You post just illustrates perfectly how you have no idea what resource management is and how these games where played. No one sat around for 300 seconds, you managed your limited resources with planning and many different options the game offered.
A healer for example has to make sure not to over-cure and waste MP, maybe it's better to throw a Regen spell on the DD than a full cure, how about using Bio 2 or Slow to reduce damage, hence reduce healing and mana use. I know your head is already spinning and you ask yourself: "What are all these spells, i only have 3 buttons, Damage, Heal, Teleport".
The Limited Mana and long recovery time served as an incentive to play better and manage your resources better, not as a time sink. It was only a time sink for idiots that do not understand how to play.
Your comment is the typical comment of the new generation of gamers that are not able to put 2 and 2 together and need to be hand held through the whole game getting every reward automatically for just holding the controller and pressing a button.
Your argument hinges on the ideas that (1) 300 seconds is the full regen downtime and so nobody actually experienced it, and (2) managing resources is an interesting decision.
Yes, if you rest at 40% health you only wait 180 seconds (60% of 300). And clearly this doesn't change my point: when you're waiting for 180 seconds you're not playing the game for that length of time (the game is playing you.)
The decision to stop and rest at 40% is one decision every 10-30 minutes. Meanwhile if combat is well-designed you're going to be making similar decisions of varying degrees every few seconds (with some resource management being short-term (every ~10 sec) and others being longer-term (~5 min cooldowns) and lots of decisions falling in between.) So you gain one decision while losing hundreds of other decisions.
#2 is the reason attrition-based decisions are used less and less in gaming (and even removed from games that had them), because they're less frequent and often shallower than the decisions they replace. Thank you for getting into the depth of combat decision-making in your own post, as it assures me this point will really sink in for you -- you understand that good combat rotations offer a dense constant series of interesting decisions, and you can mentally compare that with the infrequent uninteresting decision of downtime timesinks.
With limited downtime, the game can make those decisions even more meaningful, by providing a real threat of those efficiency decisions mattering, and penalizing mistakes in every major fight. With excessive downtime, the penalty for those mistakes is very abstract and can actually be entirely avoided by simply resting a bit earlier than normal.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
ROFLMAO, blunt instrument strikes again ...... and misses.
Try thinking of it in terms of Whisky and Beer. After all, at one level, Whisky is Beer with the water taken out. Now if you simply do that you wind up with a pretty awful spirit, but if you put it in barrels and age it and it can taste might fine.
But you know something: people still make lots of different kinds of beer and a whole lot of folks drink a whole lot of beer and enjoy doing so.
Or you could think about Brandy and Wine. Or think about what happens when you mix Brandy spirt and wine and make; port, tokay, sherry etc.
Or you could think about Calvados and Cider.
Timesink, Grind, one Developers definition or another. People like doing different things, people have different tolerance levels for repetition and this can vary day to day and over time. There is no absolute here as fun and boredom are always subjective.
Why would I try thinking in terms of whiskey? Timesinks aren't some desirable thing that makes for a better game. They're empty non-gameplay. It's watered down beer.
Do you realize what you're defending though? A game takes 15 secs to regen health and mana. A designer comes along, tweaks that number to 300 seconds so you spend nearly 5 long minutes between combat just sitting around waiting, and you're going to claim that's in any way better gameplay? That's not gameplay at all. Gameplay is decisions, and sitting around waiting involves no decisions.
If you enjoy a game telling you "wait here", and that's fun to you, more power to you. But most people understand that timesinks are water in the beer. Some water is required to make beer, but excessive water beyond that just ruins the product.
Time sinks are games period lol. You can't really compare Everquest with its regen time to games now. The game was based around combat grinds and time sinks. Both of which were reduced with grouping.
Games today are based around quest based level. The time sink is not the regeneration. Its the quest. Not much difference in taking 5 minutes to regenerate than taking 5 minutes to find a !, follow a glowy line, kill stuff and loot and return to quest giver. If anything downtime in EQ would be reduced by grouping/twinking while nothing really gets you past the questing any faster.
You post just illustrates perfectly how you have no idea what resource management is and how these games where played. No one sat around for 300 seconds, you managed your limited resources with planning and many different options the game offered.
A healer for example has to make sure not to over-cure and waste MP, maybe it's better to throw a Regen spell on the DD than a full cure, how about using Bio 2 or Slow to reduce damage, hence reduce healing and mana use. I know your head is already spinning and you ask yourself: "What are all these spells, i only have 3 buttons, Damage, Heal, Teleport".
The Limited Mana and long recovery time served as an incentive to play better and manage your resources better, not as a time sink. It was only a time sink for idiots that do not understand how to play.
Your comment is the typical comment of the new generation of gamers that are not able to put 2 and 2 together and need to be hand held through the whole game getting every reward automatically for just holding the controller and pressing a button.
Your argument hinges on the ideas that (1) 300 seconds is the full regen downtime and so nobody actually experienced it, and (2) managing resources is an interesting decision.
Yes, if you rest at 40% health you only wait 180 seconds (60% of 300). And clearly this doesn't change my point: when you're waiting for 180 seconds you're not playing the game for that length of time (the game is playing you.)
The decision to stop and rest at 40% is one decision every 10-30 minutes. Meanwhile if combat is well-designed you're going to be making similar decisions of varying degrees every few seconds (with some resource management being short-term (every ~10 sec) and others being longer-term (~5 min cooldowns) and lots of decisions falling in between.) So you gain one decision while losing hundreds of other decisions.
#2 is the reason attrition-based decisions are used less and less in gaming (and even removed from games that had them), because they're less frequent and often shallower than the decisions they replace. Thank you for getting into the depth of combat decision-making in your own post, as it assures me this point will really sink in for you -- you understand that good combat rotations offer a dense constant series of interesting decisions, and you can mentally compare that with the infrequent uninteresting decision of downtime timesinks.
With limited downtime, the game can make those decisions even more meaningful, by providing a real threat of those efficiency decisions mattering, and penalizing mistakes in every major fight. With excessive downtime, the penalty for those mistakes is very abstract and can actually be entirely avoided by simply resting a bit earlier than normal.
Agreed on all points. Very well thoughout and constructed illustration of the greater design principles at play here.
To add to the point. The situation as it relates to EQ was even worse. As the penalty for combat failure was so exessively punitive that no one in there right mind would or did risk not being completely prepared for the fight. There was no decision making in terms of resources, if the fight thought to be even remotely challenging you simply regened to full. Like you said the decision for conservation can be circumvented and for the most part it was completely bi-passed by excessive caution triggered by the insane death penalty.
But that wasn't even the worst of it. Resource regen wasn't even what you spent most of your time doing in EQ. Most of the time spent in EQ was at various "camp" spots waiting for respawn (or more liking sitting at the zone yelling for updates about what camp spots were open). Resource conservation wasn't even a factor. You see we gamers were clever and we figured out how to time the killing of mobs so that respawn would be spread out in such a way so that we only had to engage one mob at a time. All the clever design and difficulty of the multi-mob encounter went out the window as we "gamed" the mechanics.
Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal Not much difference in taking 5 minutes to regenerate than taking 5 minutes to find a !, follow a glowy line, kill stuff and loot and return to quest giver.
Huge difference actually, one is passive, the other is active.
When I want to stare at a screen doing nothing, I watch a movie or TV, it's way more fun than drinking some mana stuff for 5 minutes.
I don't disagree but in a MMO there arr many things to multitask. I personally think both time sinks are played out and overdone.
You post just illustrates perfectly how you have no idea what resource management is and how these games where played. No one sat around for 300 seconds, you managed your limited resources with planning and many different options the game offered.
A healer for example has to make sure not to over-cure and waste MP, maybe it's better to throw a Regen spell on the DD than a full cure, how about using Bio 2 or Slow to reduce damage, hence reduce healing and mana use. I know your head is already spinning and you ask yourself: "What are all these spells, i only have 3 buttons, Damage, Heal, Teleport".
The Limited Mana and long recovery time served as an incentive to play better and manage your resources better, not as a time sink. It was only a time sink for idiots that do not understand how to play.
Your comment is the typical comment of the new generation of gamers that are not able to put 2 and 2 together and need to be hand held through the whole game getting every reward automatically for just holding the controller and pressing a button.
Your argument hinges on the ideas that (1) 300 seconds is the full regen downtime and so nobody actually experienced it, and (2) managing resources is an interesting decision.
Yes, if you rest at 40% health you only wait 180 seconds (60% of 300). And clearly this doesn't change my point: when you're waiting for 180 seconds you're not playing the game for that length of time (the game is playing you.)
The decision to stop and rest at 40% is one decision every 10-30 minutes. Meanwhile if combat is well-designed you're going to be making similar decisions of varying degrees every few seconds (with some resource management being short-term (every ~10 sec) and others being longer-term (~5 min cooldowns) and lots of decisions falling in between.) So you gain one decision while losing hundreds of other decisions.
#2 is the reason attrition-based decisions are used less and less in gaming (and even removed from games that had them), because they're less frequent and often shallower than the decisions they replace. Thank you for getting into the depth of combat decision-making in your own post, as it assures me this point will really sink in for you -- you understand that good combat rotations offer a dense constant series of interesting decisions, and you can mentally compare that with the infrequent uninteresting decision of downtime timesinks.
With limited downtime, the game can make those decisions even more meaningful, by providing a real threat of those efficiency decisions mattering, and penalizing mistakes in every major fight. With excessive downtime, the penalty for those mistakes is very abstract and can actually be entirely avoided by simply resting a bit earlier than normal.
You can refuse to understand it that is your right and your opinion, but no one actually rested at all. You used your resources in an intelligent manner to not have to rest. If you needed to rest you did something wrong, period.
We can talk about this all day but i doubt we would come to any result since you clearly lack the ability to understand how these games where played.
Time sinks are games period lol. You can't really compare Everquest with its regen time to games now. The game was based around combat grinds and time sinks. Both of which were reduced with grouping.
Games today are based around quest based level. The time sink is not the regeneration. Its the quest. Not much difference in taking 5 minutes to regenerate than taking 5 minutes to find a !, follow a glowy line, kill stuff and loot and return to quest giver. If anything downtime in EQ would be reduced by grouping/twinking while nothing really gets you past the questing any faster.
Timesinks aren't games. They're the gaps between the gameplay. They're the period where the game is like "sit here and be quiet until we give you permission to play the game again."
Suggesting you could reduce downtime with grouping is pretty irrelevant, since that caster is still sitting there staring at a spellbook.
Clearly "sit here and do nothing for 5 minutes" (or 180 seconds) is less interesting than just about anything, including activities related to quests.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You post just illustrates perfectly how you have no idea what resource management is and how these games where played. No one sat around for 300 seconds, you managed your limited resources with planning and many different options the game offered.
A healer for example has to make sure not to over-cure and waste MP, maybe it's better to throw a Regen spell on the DD than a full cure, how about using Bio 2 or Slow to reduce damage, hence reduce healing and mana use. I know your head is already spinning and you ask yourself: "What are all these spells, i only have 3 buttons, Damage, Heal, Teleport".
The Limited Mana and long recovery time served as an incentive to play better and manage your resources better, not as a time sink. It was only a time sink for idiots that do not understand how to play.
Your comment is the typical comment of the new generation of gamers that are not able to put 2 and 2 together and need to be hand held through the whole game getting every reward automatically for just holding the controller and pressing a button.
Your argument hinges on the ideas that (1) 300 seconds is the full regen downtime and so nobody actually experienced it, and (2) managing resources is an interesting decision.
Yes, if you rest at 40% health you only wait 180 seconds (60% of 300). And clearly this doesn't change my point: when you're waiting for 180 seconds you're not playing the game for that length of time (the game is playing you.)
The decision to stop and rest at 40% is one decision every 10-30 minutes. Meanwhile if combat is well-designed you're going to be making similar decisions of varying degrees every few seconds (with some resource management being short-term (every ~10 sec) and others being longer-term (~5 min cooldowns) and lots of decisions falling in between.) So you gain one decision while losing hundreds of other decisions.
#2 is the reason attrition-based decisions are used less and less in gaming (and even removed from games that had them), because they're less frequent and often shallower than the decisions they replace. Thank you for getting into the depth of combat decision-making in your own post, as it assures me this point will really sink in for you -- you understand that good combat rotations offer a dense constant series of interesting decisions, and you can mentally compare that with the infrequent uninteresting decision of downtime timesinks.
With limited downtime, the game can make those decisions even more meaningful, by providing a real threat of those efficiency decisions mattering, and penalizing mistakes in every major fight. With excessive downtime, the penalty for those mistakes is very abstract and can actually be entirely avoided by simply resting a bit earlier than normal.
You can refuse to understand it that is your right and your opinion, but no one actually rested at all. You used your resources in an intelligent manner to not have to rest. If you needed to rest you did something wrong, period.
We can talk about this all day but i doubt we would come to any result since you clearly lack the ability to understand how these games where played.
This conversation serves no purpose any more,
Good bye
This whole discussion is predicated on the basis that just because a lot of people like something that means it's better. That is a bad premise to argue with unless all you care about is making money. Generally all developers care about is making money so that is why we see these game mechanics in most MMOs. The fact that most people just want quick combat that they can jump into and out of shows how shallow MMOs have really become. Most of this is because of the larger audience that has joined in.
We can talk about this all day but i doubt we would come to any result since you clearly lack the ability to understand how these games where played.
This conversation serves no purpose any more,
Good bye
This is the second time in this thread where you 'took the ball and went home' once you realized you were out of straw men arguments.
Not sure what you expected though. This is a debate, if you can't handle the heat don't be in the kitchen.
Back to OP - I agree. At a certain stage in your life (most common one is marriage/children), most people will have limited playtime and long '2-3 hour' gaming session just isn't possible.
It shows what PvP games are really all about, and no, it's not about more realism and immersion. It's about cowards hiding behind a screen to they can bully other defenseless players without any risk of direct retaliation like there would be if they acted like asshats in "real life". -Jean-Luc_Picard
Life itself is a game. So why shouldn't your game be ruined? - justmemyselfandi
This whole discussion is predicated on the basis that just because a lot of people like something that means it's better. That is a bad premise to argue with unless all you care about is making money. Generally all developers care about is making money so that is why we see these game mechanics in most MMOs. The fact that most people just want quick combat that they can jump into and out of shows how shallow MMOs have really become. Most of this is because of the larger audience that has joined in.
No .. it is predicated on the basis that "better" is subjective, and that if a lot people like something .. it is "better" for them.
And what you call "shallow", i call "convenient and fun". Just a preference for games .. and the market works exactly like it should.
This whole discussion is predicated on the basis that just because a lot of people like something that means it's better. That is a bad premise to argue with unless all you care about is making money. Generally all developers care about is making money so that is why we see these game mechanics in most MMOs. The fact that most people just want quick combat that they can jump into and out of shows how shallow MMOs have really become. Most of this is because of the larger audience that has joined in.
It's also the premise that the point of games is gameplay (decisions; thinking; interaction) and that timesinks are specifically not gameplay (or so little gameplay as to be irrelevant.)
It's gameplay most people want, not "quick combat". They're playing the game to play the game. If they wanted to do nothing, they don't need a game for that.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
ROFLMAO, blunt instrument strikes again ...... and misses.
Try thinking of it in terms of Whisky and Beer. After all, at one level, Whisky is Beer with the water taken out. Now if you simply do that you wind up with a pretty awful spirit, but if you put it in barrels and age it and it can taste might fine.
But you know something: people still make lots of different kinds of beer and a whole lot of folks drink a whole lot of beer and enjoy doing so.
Or you could think about Brandy and Wine. Or think about what happens when you mix Brandy spirt and wine and make; port, tokay, sherry etc.
Or you could think about Calvados and Cider.
Timesink, Grind, one Developers definition or another. People like doing different things, people have different tolerance levels for repetition and this can vary day to day and over time. There is no absolute here as fun and boredom are always subjective.
Why would I try thinking in terms of whiskey? Timesinks aren't some desirable thing that makes for a better game. They're empty non-gameplay. It's watered down beer.
Do you realize what you're defending though? A game takes 15 secs to regen health and mana. A designer comes along, tweaks that number to 300 seconds so you spend nearly 5 long minutes between combat just sitting around waiting, and you're going to claim that's in any way better gameplay? That's not gameplay at all. Gameplay is decisions, and sitting around waiting involves no decisions.
If you enjoy a game telling you "wait here", and that's fun to you, more power to you. But most people understand that timesinks are water in the beer. Some water is required to make beer, but excessive water beyond that just ruins the product.
Now, while I ain't sure what timesinks have to do with larger dungeons you are right. Waiting a long time to heal up or getting off your important cooldowns brings very little to the game, at best you get a bio break or some chat time with other players.
Waiting is not fun, no matter if you wait to regen hp and mana, for a respawn or something else. I don't think more than possibly a few induviduals actually like standing around and doing nothing.
If you want to promote good fighting and not taking too much damage, there are other and better ways for that, like having critical damage which actually takes a bandage or a visit to a temple to get rid off. That way you need to craft or buy a bandage if you play poorly (yeah, it is a moneysink though but it wont make you wait and give the crafters something to earn money on).
Running a huge dungeon takes time but it is time having fun at least. If you want to include timesinks in your game you need to implement stuff that is more fun than just waiting in line. Travelling is a better timesink than waiting for nothing, there you are doing something and there is a risk to it as well as the fact that you might stumble on something interesting if the game is made the right way.
And be careful with minigames timesinks, some games have made it for crafting. Stuff like that might be fun the first few times but when you are forced to craft 100 worthless tin swords to be able to make bronze ones it gets boring fast. Rightly implementated things like this can be fun but far too often it is just like watching paint dry.
ROFLMAO, blunt instrument strikes again ...... and misses.
Try thinking of it in terms of Whisky and Beer. After all, at one level, Whisky is Beer with the water taken out. Now if you simply do that you wind up with a pretty awful spirit, but if you put it in barrels and age it and it can taste might fine.
But you know something: people still make lots of different kinds of beer and a whole lot of folks drink a whole lot of beer and enjoy doing so.
Or you could think about Brandy and Wine. Or think about what happens when you mix Brandy spirt and wine and make; port, tokay, sherry etc.
Or you could think about Calvados and Cider.
Timesink, Grind, one Developers definition or another. People like doing different things, people have different tolerance levels for repetition and this can vary day to day and over time. There is no absolute here as fun and boredom are always subjective.
Why would I try thinking in terms of whiskey? Timesinks aren't some desirable thing that makes for a better game. They're empty non-gameplay. It's watered down beer.
Do you realize what you're defending though? A game takes 15 secs to regen health and mana. A designer comes along, tweaks that number to 300 seconds so you spend nearly 5 long minutes between combat just sitting around waiting, and you're going to claim that's in any way better gameplay? That's not gameplay at all. Gameplay is decisions, and sitting around waiting involves no decisions.
If you enjoy a game telling you "wait here", and that's fun to you, more power to you. But most people understand that timesinks are water in the beer. Some water is required to make beer, but excessive water beyond that just ruins the product.
Now, while I ain't sure what timesinks have to do with larger dungeons you are right. Waiting a long time to heal up or getting off your important cooldowns brings very little to the game, at best you get a bio break or some chat time with other players.
Waiting is not fun, no matter if you wait to regen hp and mana, for a respawn or something else. I don't think more than possibly a few induviduals actually like standing around and doing nothing.
If you want to promote good fighting and not taking too much damage, there are other and better ways for that, like having critical damage which actually takes a bandage or a visit to a temple to get rid off. That way you need to craft or buy a bandage if you play poorly (yeah, it is a moneysink though but it wont make you wait and give the crafters something to earn money on).
Running a huge dungeon takes time but it is time having fun at least. If you want to include timesinks in your game you need to implement stuff that is more fun than just waiting in line. Travelling is a better timesink than waiting for nothing, there you are doing something and there is a risk to it as well as the fact that you might stumble on something interesting if the game is made the right way.
And be careful with minigames timesinks, some games have made it for crafting. Stuff like that might be fun the first few times but when you are forced to craft 100 worthless tin swords to be able to make bronze ones it gets boring fast. Rightly implementated things like this can be fun but far too often it is just like watching paint dry.
Devs are less and less likely to put in timesink with no ways to go around .. since that is not what people like.
Challenge is easy to make .. just make the encounter hard to beat .. or make it pvp. E-sport is popular because of the challenge .. and you can have short convenient challenging games.
Now, while I ain't sure what timesinks have to do with larger dungeons you are right. Waiting a long time to heal up or getting off your important cooldowns brings very little to the game, at best you get a bio break or some chat time with other players.
Waiting is not fun, no matter if you wait to regen hp and mana, for a respawn or something else. I don't think more than possibly a few induviduals actually like standing around and doing nothing.
If you want to promote good fighting and not taking too much damage, there are other and better ways for that, like having critical damage which actually takes a bandage or a visit to a temple to get rid off. That way you need to craft or buy a bandage if you play poorly (yeah, it is a moneysink though but it wont make you wait and give the crafters something to earn money on).
Running a huge dungeon takes time but it is time having fun at least. If you want to include timesinks in your game you need to implement stuff that is more fun than just waiting in line. Travelling is a better timesink than waiting for nothing, there you are doing something and there is a risk to it as well as the fact that you might stumble on something interesting if the game is made the right way.
And be careful with minigames timesinks, some games have made it for crafting. Stuff like that might be fun the first few times but when you are forced to craft 100 worthless tin swords to be able to make bronze ones it gets boring fast. Rightly implementated things like this can be fun but far too often it is just like watching paint dry.
Well a trip to the temple runs into similar problems (it involves just about as little gameplay as downtime,) so that wouldn't actually get away from the problem.
Instead to promote smart play you'd put the reward at the end of an encounter which is tuned to be quite difficult, and if the player/group fails then everything resets instantly. So no time is spent in activities that don't require skill, and no reward is earned until the player/group plays skillfully enough to actually beat it.
Naturally only penalties which involve skill are going to make a game be more skill-centric. And the removal of penalties which don't require skill also causes a game to be more skill-centric.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I often see mmo vets bemoan current titles because dungeons and the like can be soloed or done in 5-10 mins unlike in the past where it was face-stompingly hard (I'm assuming). Nothing wrong with this, I like a challenge myself, but thinking about it further I realized something. Isn't this content BETTER for vets? It's probably not a stretch to say this content was designed with you in mind. By now, most vets are in their 30s or 40s with a family, job, etc with very sparse time.
If challenging/long content WAS developed vets wouldnt be able to participate in it because of their limited time. So shouldnt we be seeing the opposite? Shouldnt vets be praising new developers for making content they can solo between a hectic life?
This is very insightful, and sadly I have to agree.
I bemoan the olden days and at the same time realize that would it have been as it was, I would not have been able to participate!
So, kudos for pointing it out.
And I hate you for making it abundantly clear!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Originally posted by Jerek_
I wonder if you honestly even believe what you type, or if you live in a made up world of facts. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless doing the original act is no accomplishment at all, then doing it longer or more times is more challenging. Sorry, it's not opinion its math.
Whether the act involves skill or not, the duration it's done is mostly irrelevant.
If I walk back and forth across a bridge 1 time, that's unimpressive.
If I walk back and forth across a bridge 100 times, that's still unimpressive.
If I walk back and forth across a bridge 10,000 times to earn the "Bridge Walking MASTER" achievement and get the Staff of The Bridge Guardian, then I'm a fool with low standards of entertainment quality...and it's still unimpressive.
Walking the bridge 10k times isn't challenging. It's just as easy as the first time I walked across it.
Exactly. Thanks for putting it this way, it clear, concise and easy to understand. You won't win any arguements or change anyone's minds but this can't really be stated any better than you did.
I think you missed the part where I said "unless the original act is no accomplishment at all." The reason walking across a bridge 10,000 times is not an achievement is because the original act was no accomplishment. Again if doing X is even a small accomplishment then going to more times is a greater accomplishment, not an opinion, math.
Originally posted by Bladestrom Because we appreciate the journey, we are patient, we do enjoy lore and the story, we do understand immersion needs engagement, we don't get jealous if others rush ahead, we know that it madness to rush through content that took years to develop to get to end game where content runs out. Starter for 10
Perfect answer right there .....
But the Red Bull Chuggin ,Hot Pocket devouring , XBox generation doesnt get this ..
Well a trip to the temple runs into similar problems (it involves just about as little gameplay as downtime,) so that wouldn't actually get away from the problem.
Instead to promote smart play you'd put the reward at the end of an encounter which is tuned to be quite difficult, and if the player/group fails then everything resets instantly. So no time is spent in activities that don't require skill, and no reward is earned until the player/group plays skillfully enough to actually beat it.
Naturally only penalties which involve skill are going to make a game be more skill-centric. And the removal of penalties which don't require skill also causes a game to be more skill-centric.
You forget, Axehilt, that MMORPGs are mostly designed for people who are bad at games. And even they want to feel they've accomplished something even though they haven't.
So you put your rewards at the end of long timesinks and grinds so that people are sure to get there even if they are bad. Tank 'n' spank is the only tactic required and traditionally the combat should rely heavily on dicerolls - not on player skill. Only in MMORPGs can you beat someone because you are either
higher level than your opponent,
have better gear than your opponent
or have more friends than your opponent.
And if you really want to reach out to the "hardcore", you remove all tutorials, skill descriptions, numbers and any sort of convenience feature you can find so that they have a reason to feel smug about something - even if that something is as trivial as reading a quest log or clicking through NPCs to see which of them has a quest to give you.
Its like in sports when you can't hit a moving ball anymore, you move into golf. Same thing with video games: When you can't cut it in other genres, you move into MMORPGs.
If you're going to introduce things like hand-eye-coordination, timing, improvised tactics or gated content based on player skill (and not say... character level) you're going to lose a significant portion of the possible playerbase right there.
And I'm only half joking! On average, MMORPG players really suck at video games!
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Op should start a new thread. Other than the exaggeration of 5-10 min dungeons which reeks of trolling. However, since people are taking this thread seriously then establishing the difference of casual, hardcore and veteran is important. Op makes a comparison of hardcore and casuals, but uses the word vet.
Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble
Unless doing the original act is no accomplishment at all, then doing it longer or more times is more challenging. Sorry, it's not opinion its math.
Whether the act involves skill or not, the duration it's done is mostly irrelevant.
If I walk back and forth across a bridge 1 time, that's unimpressive.
If I walk back and forth across a bridge 100 times, that's still unimpressive.
If I walk back and forth across a bridge 10,000 times to earn the "Bridge Walking MASTER" achievement and get the Staff of The Bridge Guardian, then I'm a fool with low standards of entertainment quality...and it's still unimpressive.
Walking the bridge 10k times isn't challenging. It's just as easy as the first time I walked across it.
Exactly. Thanks for putting it this way, it clear, concise and easy to understand. You won't win any arguements or change anyone's minds but this can't really be stated any better than you did.
I think you missed the part where I said "unless the original act is no accomplishment at all." The reason walking across a bridge 10,000 times is not an achievement is because the original act was no accomplishment. Again if doing X is even a small accomplishment then going to more times is a greater accomplishment, not an opinion, math.
So you kill a tough boss 100 times is "more" challenging than the first time?
And by your logic, if kill a trash mob is a small small "accomplishment", then killing 1000000 of them is a great one? Are you talking about Diablo 3?
Personally, I do not believe there is "accomplishment" in video games, except may be top of e-sports. Challenges & "achievements" are illusions controlled & created by devs to entertain. If you want to believe killing 100000 trash mob is a great achievement .. good for you.
Personally i want games to be convenient and challenging in the short amount of time that I am granting them. "Accomplishment", at least to me, is reserved for real life stuff .. like career & family.
I think vets have sorted out their lives and have allocated timeblocks for recreation. That's why they simply are able to dedicate more to intense gaming sessions.
alternatively, because it takes longer to get in the mood.
Its not about that. Even people who have less time to play want to do something that feels meaningful or put in time towards a worthwhile, long term goal. The idea that casual games are better for people with less time isn't true for everyone.
I think vets have sorted out their lives and have allocated timeblocks for recreation. That's why they simply are able to dedicate more to intense gaming sessions.
alternatively, because it takes longer to get in the mood.
Its not about that. Even people who have less time to play want to do something that feels meaningful or put in time towards a worthwhile, long term goal. The idea that casual games are better for people with less time isn't true for everyone.
not everyone has long term goals in games .. may be they just want to have fun kill some stuff, and then go to dinner?
I think vets have sorted out their lives and have allocated timeblocks for recreation. That's why they simply are able to dedicate more to intense gaming sessions.
alternatively, because it takes longer to get in the mood.
Its not about that. Even people who have less time to play want to do something that feels meaningful or put in time towards a worthwhile, long term goal. The idea that casual games are better for people with less time isn't true for everyone.
I bet you'll get replies in this very topic proving long-term goals aren't appealing to everyone.
I am the proof. I doubt anyone needs me to post again to see that ... but hey ... here i am.
Comments
Your argument hinges on the ideas that (1) 300 seconds is the full regen downtime and so nobody actually experienced it, and (2) managing resources is an interesting decision.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Time sinks are games period lol. You can't really compare Everquest with its regen time to games now. The game was based around combat grinds and time sinks. Both of which were reduced with grouping.
Games today are based around quest based level. The time sink is not the regeneration. Its the quest. Not much difference in taking 5 minutes to regenerate than taking 5 minutes to find a !, follow a glowy line, kill stuff and loot and return to quest giver. If anything downtime in EQ would be reduced by grouping/twinking while nothing really gets you past the questing any faster.
Agreed on all points. Very well thoughout and constructed illustration of the greater design principles at play here.
To add to the point. The situation as it relates to EQ was even worse. As the penalty for combat failure was so exessively punitive that no one in there right mind would or did risk not being completely prepared for the fight. There was no decision making in terms of resources, if the fight thought to be even remotely challenging you simply regened to full. Like you said the decision for conservation can be circumvented and for the most part it was completely bi-passed by excessive caution triggered by the insane death penalty.
But that wasn't even the worst of it. Resource regen wasn't even what you spent most of your time doing in EQ. Most of the time spent in EQ was at various "camp" spots waiting for respawn (or more liking sitting at the zone yelling for updates about what camp spots were open). Resource conservation wasn't even a factor. You see we gamers were clever and we figured out how to time the killing of mobs so that respawn would be spread out in such a way so that we only had to engage one mob at a time. All the clever design and difficulty of the multi-mob encounter went out the window as we "gamed" the mechanics.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
I don't disagree but in a MMO there arr many things to multitask. I personally think both time sinks are played out and overdone.
You can refuse to understand it that is your right and your opinion, but no one actually rested at all. You used your resources in an intelligent manner to not have to rest. If you needed to rest you did something wrong, period.
We can talk about this all day but i doubt we would come to any result since you clearly lack the ability to understand how these games where played.
This conversation serves no purpose any more,
Good bye
Timesinks aren't games. They're the gaps between the gameplay. They're the period where the game is like "sit here and be quiet until we give you permission to play the game again."
Suggesting you could reduce downtime with grouping is pretty irrelevant, since that caster is still sitting there staring at a spellbook.
Clearly "sit here and do nothing for 5 minutes" (or 180 seconds) is less interesting than just about anything, including activities related to quests.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
This whole discussion is predicated on the basis that just because a lot of people like something that means it's better. That is a bad premise to argue with unless all you care about is making money. Generally all developers care about is making money so that is why we see these game mechanics in most MMOs. The fact that most people just want quick combat that they can jump into and out of shows how shallow MMOs have really become. Most of this is because of the larger audience that has joined in.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
This is the second time in this thread where you 'took the ball and went home' once you realized you were out of straw men arguments.
Not sure what you expected though. This is a debate, if you can't handle the heat don't be in the kitchen.
Back to OP - I agree. At a certain stage in your life (most common one is marriage/children), most people will have limited playtime and long '2-3 hour' gaming session just isn't possible.
It shows what PvP games are really all about, and no, it's not about more realism and immersion. It's about cowards hiding behind a screen to they can bully other defenseless players without any risk of direct retaliation like there would be if they acted like asshats in "real life". -Jean-Luc_Picard
Life itself is a game. So why shouldn't your game be ruined? - justmemyselfandi
No .. it is predicated on the basis that "better" is subjective, and that if a lot people like something .. it is "better" for them.
And what you call "shallow", i call "convenient and fun". Just a preference for games .. and the market works exactly like it should.
It's also the premise that the point of games is gameplay (decisions; thinking; interaction) and that timesinks are specifically not gameplay (or so little gameplay as to be irrelevant.)
It's gameplay most people want, not "quick combat". They're playing the game to play the game. If they wanted to do nothing, they don't need a game for that.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Now, while I ain't sure what timesinks have to do with larger dungeons you are right. Waiting a long time to heal up or getting off your important cooldowns brings very little to the game, at best you get a bio break or some chat time with other players.
Waiting is not fun, no matter if you wait to regen hp and mana, for a respawn or something else. I don't think more than possibly a few induviduals actually like standing around and doing nothing.
If you want to promote good fighting and not taking too much damage, there are other and better ways for that, like having critical damage which actually takes a bandage or a visit to a temple to get rid off. That way you need to craft or buy a bandage if you play poorly (yeah, it is a moneysink though but it wont make you wait and give the crafters something to earn money on).
Running a huge dungeon takes time but it is time having fun at least. If you want to include timesinks in your game you need to implement stuff that is more fun than just waiting in line. Travelling is a better timesink than waiting for nothing, there you are doing something and there is a risk to it as well as the fact that you might stumble on something interesting if the game is made the right way.
And be careful with minigames timesinks, some games have made it for crafting. Stuff like that might be fun the first few times but when you are forced to craft 100 worthless tin swords to be able to make bronze ones it gets boring fast. Rightly implementated things like this can be fun but far too often it is just like watching paint dry.
Devs are less and less likely to put in timesink with no ways to go around .. since that is not what people like.
Challenge is easy to make .. just make the encounter hard to beat .. or make it pvp. E-sport is popular because of the challenge .. and you can have short convenient challenging games.
Well a trip to the temple runs into similar problems (it involves just about as little gameplay as downtime,) so that wouldn't actually get away from the problem.
Instead to promote smart play you'd put the reward at the end of an encounter which is tuned to be quite difficult, and if the player/group fails then everything resets instantly. So no time is spent in activities that don't require skill, and no reward is earned until the player/group plays skillfully enough to actually beat it.
Naturally only penalties which involve skill are going to make a game be more skill-centric. And the removal of penalties which don't require skill also causes a game to be more skill-centric.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
This is very insightful, and sadly I have to agree.
I bemoan the olden days and at the same time realize that would it have been as it was, I would not have been able to participate!
So, kudos for pointing it out.
And I hate you for making it abundantly clear!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jerek_
I wonder if you honestly even believe what you type, or if you live in a made up world of facts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you missed the part where I said "unless the original act is no accomplishment at all." The reason walking across a bridge 10,000 times is not an achievement is because the original act was no accomplishment. Again if doing X is even a small accomplishment then going to more times is a greater accomplishment, not an opinion, math.
Perfect answer right there .....
But the Red Bull Chuggin ,Hot Pocket devouring , XBox generation doesnt get this ..
You forget, Axehilt, that MMORPGs are mostly designed for people who are bad at games. And even they want to feel they've accomplished something even though they haven't.
So you put your rewards at the end of long timesinks and grinds so that people are sure to get there even if they are bad. Tank 'n' spank is the only tactic required and traditionally the combat should rely heavily on dicerolls - not on player skill. Only in MMORPGs can you beat someone because you are either
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble
So you kill a tough boss 100 times is "more" challenging than the first time?
And by your logic, if kill a trash mob is a small small "accomplishment", then killing 1000000 of them is a great one? Are you talking about Diablo 3?
Personally, I do not believe there is "accomplishment" in video games, except may be top of e-sports. Challenges & "achievements" are illusions controlled & created by devs to entertain. If you want to believe killing 100000 trash mob is a great achievement .. good for you.
Personally i want games to be convenient and challenging in the short amount of time that I am granting them. "Accomplishment", at least to me, is reserved for real life stuff .. like career & family.
Its not about that. Even people who have less time to play want to do something that feels meaningful or put in time towards a worthwhile, long term goal. The idea that casual games are better for people with less time isn't true for everyone.
not everyone has long term goals in games .. may be they just want to have fun kill some stuff, and then go to dinner?
I am the proof. I doubt anyone needs me to post again to see that ... but hey ... here i am.