO is to provide players with the mere power of the illusion within a fancy theme park setting, rather than real power, as defined by the people actually playing the game.  (Macros simply cannot survive or exist in a setting where players can quickly and decisively correct their existence.)
 
2013-10-19 01:56:10 PM  
A game so tedious there's a large base that will pay to skip most of the gameplay. That's what I learned about WoW.

Oh, and that you can't get 5 anonymous nerds to work together for an hour for your life.
 
2013-10-19 01:56:48 PM  

Mike_LowELL: scottydoesntknow: Although I do wonder how many of those people running bots were doing it as a business model. Like all those gold farmers selling crap.

Probably a ton of them, though this practice was also prevalent in Asheron's Call, a game which was not nearly as commercialized by its player base.  Most players did it for their own character's progress.  If you wanted to actually make money selling your crap, then Everquest was the way to go, being a much more popular game.  But the common sentiment in Asheron's Call was that "macros" helped close the divide between those who played all day and those who didn't.  Which kind of misses the point, but if developers really wanted to take care of bots, they would give their players more agency to do that through player-versus-player and "griefing".  But alas, the modern development philosophy of the MMO is to provide players with the mere power of the illusion within a fancy theme park setting, rather than real power, as defined by the people actually playing the game.  (Macros simply cannot survive or exist in a setting where players can quickly and decisively correct their existence.)


I'm guessing you're a griefer, based on your post.

People who are playing games might want to have FUN, not deal with bullies on a playground mentality, which would explain why every MMO has a majority of "blue" servers.

IMHO, macros or bots are simple laziness, and a sign folks need to move on.
 
2013-10-19 01:57:45 PM  

Mentalpatient87: A game so tedious there's a large base that will pay to skip most of the gameplay. That's what I learned about WoW.


I guess that South Park WoW episode was pretty accurate.

/doesn't know anything about WoW
//sounds tedious
 
2013-10-19 02:12:49 PM  
I remember Glider bot.  Had a lot of fun tinkering with that program.
 
2013-10-19 02:18:20 PM  
People can always fall back on Chinese gold farmers.
 
2013-10-19 02:19:38 PM  
Never really used a bot aside from the AutoHotKey to hit SpaceBar every 30 seconds to avoid Battleground AFK (which wasn't really a bot per se). Back when WoW was still relevant (around WoTLK time) I spent most of my time patrolling Icecrown for Thorium Ore. If I used a bot, I'd never get to experience the personal joy of seeing other miners cursing the Hell out of me as I swooped down from my Helicopter and grabbed the ore before they could.
 
2013-10-19 02:40:29 PM  
people still play WoW? from what I can tell, most of the younger crowd has moved on to LoL.

/though I guess the upshot of the article is that not many people are actually "playing" WoW
 
2013-10-19 02:44:56 PM  

OrionXVI: I'm guessing you're a griefer, based on your post.


No, I just understand what the chief appeal of the MMORPG is, which is to create a platform for dynamic decision-making, to create the closest thing that video games have to actual D&D-style role-playing.  Giving players actual agency to shape and define the game world--whether you like the results or not--is the most powerful means for doing this.  Because if your MMORPG fails to do this, you're just left with a series of shiatty multiplayer beat 'em ups and dungeon crawlers.  I want more of this in my MMORPGs and less World of Warcraft.  I want actual agency and choice.

OrionXVI: People who are playing games might want to have FUN, not deal with bullies on a playground mentality, which would explain why every MMO has a majority of "blue" servers.


Number one, implying the griefers aren't having fun.  And number two, implying the "griefers" aren't acting within the rules of the game to "grief".  The contract between the player and the developer is that the player will do everything in their power to break a game, and that developers can do something about it.  If there's a problem with the game that allows players to act out of line, that's on the developer.  And if it's enough of a problem that you need to get the developer to repeatedly cut the head off the hydra, then it's a bad game, and you should move on to another one.

That's why you let people kill each other.  Being able to kill others in the simulation is one of the most powerful means you can get to deal with griefing, and not only that, it makes the game a hell of a lot more interesting, whether or not that emotion is always pleasurable.  On that note, the reason every MMO caters to player-versus-player is because, as mentioned above, they're completely missing the point as to why an MMORPG is interesting, and are playing it because "YAY I LEVELED UP THIS IS SO MUCH FUN".
 
2013-10-19 03:02:34 PM  

Mike_LowELL: OrionXVI: I'm guessing you're a griefer, based on your post.

No, I just understand what the chief appeal of the MMORPG is, which is to create a platform for dynamic decision-making, to create the closest thing that video games have to actual D&D-style role-playing.  Giving players actual agency to shape and define the game world--whether you like the results or not--is the most powerful means for doing this.  Because if your MMORPG fails to do this, you're just left with a series of shiatty multiplayer beat 'em ups and dungeon crawlers.  I want more of this in my MMORPGs and less World of Warcraft.  I want actual agency and choice.

OrionXVI: People who are playing games might want to have FUN, not deal with bullies on a playground mentality, which would explain why every MMO has a majority of "blue" servers.

Number one, implying the griefers aren't having fun.  And number two, implying the "griefers" aren't acting within the rules of the game to "grief".  The contract between the player and the developer is that the player will do everything in their power to break a game, and that developers can do something about it.  If there's a problem with the game that allows players to act out of line, that's on the developer.  And if it's enough of a problem that you need to get the developer to repeatedly cut the head off the hydra, then it's a bad game, and you should move on to another one.

That's why you let people kill each other.  Being able to kill others in the simulation is one of the most powerful means you can get to deal with griefing, and not only that, it makes the game a hell of a lot more interesting, whether or not that emotion is always pleasurable.  On that note, the reason every MMO caters to player-versus-player is because, as mentioned above, they're completely missing the point as to why an MMORPG is interesting, and are playing it because "YAY I LEVELED UP THIS IS SO MUCH FUN".


Wait, so, you say you want more of a system where the devs have to intervene, as is said in the link you provided about the Shard of the Herald, and then follow it up saying you hate game designs where devs have to intervene?
 
2013-10-19 03:02:59 PM  
Well, there goes half of their remaining player base.
 
2013-10-19 03:05:53 PM  

Mike_LowELL: OrionXVI: I'm guessing you're a griefer, based on your post.

No, I just understand what the chief appeal of the MMORPG is, which is to create a platform for dynamic decision-making, to create the closest thing that video games have to actual D&D-style role-playing.  Giving players actual agency to shape and define the game world--whether you like the results or not--is the most powerful means for doing this.  Because if your MMORPG fails to do this, you're just left with a series of shiatty multiplayer beat 'em ups and dungeon crawlers.  I want more of this in my MMORPGs and less World of Warcraft.  I want actual agency and choice.

OrionXVI: People who are playing games might want to have FUN, not deal with bullies on a playground mentality, which would explain why every MMO has a majority of "blue" servers.

Number one, implying the griefers aren't having fun.  And number two, implying the "griefers" aren't acting within the rules of the game to "grief".  The contract between the player and the developer is that the player will do everything in their power to break a game, and that developers can do something about it.  If there's a problem with the game that allows players to act out of line, that's on the developer.  And if it's enough of a problem that you need to get the developer to repeatedly cut the head off the hydra, then it's a bad game, and you should move on to another one.

That's why you let people kill each other.  Being able to kill others in the simulation is one of the most powerful means you can get to deal with griefing, and not only that, it makes the game a hell of a lot more interesting, whether or not that emotion is always pleasurable.  On that note, the reason every MMO caters to player-versus-player is because, as mentioned above, they're completely missing the point as to why an MMORPG is interesting, and are playing it because "YAY I LEVELED UP THIS IS SO MUCH FUN".


Yeah, gamemakers stopped doing that because it limits the player base to those who are already max leveled and have rare, extremely useful equipment or equivalent (usually spending a fair amount of money, game or otherwise, to get there,) and discourages novices.

Every MMO caters to the PvE people too, because the PvE people vastly outnumber the PvP people, because that's how they get the maximum amount of money.
 
2013-10-19 03:06:12 PM  

Zimmy: Wait, so, you say you want more of a system where the devs have to intervene, as is said in the link you provided about the Shard of the Herald, and then follow it up saying you hate game designs where devs have to intervene?


The developers gave as much freedom in that instance as they could possibly provide without creating dual, competing narratives within their game world.  And, when confronted with the very real scenario of having to delay their monthly update in order to deal with the problem, resolved the issue through in-game measures, sending their own employees with their super-leveled characters to take down the defending players and the Shard.  Rather than chastising their player base for doing unintended things, they embraced it.  It's like complaining that Deus Ex is stupid because, after you've made all of your choices throughout the course of the game, you get to pick from one of three endings, all of which pretend the previous choices didn't exist.
 
2013-10-19 03:06:30 PM  

TV's Vinnie: I spent most of my time patrolling Icecrown for Thorium Ore


Do you mean Saronite or Titanium?  If you want Thorium, ride around Un'Goro Crater.

/clean since it turned into Hello Panda Island Adventure
 
2013-10-19 03:08:40 PM  

LoneWolf343: Every MMO caters to the PvE people too, because the PvE people vastly outnumber the PvP people, because that's how they get the maximum amount of money.


And the end result is a genre which has almost entirely squandered its potential.
 
2013-10-19 03:09:35 PM  

Mike_LowELL: Zimmy: Wait, so, you say you want more of a system where the devs have to intervene, as is said in the link you provided about the Shard of the Herald, and then follow it up saying you hate game designs where devs have to intervene?

The developers gave as much freedom in that instance as they could possibly provide without creating dual, competing narratives within their game world.  And, when confronted with the very real scenario of having to delay their monthly update in order to deal with the problem, resolved the issue through in-game measures, sending their own employees with their super-leveled characters to take down the defending players and the Shard.  Rather than chastising their player base for doing unintended things, they embraced it.  It's like complaining that Deus Ex is stupid because, after you've made all of your choices throughout the course of the game, you get to pick from one of three endings, all of which pretend the previous choices didn't exist.


See, that doesn't make any sense still: You are still arguing that you like things where devs can not/do not have to intervene and then proceed to defend a situation where they are.  You can't have it both ways.  Bringing an example of a single player game into a game about MMOs isn't relevant to the conversation either and is a bad example to make your point.
 
2013-10-19 03:10:32 PM  
Well, OK...

encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2013-10-19 03:15:33 PM  

Zimmy: You are still arguing that you like things where devs can not/do not have to intervene and then proceed to defend a situation where they are.


It's not a "one" or the "other" situation.  There are varying degrees of freedom within the game world, and in this instance, Asheron's Call provided a much greater degree of freedom than most of today's MMOs provide.  It's not absolutely perfect, and if you want true, free-form role-playing, then there's better options for this than video games.  But those options don't provide fully immersive audio and sound, so you compromise.

If you would prefer an instance where the developers did not intervene, then I give you a condensed history of the Darktide PvP server, in which players quit the game in the wake of a decisive battle between numerous monarchies, a war that was perfectly allowed within the game's rules and had been building from the day that the game went live for retail.  For those players, the game had effectively "ended", and the perception existed that there was no reason to play the game anymore.  Turbine let it go unchecked, and Darktide largely stabilized around one monarch's rule.
 
2013-10-19 03:15:46 PM  

syrynxx: TV's Vinnie: I spent most of my time patrolling Icecrown for Thorium Ore

Do you mean Saronite or Titanium?  If you want Thorium, ride around Un'Goro Crater.

/clean since it turned into Hello Panda Island Adventure


Perhaps you are correct. I stopped playing it after LK was croaked and then Blizzard started pulling out new MacGuffins as the new bad boss in order to keep the subscriptions flowing.

Sad how it turned into a furry con now. And people are still shoveling out $15 a month for this?
 
2013-10-19 03:17:16 PM  

Mike_LowELL: LoneWolf343: Every MMO caters to the PvE people too, because the PvE people vastly outnumber the PvP people, because that's how they get the maximum amount of money.

And the end result is a genre which has almost entirely squandered its potential.


PVP: where the saddest of sadfarks sit all day, camped right next to the respawning points.
 
2013-10-19 03:23:53 PM  
And I gotta be honest. My current fave MMO is Star Trek Online. I tend to prefer games that have it's own prior backstory (because sometimes knowing the environment's lore does help with gameplay), and even though it's a F2P with microtransactions, it is still merciful enough to the player to allow endgame playability even if you won't/can't open your wallet and buy stuff online. The addition of playable Romulans and dealing with a boss like Empress Sela (voice-acted by Denise Crosby, of course) is good too. F*ck Pandas!

starbaseugc.com
 
2013-10-19 03:28:49 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Never really used a bot aside from the AutoHotKey to hit SpaceBar every 30 seconds to avoid Battleground AFK (which wasn't really a bot per se). Back when WoW was still relevant (around WoTLK time) I spent most of my time patrolling Icecrown for Thorium Ore. If I used a bot, I'd never get to experience the personal joy of seeing other miners cursing the Hell out of me as I swooped down from my Helicopter and grabbed the ore before they could.


Druid bird form/shadowmeld ftw.    I could agro all kinds of mobs on my competition, drop aggro, pick, and fly away instantly.   I did it to bots for the most part.  Occasionally someone of the opposite faction.
 
2013-10-19 03:33:15 PM  
Mike_LowELL:  a condensed history of the Darktide PvP server,

From that link: "having sold my Ultima Online accounts and stuff for over 11 000 $. "

As much as people poke fun at playing a game, if you enjoy it, play it.  But I can't see spending $11k just to leapfrog into the game.

Or my favorite - one of my two inactive accounts is an Original Collector's Edition, with the mini-Diablo/zergling/panda pets.  These are going for over $2500 unopened on eBay:
World-of-Warcraft-Collectors-Edition-Original-Vanilla-2004-WoW-NEW-S EA LED

 Now _that's_ crazy.
 
2013-10-19 03:37:41 PM  

Mike_LowELL: LoneWolf343: Every MMO caters to the PvE people too, because the PvE people vastly outnumber the PvP people, because that's how they get the maximum amount of money.

And the end result is a genre which has almost entirely squandered its potential.


What your argument is in a nutshell:

picslap.com
 
2013-10-19 03:38:53 PM  

syrynxx: As much as people poke fun at playing a game, if you enjoy it, play it. But I can't see spending $11k just to leapfrog into the game.


With EVE, you pretty much have to if you want to get anywhere in the game.
 
2013-10-19 03:39:42 PM  

syrynxx: Now _that's_ crazy.


Yup.  My understanding is that the price of the unopened boxes stems from the pets, and the perverse desire to get those things.  There is a complete irony in the idea that the most expensive physical games of today are being driven up in price because of the digital goods which are packaged in them.  I suppose people have the right under the law to do these things, but yeah, uh, if I'm gonna spent a couple thousand bucks on games, sounds to be like there's a whole library of games worth spending it on first.
 
2013-10-19 03:40:43 PM  
Hrm.. I still have a code for a murloc suit/panda mount from blizzcons floating about I found while moving a couple of months ago.. if that crap is worth 2500.. I need to figure out how much those are worth.. a bit rarer.
 
2013-10-19 03:41:04 PM  

TV's Vinnie: And I gotta be honest. My current fave MMO is Star Trek Online. I tend to prefer games that have it's own prior backstory (because sometimes knowing the environment's lore does help with gameplay), and even though it's a F2P with microtransactions, it is still merciful enough to the player to allow endgame playability even if you won't/can't open your wallet and buy stuff online. The addition of playable Romulans and dealing with a boss like Empress Sela (voice-acted by Denise Crosby, of course) is good too. F*ck Pandas!


It's.... Ok, when it's not shiatting on the legacy of Star Trek as far as playing Federation goes. But it's awesome playing Klingon. You really feel like thier side was done right. I'm a little sad the levels where I had my B'rel went by so fast.
 
2013-10-19 03:43:27 PM  

Mike_LowELL: OrionXVI: I'm guessing you're a griefer, based on your post.

No, I just understand what the chief appeal of the MMORPG is, which is to create a platform for dynamic decision-making, to create the closest thing that video games have to actual D&D-style role-playing.  Giving players actual agency to shape and define the game world--whether you like the results or not--is the most powerful means for doing this.  Because if your MMORPG fails to do this, you're just left with a series of shiatty multiplayer beat 'em ups and dungeon crawlers.  I want more of this in my MMORPGs and less World of Warcraft.  I want actual agency and choice.

OrionXVI: People who are playing games might want to have FUN, not deal with bullies on a playground mentality, which would explain why every MMO has a majority of "blue" servers.

Number one, implying the griefers aren't having fun.  And number two, implying the "griefers" aren't acting within the rules of the game to "grief".  The contract between the player and the developer is that the player will do everything in their power to break a game, and that developers can do something about it.  If there's a problem with the game that allows players to act out of line, that's on the developer.  And if it's enough of a problem that you need to get the developer to repeatedly cut the head off the hydra, then it's a bad game, and you should move on to another one.

That's why you let people kill each other.  Being able to kill others in the simulation is one of the most powerful means you can get to deal with griefing, and not only that, it makes the game a hell of a lot more interesting, whether or not that emotion is always pleasurable.  On that note, the reason every MMO caters to player-versus-player is because, as mentioned above, they're completely missing the point as to why an MMORPG is interesting, and are playing it because "YAY I LEVELED UP THIS IS SO MUCH FUN".


What you fail to acknowledge is that different people have different things that they like about games.  More people like leveling, socializing, raiding, questing, crafting, etc. than griefing and fighting other players.  The numbers in most MMO's will show this (there's always more PVE than PVP servers).  You can disagree all you want with whether this makes the game good or not from your perspective, but the bottom line is that the leveling, socializing, loot, etc. is what most people want out of the MMO experience.

This is the sort of conflict that a lot of designers struggle with.  What you think the game should be/what you want it to be vs. what people respond to.  Sometimes I am diametrically opposed to certain gameplay/mechanics that people seem to respond to/love, but I will push a project more in that direction if I see that players are loving it.  A part of me still thinks they're "wrong" on a level, but it doesn't really matter because I'm making a game for the player, not for myself.  It doesn't really matter if I make some totally awesome game for myself if no one else wants to play it.

So I have some experience with the subject at hand in multiple ways and I can tell you that griefers are not appreciated nor encouraged.  In a perfect world PvP would be honorable, but as of now there's no way to completely design around some of the darker sides of human nature.  Blizzard tried for a long time to stay out of it and take this "we take no responsibility for this" stance, but there is a point where people start to cross a line and it transitions from being about "fun" to being about harassment and they have to intervene.  This is often when someone is exploiting in the game in some way (usually by traversing the geometry in an unintended way).  Yes you can say that it's their fault for having flaws in their game that allow the player to exploit, but that's also demanding perfection which is unreasonable. Also, people agree to the EULA when they play and that is one of the things they agree to not do.  I will say that they could be speedier at fixing some of the known areas of exploitation though.
 
kab
2013-10-19 03:47:12 PM  
I thought botting was only popular in hard games?

Huh.

OrionXVI: IMHO, macros or bots are simple laziness, and a sign folks need to move on.


Macros are just a sign of poor class design.   Some classes in WoW have almost mandatory ones (/cancelaura, for example), others rely on far fewer.   But yeah, neither really have a place here.

Zimmy: Wait, so, you say you want more of a system where the devs have to intervene, as is said in the link you provided about the Shard of the Herald, and then follow it up saying you hate game designs where devs have to intervene?


The difference being that SotH was a completely unexpected scenario that played out, and the way the players handled themselves was something where the devs had no choice but to alter things themselves. (I was actually on Thistledown when this whole thing took place, quite entertaining.).

In WoW, you get devs interfering anytime anything can be construed as griefing, simply because of a biatching, whining playerbase considers it so.  (for example, being able to kite explodable abominations up onto the Dalaran landing platform, and knocking a dozen or so unsuspecting people off).

In a game that already has basically zero risk of loss or setback on death, this is hand-holding at best.

Letting players have some negative impact on others only works when other players are allowed to hand out their own form of justice as well, which is something Blizzard disagrees with (especially by allowing so many alts per server, name changes, server changes, etc).
 
2013-10-19 03:49:21 PM  

Mentalpatient87: A game so tedious there's a large base that will pay to skip most of the gameplay. That's what I learned about WoW.

Oh, and that you can't get 5 anonymous nerds to work together for an hour for your life.


THIS. ( Being repeatedly yelled at during raids certainly turned me off to the game.)

/ CSB: Got kicked out of a guild 'cause I couldn't commit time to crafting & raiding....RL job is more important...
 
kab
2013-10-19 03:56:21 PM  

PillsHere: So I have some experience with the subject at hand in multiple ways and I can tell you that griefers are not appreciated nor encouraged. In a perfect world PvP would be honorable, but as of now there's no way to completely design around some of the darker sides of human nature. Blizzard tried for a long time to stay out of it and take this "we take no responsibility for this" stance, but there is a point where people start to cross a line and it transitions from being about "fun" to being about harassment and they have to intervene.


Blizzard's absolutely ABSURD level and gear scaling, and handing out flying mounts is them basically saying 'we really don't care about uninstanced pvp'.   Them allowing pve gear in instanced matches says 'we don't care all that much about this version either'.
 
2013-10-19 04:03:23 PM  

kab: PillsHere: So I have some experience with the subject at hand in multiple ways and I can tell you that griefers are not appreciated nor encouraged. In a perfect world PvP would be honorable, but as of now there's no way to completely design around some of the darker sides of human nature. Blizzard tried for a long time to stay out of it and take this "we take no responsibility for this" stance, but there is a point where people start to cross a line and it transitions from being about "fun" to being about harassment and they have to intervene.

Blizzard's absolutely ABSURD level and gear scaling, and handing out flying mounts is them basically saying 'we really don't care about uninstanced pvp'.   Them allowing pve gear in instanced matches says 'we don't care all that much about this version either'.


I'll agree that they started phoning it in awhile ago.  I was referring more to vanilla wow/burning crusade days.  They basically let money-making supersede design years ago.  Not that I can blame them in some ways, but they went very overboard with it.  It basically allowed them to get the numbers they did while simultaneously leading to their decline.
 
2013-10-19 04:15:17 PM  
I am amazed that WoW still maintains that number of players (but we'll see how many remain after the Botpocalypse), and most other MMOs just come and go.
 
2013-10-19 04:25:19 PM  

LoneWolf343: syrynxx: As much as people poke fun at playing a game, if you enjoy it, play it. But I can't see spending $11k just to leapfrog into the game.

With EVE, you pretty much have to if you want to get anywhere in the game.


Eve dropped its "mandatory PvE/waiting" stuff like two years ago, man.  Learning skills are gone, you can pretty much jump right into whatever you want now.

They've also blended the PvP in much more seamlessly into all the PvE stuff so that you can do pretty much either in any sector of space you want, very few people outside of the Sov minigame even bother to train into capital fleets, for instance.

This is actually Eve's big distinguishing characteristics, it actually adds to to the game to fix problems instead of filing everything down into an indistinct blob like a lot of MMOs.  They're the only developers I've seen ever respond to a problem by adding _more_ distinctive classes with stronger strengths and weaknesses, for instance, instead of the stupid "let's give EVERY class a counterspell, and a root, and ranged damage, and melee damage" bullshiat.
 
2013-10-19 04:28:47 PM  

I stopped playing WoW and other MMORPGs because they're too much of a time sink and I realized I wanted to do other things with my time, for one.

And another reason I gave up WoW:

"Number one, implying the griefers aren't having fun. And number two, implying the "griefers" aren't acting within the rules of the game to "grief". The contract between the player and the developer is that the player will do everything in their power to break a game, and that developers can do something about it. If there's a problem with the game that allows players to act out of line, that's on the developer. And if it's enough of a problem that you need to get the developer to repeatedly cut the head off the hydra, then it's a bad game, and you should move on to another one.

That's why you let people kill each other. Being able to kill others in the simulation is one of the most powerful means you can get to deal with griefing, and not only that, it makes the game a hell of a lot more interesting, whether or not that emotion is always pleasurable. On that note, the reason every MMO caters to player-versus-player is because, as mentioned above, they're completely missing the point as to why an MMORPG is interesting, and are playing it because "YAY I LEVELED UP THIS IS SO MUCH FUN"."


Can't tell if this person really believes this or is trolling, but griefers in a game is no fun no matter what, and it was the griefing issue and attitudes that had me just give up WoW and games like it. It just became too annoying. I wonder if that's a small part of the reason why the player numbers are dropping as well. I play a game for the challenge and entertainment, not to have someone purposely try to make your game time miserable.

 
2013-10-19 04:29:47 PM  
Bah, lost my original post.  Here goes again.

PillsHere: What you fail to acknowledge is that different people have different things that they like about games. More people like leveling, socializing, raiding, questing, crafting, etc. than griefing and fighting other players. The numbers in most MMO's will show this (there's always more PVE than PVP servers). You can disagree all you want with whether this makes the game good or not from your perspective, but the bottom line is that the leveling, socializing, loot, etc. is what most people want out of the MMO experience.


It may have a certain appeal, and it may win you some fans, but I just think there are genres and games which do those interactions better than the Theme Park MMO.  Your game will inevitably compare unfavorably to something which takes those low-level urges and implements them into a game with better mechanics and design.  Take the JRPG.  People like to claim that they simply lost their way roughly around Final Fantasy VIII or so, but the selling point of the JRPG was always their stat-building and their narrative.  Once action games with superior mechanics adopted the narrative elements (Half-Life, Deus Ex, System Shock 2, Grand Theft Auto III) and the stat-building mechanics (every multiplayer title since Call of Duty 4), the JRPG was left in an impossible situation.  Because then, all left was to compare its mechanics and tactics, which are largely inferior to everything ranging from SRPGs, to CRPGs, to TBS, and RTS.  And as I have seen so far, this is the reason that the MMO market is dropping like a sack of bricks, because the DotA games (League of Legends, DotA 2) found a way to contextualize that genre's raid mechanics and social interactions into an action game, and does at the price point of "free".  And to continue on this point...

PillsHere: This is the sort of conflict that a lot of designers struggle with. What you think the game should be/what you want it to be vs. what people respond to. Sometimes I am diametrically opposed to certain gameplay/mechanics that people seem to respond to/love, but I will push a project more in that direction if I see that players are loving it. A part of me still thinks they're "wrong" on a level, but it doesn't really matter because I'm making a game for the player, not for myself. It doesn't really matter if I make some totally awesome game for myself if no one else wants to play it.


...I completely agree with you that it's about making the games that you can sell.  That's why I bark from the sidelines, because if I got to make my ideal game, I would bankrupt any company in six months, because my tastes and ideals for video games run counter to most everyone's these days.  And that's part of where I feel disappointed for those actually in the industry right now, because it seems like there's no shortage of actual talent, but there's minimal freedom---both economic, corporate, and player culture---to get players playing unconventional things, or running counter to their own tastes.  What I find is that the people making really, really good games right now are disguising their games as one thing and then revealing a completely different type of game.  Vanquish pretends to be a cover shooter and turns into a frenetic run-and-gun TPS.  Serious Sam 3 caters to the CoD audience for a couple of levels and then tears down all the walls.  But I do think there's a difference between "I desire certain things in a game" and "I'm not willing to try out other solutions", with the modern video game player gravitating towards the second one.

PillsHere: So I have some experience with the subject at hand in multiple ways and I can tell you that griefers are not appreciated nor encouraged. In a perfect world PvP would be honorable, but as of now there's no way to completely design around some of the darker sides of human nature. Blizzard tried for a long time to stay out of it and take this "we take no responsibility for this" stance, but there is a point where people start to cross a line and it transitions from being about "fun" to being about harassment and they have to intervene.  This is often when someone is exploiting in the game in some way (usually by traversing the geometry in an unintended way).  Yes you can say that it's their fault for having flaws in their game that allow the player to exploit, but that's also demanding perfection which is unreasonable. Also, people agree to the EULA when they play and that is one of the things they agree to not do.  I will say that they could be speedier at fixing some of the known areas of exploitation though.


I don't see the harm in allowing players to explore unintended areas, and if it's really that undesirable, you should set up in-game mechanisms for dealing with it.  Just load your zone with a bunch of nasties or something, since games like WoW already use their zones as level gates, there's not much to be lost by having a zone filled with super-elite monsters that can shred anyone in the game.  On some level, that may make the zone more desirable to engage with, but it will certainly keep people from running around it.  But by then, you can fix the issue causing it in the first place.

Having someone from outside of the game put a hand on my shoulder and say "You're not supposed to do that" is one of the most intrusive means for dealing with the matter, particularly within a genre which is supposedly conceptualized around exploration and choice.  That's why I mentioned the Shard of the Herald as an example, because the developers of the game resolved that situation purely through in-game measures, going into the dungeon themselves and fighting the people who were protecting it.  So sure, everyone may have signed off on the EULA before playing the game, but I view the EULA (and enforcement of the EULA) as being very dangerous, because a EULA runs completely counter to the design philosophy of any great game.  The developer sets up rules, and the player breaks them.  Even if the synchronous nature of MMOs makes "breaking things" very dangerous, you can't chastise a player for breaking the rules.  That just runs counter to what makes games special in the first place.
 
2013-10-19 04:42:26 PM  

dillenger69: The only time I ever used a bot in WoW was to max out fishing on my alts.


I really enjoyed fishing until the Lich King was released.  I made tons of gold and I had my own "fishing spots".  Fishing the floating wreckage pools by Steamwheel Port would net me bolts of cloth, rare recipes, leathers, rare items that had the same ilvl as Scarlet Monastery (Sold for alot as there was a hump to level up enchanting that could only be fufilled by DE these), and other goodies.  Doing Nat's quest was a badge of honor back then.  Cataclysm completed ruined it, as they got rid of those pools.
 
2013-10-19 04:50:44 PM  
some serious nostalgia for the halcyon days of darktide.

getting crowds of 30 under 10s in robes and lugian weapons smashing level 40+ that were camping newbie grounds (yes hard to hit, but each dodge drained stamina, with huge crowds of low levels draining your stamina you really have little chance... and you wouldnt loot their lugian weapon when you killed them on account of it being so heavy)

i have played several mmos since and none can really compare. doac had open pvp servers but they didnt have the dynamic that darktide did. i suspect it was tied to the allegiance and experience chain system..

has any other game successfully pulled off a darktide? at high points i believe it was 1/8th of the population was darktide.
 
2013-10-19 05:05:42 PM  

Monoxide: has any other game successfully pulled off a darktide? at high points i believe it was 1/8th of the population was darktide.


I had always heard that Darkfall was supposed to be the game that focused on free-for-all player-versus-player, but apparently, the game went over like a wet fart, though it did give us the criminally hilarious reaction to the infamous two-out-of-ten Eurogamer review.  Then again, as has been mentioned in the thread, the number of people who actually desire player-versus-player is probably never going to be enough to centralize or design a game around such mechanics, and I think there's a fair chance that Turbine just got lucky with Asheron's Call and Darktide.  I'd probably concur that the vassal system had a lot to do with it.  Little bit a shame that all we can do is talk about it in nostalgic tones.
 
kab
2013-10-19 06:14:30 PM  

Mike_LowELL: Monoxide: has any other game successfully pulled off a darktide? at high points i believe it was 1/8th of the population was darktide.

I had always heard that Darkfall was supposed to be the game that focused on free-for-all player-versus-player, but apparently, the game went over like a wet fart, though it did give us the criminally hilarious reaction to the infamous two-out-of-ten Eurogamer review.  Then again, as has been mentioned in the thread, the number of people who actually desire player-versus-player is probably never going to be enough to centralize or design a game around such mechanics, and I think there's a fair chance that Turbine just got lucky with Asheron's Call and Darktide.  I'd probably concur that the vassal system had a lot to do with it.  Little bit a shame that all we can do is talk about it in nostalgic tones.


DT was just one server though, whereas Darkfall is an entire game built on the DT premise.   With far less pve content to boot.

Darkfall is a great idea, with terrible execution.
 
2013-10-19 07:56:56 PM  

Silly_Sot: People can always fall back on Chinese gold farmers.


Are you kidding?  At the rate our economy is going, we're going to be farming in video games for the Chinese really soon.
 
2013-10-19 07:57:01 PM  
Translation: company goes bankrupt, owners start new company in country where US jurisdiction doesn't apply.
 
2013-10-19 08:16:06 PM  
I think one of the biggest mistakes Blizz made was to consistently narrow down your options for your talent tree. I started in LK and every time I got a new talent point to spend it seemed like I had a dozen to choose from. Now I get 3 and they are either all the same or one is obviously the best one and the other 2 are filler.

And the constant nerfing and farking with the rotation. I just cant be bothered to learn a new rotation every 3 months. Just give me a class and let me play it for a while.

Anyways there wouldn't be bots if some parts of the game weren't tedious as all get out. And I never have understood why it costs so freaking much to fly. I'm already paying to play ffs.

/QQ
//its an awesome game in a lot of ways and I still play because I have friends in game. But otherwise I would be out if there prolly.
 
2013-10-19 09:56:41 PM  

syrynxx: Well, there goes half of their remaining player base.


i.qkme.me
 
2013-10-20 01:17:59 AM  
quickdraw: I think one of the biggest mistakes Blizz made was to consistently narrow down your options for your talent tree. I started in LK and every time I got a new talent point to spend it seemed like I had a dozen to choose from. Now I get 3 and they are either all the same or one is obviously the best one and the other 2 are filler.

For DPS, How it usually goes is an oddball choice, a passive choice and an active choice. For the most part, the Active choice is generally higher DPS (or more heals or higher threat) but also higher situational awareness (when to hit said ability). The passive choice is usually slightly less DPS/Heals/threat but requires no extra thought, which is good for some players (melee especially since they usually have more to avoid). The oddball choice is usually situational, but when it works it works magnificently. The nice thing is you can change fight-to-fight for a few gold without leaving. Hell if you have a half-way decent party you can just mount up on a Traveler's mount and buy the books. It's nothing major and if you play it right, it leads to huge bennies.

The old system FELT like more to do, but so much of the talent tree was "1/3/5% more hit!", which of course you're going to take, you'd be an idiot not to. You narrowed down to 5 or 6 real choices - and to be honest, most of them didn't matter all that much. The new talent system is one of the best things to come out of this expansion because it integrates so much more nicely I think compared to previous methods. 
 
And the constant nerfing and farking with the rotation. I just cant be bothered to learn a new rotation every 3 months. Just give me a class and let me play it for a while.

I think in all of Mists only two specs: Demo Warlocks and Marksman Hunters, got serious redos based on major changes - both of them got big upgrades for the time, so those players probably didn't mind doing it. One thing I think some players get into their head is that there's a single way to do the game, anything else is "Wrong". That's just not right. THere is a most efficient method, there is a highest DPS method, but I know I happily take lower DPS for more survivability every time. There's no single right way to play WoW, and in my opinion if the boss goes down or your PVP opponents don't get their goals before you do, then you've done your role and you should enjoy it.

Anyways there wouldn't be bots if some parts of the game weren't tedious as all get out. And I never have understood why it costs so freaking much to fly. I'm already paying to play ffs.

It costs about 200 gold to fly. If you're questing or using dungeon finder ot level you should be way, way over that by the time you hit 60. It costs more for Epic Flight, but you don't need that. You do need to pay for Northrend, Old World and Pandaria flight, but each of those are relatively inexpensive if you pay with them as you level. Pandaria Flying is especially well tuned- the amount from Questing the first 5 zones (which most people will see during leveling a toon) is dang close to the amount needed for Wisdom of the Four Winds, the Pandaria Flight Skill. It costs proportional to the level you're at, except for the fast flying, which if you're leveling alts shouldn't be too much of a problem, and if you're leveling a first toon, you need to earn.

So I'm not quite following your complaint.   The reason they charge in-game gold for flight is because it's a gold sink - something you get for putting in time. I have epic flight on 9 toons, I don't quite see the problem. It's just part of leveling a character.

/QQ
//its an awesome game in a lot of ways and I still play because I have friends in game. But otherwise I would be out if there prolly.


It's a fun game. I honestly feel like your assessments are out-of-date.
 
Displayed 50 of 52 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report