Apr 4th 2012 1:58PM I started to write something, and it ballooned into a full-fledged blog post for me :-) whoops.
Basically, I think that games today only support 1 kind of playstyle - kill the big guy at the end. There are tons of other ways to play games, and tons of other playstyles that should be accounted for. Even WoW which professes to account for all these different playstyles boils down to "I click, it dies. Repeat as Necessary."
I think that when games being to have other goals outside of combat and defeating the big boss at the end that we will see some of these issues around labelling go away on their own . Sure, there will always be people who say the X is better than Y, but when you aren't all working towards the same goal, when you start comparing apples to kiwanomellon, the comparision and the rage fizzles.
What I want is a game where combat AND crafting are valid playstyles. Where If I dedicate all my time to crafting, I get better things to craft, but can't fight as well than someone who spends all their time fighting. Or exploring -- or fishing -- the actual examples I'm giving don't matter. Right now, MMO gaming is a 1 trick-pony, kill the big boss at the end. Until it diversifies and realizes there are 100 other equally challenging goals that can be built into the game, we'l continue to have issues like this.
Mar 30th 2012 12:41PM I think this is actually a good thing, the WvW with the buffs. Anarchy Online did a similar thing with the Notum Wars expansion -- the winning faction (out of the 3) had a higher bonus to EXP as you were playing through the game. Did that mean that everyone went to the winning faction? Not at all, did it mean that some people did? yes, of course.
I think there are a couple key things here that have yet to be addressed before the rage continues - 1) How much of a bonus do you get for winning 2) how long does it last? 3) Can it stack?
Now, I have NO basis for this thought, but I would assume that it's a pretty small bonus - enough for a yay and server pride, but not enough to be game changing - it probably lasts 2 weeks (the length of a game), so that after you win for the next 2 weeks you have the buff, but if you lose that WvW map at the end of that two weeks, you probably lose the buff.
Would make the most sense to me. Also, since they re-rank the servers after every match, and match according to server performance -- there will always lower "performing" servers in the WvW that have the buff. It won't only be the top tier servers that have it -- every 2 weeks a smattering of servers across the gamut of the rankings will have it. OVerall, seems pretty fair and balanced to me
Mar 26th 2012 1:45PM I think this here is total vindication of Bree's stance on Eve -- it's not a bad game by any stretch, but a certain section of the player is ... wow.
Mar 14th 2012 8:31PM I kind of enjoy the rants from Bree -- but then, they echo my own opinions. Specifically with the cash shop in LOTRO, that totally makes it a deal breaker for me, despite my significant other's efforts to get me to play :-). More than that, I think she makes good, solid points from a design prespective AND a business perspective.
I dunno, this is my favorite gaming pod cast -- easily. Just my 2cents
Dec 23rd 2010 9:43AM yay toys!!
Dec 23rd 2010 9:39AM woot
Dec 16th 2010 1:50PM oops - sorry didn't see you post. I responded to jim above saying essentially the same thing.
great minds, yadda yadda
Dec 16th 2010 1:48PM @Jim -
ehhhh, I think you are making it out to be waaaay simpler than what it would actually be. It's not really just a matter of scaling damage/health pools, but also taking into consideration a certain group/raid make-up, which the 10s and 25s are designed around. For example, running an instance with even one more healer would likely trivialize the content even *with* higher damage because it's not a direct "X more damage, Y more healing." While I don't claim to be privy to the ratio, it;s probably something more along the lines of 3-4x as much damage, 1 more healer (completely made up numbers, just trying to get the concept across). Same with damage, even just increasing health pools of the mobs to account an additional wouldn't scale well because of the same issue. That's why they have so much of an issue with making sure 10/25s scale correctly because it's not a linear relationship. The way that you paint the picture makes it seem like a linear relationship where the addition of one extra slot can be offset by tweaking of health pools and overall damage.
Using your variable system, say that you have a 6 person dungeon, or an 11-person raid where the ability triggered by the number of extra people increases damage, but you have an extra DPS. Now, you have the issue of if it scales the require a new healer, that means that it's significantly more challenging because the content is now designed to have another healer, but you have a DPS, meaning that you either have to have EPIC DPS or an Epic Healer to complete the content appropriately. If it doesn't scale to require a new healer, than you trivialize the content, because you either have an extra healer that doesn't really do much, or an extra DPS that mows through the content but of the extra 10kish DPS.
So, when factoring in class choice and not just scaling health/dmg, the equation becomes significantly more complex, not undoable mind you, but probably not worth the design/dev time it would require to make the raids scale for every possible iteration of number of people in a raid/party and every possible role combination for each of one of those those number of people. Framed like that, a sliding scale is just not going to cut it.
Dec 8th 2010 5:40PM Oh this is cool ... I want one!
Dec 6th 2010 11:41AM But-tons!