YET IF YOU ENGUAGED THEM IN 10 SECS YOU SHOULD KNOW IF THEY ARE A GOOD PLAYER. wow i have typed that like how many times and yes if you zone in late or anything then it will show the person killing less but also dieing less. So if you can interpret stats you still can get a good idea. Still THAT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT IF YOU CAN'T TELL WHO THE GREAT PLAYERS ARE YOUR BAD. " You CANNOT use the scoreboards to accurately determine a person's worth to a scenario and bg , or their skill."- I do and it works good enough, score boards do not need to be perfect, just good enough and war's shows enough to tell who is good and bad almost all the time.
really 10 seconds? What if their kid called for them in those 10 seconds,cat knocked over a cup of coffee, or they sneezed, or got a lag spike? Is ten seconds all you really need? WoW you must be psychic then to know that person wasn't distracted by some real life event or system failure in that 10 seconds. I guess nobody has ever screwed up and hit the wrong key either before. That ten second mistake definitely encompasses their whole pvp career and skill.
You can interpret stats all you want. In WAR Bright wizards do tons of dps on the charts, but most of them suck because they're spamming ae's on the tanks. They're not assisting tanks, choosing soft targets. Healers healing the BW to keep them alive from backlash are getting inflated numbers on healing, but that doesn't help the tank or dps in the back lines that is dying because they can't get a heal. Those charts you covet so much can lie and usually do.
From this highlighted quote I am willing to bet you were a complete zerger in daoc who didn't run with a tight group that was successful more often than not against equal or better numbers.
Blizzard on catering to the hardcore, making the game accessible and bringing eSports to the masses.
by Cam Shea, IGN AU
Australia, July 10, 2009 - Blizzard has an interesting challenge on its hands for the game design of StarCraft II. On one hand, the original has proven to be one of the most popular and long running multiplayer videogames of all time: not only is it still played today, but it's an institution in South Korea, where the game's popularity and its level of coverage essentially make it a national sport. On the other hand - and against this weight of expectation for a balanced, deep game that will thrive in the pro circuits - Blizzard is also looking for a blockbuster hit: a game that will go beyond the hardcore and enter the mainstream. Of course, the company has proven time and again that it has what it takes to do just that, and that making a game that will appeal to the hardcore, as well as be accessible for mainstream players is not a diametrically opposed challenge, but part of the same process. Indeed, strangely enough, mainstream appeal is born out of making a game for the hardcore. "This is sort of a Blizzard core design philosophy," Dustin Browder, StarCraft II's lead game designer told us. "We always cater to the hardcore community. Always. From minute one we focus on them, and then we try to make it more accessible after that... A lot of other companies say 'casual first because they're the biggest numbers… and then someday we'll deal with those hardcore guys if we get time to get to them...,' but we say 'look, at the end of the day, everybody has the chance to become a hardcore person if only you'll let them'."
Part of transitioning players from more casual fans to fanatics is about building the right learning curve; the classic 'easy to learn, hard to master' philosophy of Blizzard. "WoW has a real advantage over us in the sense that they have that 1-79 experience with questing, which is pretty easy to do and not too hardcore," Dustin says, "and then it gets pretty hardcore with raids and PVP arena, but at that point, how comfortable are you with this character?" The goal for StarCraft II, then, is to have stages for players to progress through. Dustin maps it out: "Try your campaign, cool. Okay, try your skirmish – you can get some achievements playing skirmish for a few games. How about these challenges that you can play? Each of these challenges is about five to ten minutes, and each one of them teaches you a core bit of RTS StarCraft II strategy. Why don't you try those out? We've got some achievements for you there too. Hey, you know what? You should go online. There's this casual league online – you should click on that and see what happens there. It's a casual league, there's no rush maps, the game speed is set a little bit slower, why don't you try that for a couple of weeks? Hey, you know what might be fun? Maybe you should play a 2v2, just one. So if we can sort of step it out for them it'll be great. If they just play the campaign then click on 'play [online] game', then, oh God, it's going to be horrible.""
""Making a game that can ease in newcomers and provide a fun experience for casual players, as well as sate the appetites of pro gamers, isn't the whole story though. There's also eSports. How to promote StarCraft II as a spectator sport outside South Korea? How to introduce people to the complexities and minor details of pro play? Can it even work as a spectator support in the West? Dustin isn't certain, but the team is committed to doing everything it can to try and make it happen. That's why the studio is producing the Battle Reports, to "give people a window," that isn't too hardcore – quite a different approach to the Shoutcast community where a high level of knowledge is assumed. "If we can put out stuff that says 'hey guys – competitive gaming – fun to watch! Check this shit out!'," Dustin says, "I think it might get more breadth.""
Now read those highlighted parts again, and then you'll know exactly why WoW is so huge and every major MMO released since then has not been able to retain any more then a few hundred thousands subs.
I don't think Blizzard's marketing team would typically agree with those highlighted statements lol... It's actually very contradicting in a sense that no company forces to cator their product or service to a small destintive market. Normally, most companies (especially corperations) would cator to specific target makets, but at a broad-span, and they would definitely not want to reduce their market vision as a whole.
The fact is, if Blizzard did infact primarily focus on their "Hardcore" player-base from the start, they would have never reached the amount of subscriptions they have today. You can't engineer a product that way, especially an online game where you are trying to capture as many potential players as you can. Based on my experience (I've played WoW since beta, and within several guilds), most players are your typical casuals who get home from school or work, and want to spend an hour or two either raiding, PvPing, questing, etc. They sometimes even just want to get online and start chatting with their guild-mates, making WoW a sort-of "social IM client" as well.
The MANY changes they made to the game along the way have definitely made life easier for their subscribers, this in itself contradicts the highlighted statements above. You have to understand that Blizzard really wants to be involved in the "eSport" aspect of the online gaming genre, they did very well with the original StarCraft. However, they will bring in developers & directors into interviews yelping these eSport statements all day long. This doesn't necessarily make their games "eSports" automatically. One of the recent issues is that StarCraft 2 has had some negative feedback by Blizzard's highest competitive market, South Korea / Taiwan. Apparently the game is coming along quite nicely, however there is one major concern, there isno LAN support available. So how does this game suppose to remain "hardcore" and truely competitive as an eSport when it cannot be hosted at LAN tournaments around the world?
I don't think Blizzard's marketing team would typically agree with those highlighted statements lol... It's actually very contradicting in a sense that no company forces to cator their product or service to a small destintive market. Normally, most companies (especially corperations) would cator to specific target makets, but at a broad-span, and they would definitely not want to reduce their market vision as a whole.
I think that, as a matter of fact, Blizzard's CEO also agrees with that point of view. In an Eurogamer interview not-too-long-ago Rob Pardo states almost word-for-word the same thing: "One of the ways we do that is that we build for the depth first - for the hardcore first." Come to think of it, maybe it is just the kind of advertisement Blizzard wants for their games: these are the games for the hardcore where you can become one. I think it is fairly basic human need to feel yourself better than the rest and providing your game with road to grandeur for a single player or a collective of players is likely the thing to hook them for ages.
Originally posted by Lorenz0
The fact is, if Blizzard did infact primarily focus on their "Hardcore" player-base from the start, they would have never reached the amount of subscriptions they have today. You can't engineer a product that way, especially an online game where you are trying to capture as many potential players as you can. Based on my experience (I've played WoW since beta, and within several guilds), most players are your typical casuals who get home from school or work, and want to spend an hour or two either raiding, PvPing, questing, etc. They sometimes even just want to get online and start chatting with their guild-mates, making WoW a sort-of "social IM client" as well.
Actually, as proved above the lead designer of WoW says that their main focus was not on the casual gamer but on the hard core. Clearly it comes to show that you can design a game like that and make it succesful. The reason for this is that whilst the game caters for the hard core it has sufficient depth to keep more casually oriented players satisfied. Also, by providing hard core goals (e.g. defeating the, at time, hardest raid encounter or by gaining an arena rating of over # value etc.) they give the casuals an incentive to strive for those goals as a pinnacle of success. What hard core plays down and considers a trivial task can function as an ultimate goal for the mere mortal (i.e. casual player).
Its pathetic to see guys saying that needing internet to play lan is something really hard and killing a game.Its 2009 and i dont believe there is any civilized place which will host a lan tournament or party and not being able to have internet for less than 40E.Even if there is no telephone line there are wireless internet usb cards.There is no excuse to not have access to internet these days.
Actually, the hackers will have no problem dissecting the game and offer LAN gameplay. People getting their hands on pirated copies won't be able to connect to battle.net naturally. The legit players will be the only ones without LAN, while the ones pirating will play in a LAN without any problem.
The LAN gameplay was definitely not cut due to piracy, but to promote Battle.net in a manner that xbox service works.
Its pathetic to see guys saying that needing internet to play lan is something really hard and killing a game.Its 2009 and i dont believe there is any civilized place which will host a lan tournament or party and not being able to have internet for less than 40E.Even if there is no telephone line there are wireless internet usb cards.There is no excuse to not have access to internet these days.
Well, it all depends on whether you consider Diablo or Starcraft a single player or a mulitplayer game. For me Diablo was a multiplayer game but starcraft was a single player one, that's just the way I was gaming. In this regard, I don't care if there won't be any LAN support, but I would certainly mind if the game was unplayable because it couldn't connect to the internet.
By the way, I buy games from Steam service, but I tend to buy only those that I enjoy playing online most of the time. I avoid buying single player games, since I want to game on my laptop when I'm not at home (traveling).
Its pathetic to see guys saying that needing internet to play lan is something really hard and killing a game.Its 2009 and i dont believe there is any civilized place which will host a lan tournament or party and not being able to have internet for less than 40E.Even if there is no telephone line there are wireless internet usb cards.There is no excuse to not have access to internet these days.
Well, it all depends on whether you consider Diablo or Starcraft a single player or a mulitplayer game. For me Diablo was a multiplayer game but starcraft was a single player one, that's just the way I was gaming. In this regard, I don't care if there won't be any LAN support, but I would certainly mind if the game was unplayable because it couldn't connect to the internet.
By the way, I buy games from Steam service, but I tend to buy only those that I enjoy playing online most of the time. I avoid buying single player games, since I want to game on my laptop when I'm not at home (traveling).
If you want to play single player campaign and custom games or watch replays u dont need to login in battle.net.Also when a game is created on battle.net and the host is in your LAN you play lagfree like you would playing on LAN.Its the exact same thing.You only need something like a 56k Internet connection to login in battle.net,create the game everyone from your LAN to join and your playing exactly as you would on LAN.
If internet is the key to battle piracy, then Microsoft is doing something very wrong with their operating systems and office suite.
The only thing that those pirates need to do is to disable whatever check the game is making with the battle net servers and enable LAN support. If the game doesn't check for the battle.net, how will Blizzard manage to detect the pirated copy?
People pirating will lose the internet part of the game, but that was always a given.
Edit: Oh, and WAN is a LAN, just without cables. So no, you won't be able to play through WAN alone, you still need the internet connection.
Actually, the hackers will have no problem dissecting the game and offer LAN gameplay. People getting their hands on pirated copies won't be able to connect to battle.net naturally. The legit players will be the only ones without LAN, while the ones pirating will play in a LAN without any problem. The LAN gameplay was definitely not cut due to piracy, but to promote Battle.net in a manner that xbox service works.
Of course it was left out purely for pricay reasons.
And they use the latest tools to rectify the problem: the internet.
Simple.
By making it only through Battle.net they motivate everyone to play there (with their achievements) and who wants to play on a personal server anyway (look at WOW) in the long run.
BTW. I am not even interested in SC2. But I find the Battle.net solution the ONLY good solution to play co-op games in 2009. It also is a very good controlling technique against hacks (see D2, which I WILL play).
Portable? LAN, WAN's everywhere. Who uses cables anyway ?
And you can always play solo .... without the on line achievement status.
All in all a perfect soution to motivate everyone to buy a legal copy, without resorting to ridiculous one time protection codes and CD inserts.
And X .... we WERE talking about hardcore. The EAXCT same group that copies EVERYTHING they can lay their hands on.
people liked lan because they could burn the SC disk and play with their friends (since you cannot play online with a burned disk). It isnt about playing with strangers over the internet like MMORPGs. It's about playing with friends in the same house as you who might not have the game.
P.S. Me and everyone else i know uses cables.
EDIT: tbh i dont care much about the lan being removed, it;ll just force me to look online for a something to give me that option again, or i'll have to have multiple copies. Either one i can live with.
Playing: EVE Online Favorite MMOs: WoW, SWG Pre-cu, Lineage 2, UO, EQ, EVE online Looking forward to: Archeage, Kingdom Under Fire 2 KUF2's Official Website - http://www.kufii.com/ENG/ -
That makes some sense, that is, if you care about achievements. Basically, it sort of a psychological discouragement to piracy and not a technological one. The software checks through the internet will not diminish the amount of pirated copies distributed. If Blizzard is trying to convince people with that argument, they must think we're naive. However, losing bragging rights can be a discouraging factor for some people.
Bottom line, if all you care is having LAN parties with your friends, then the pirated copies will be superior to the legit game. If however you want to look good on the scoreboards as well, then acquiring the legit game is inevitable (which I believe was the case for the original Diablo and SC, even when they did offer LAN gameplay).
We may love the games this company produces, but we don't need to struggle to justify a feature taken away from us. It's the same with the SC campaign and how they decided to split it in three. They had to justify this decision, because it sounds greedy if you listen to it with no explanation.
Originally posted by Greenie really 10 seconds? What if their kid called for them in those 10 seconds,cat knocked over a cup of coffee, or they sneezed, or got a lag spike? Is ten seconds all you really need? WoW you must be psychic then to know that person wasn't distracted by some real life event or system failure in that 10 seconds. I guess nobody has ever screwed up and hit the wrong key either before. That ten second mistake definitely encompasses their whole pvp career and skill. You can interpret stats all you want. In WAR Bright wizards do tons of dps on the charts, but most of them suck because they're spamming ae's on the tanks. They're not assisting tanks, choosing soft targets. Healers healing the BW to keep them alive from backlash are getting inflated numbers on healing, but that doesn't help the tank or dps in the back lines that is dying because they can't get a heal. Those charts you covet so much can lie and usually do. From this highlighted quote I am willing to bet you were a complete zerger in daoc who didn't run with a tight group that was successful more often than not against equal or better numbers.
Your so right you know , i was so foolish i finally understood this when think what happens if this totaly eleet dude was playing verse me and the a nuclear bomb went off in his basment. Totaly dude you can never tell if who you are fighting is good or not, for sure.
Ok for real your examples are so weak its not even funny if they sucked one time becuase of rl isues then the next time i fought them id know. THE FACT IS YOU CAN EASILY IDENTIFY PEOPLES ABILITY TO PLAY BY WATCHIGN THEM, DAMAGE MODS AND SCORE BOARDS. IF you disagree your bad theres no other way to say it and everyone on these forums knows your bad if you disagree.
Whats funny is now that its clear i have more pvp experience you try to attack it saying while the quantity is big your quality was bad. AS the top 1% of people leveling on mordred (the pvp server) when it first came out and a guild member of one of the two guilds that first had a max level 8 man group on it , your proably right (me and my brother both played the same account at one point it never logged off for 7 and 1/2 days while leveling). Had many fights solo as a healer vs shadow clan killed 15 of the 19 vs me once due to level differnce was fun times.
I also have been a member of many 8-16 man roaming guides, but i never avoided zergs for the simple reason that dispite what people want to think 8 man groups do not take keeps. I cannot name the number of times my 8 man ran into 3-5 groups to kill 1/2 , most of them, or somethime almost none (all it takes is skilled players in the zerg to stop you). While i 8 man roamed, i feel bad about it, becuase hoestly that is just a rp grab its not to accomplish anythign but harassment (sometimes reinforcment disruption). But if there was a keep to take we would roll up on that, becuase that was the point of the game and where the fun was.
ps im done with this line of discusion, if you disagree fine.
Now no lan is dumb, i can understand people with no rl friedn that play games not caring , i however, love to have lan parties. Sure you could still do it but its not as fast thats for sure.
But this is not a giant issue to me the 3 copies of sc2 are tho. thast some bs
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one ..." - Thomas Paine
Mordred!??!!! Please, Mordred was a gank fest of higher level players killing lowbies. You had a few guilds on there that were good, but because of the gankfest and one guild in particular from what I can remember that had over 100 members in it that would just steam roll everything that server died.
But I can tell by the rambling of your responses that you're pretty immature, and because you cannot put a clear concise response together I seriously doubt your ability to interpret data in a logical and rational manner. You are still arguing some of my points in part of your post which is laughable.
I will concede one thing to you, there is no reason for me to try and have an intelligent discussion with you anymore.
Mordred!??!!! Please, Mordred was a gank fest of higher level players killing lowbies. You had a few guilds on there that were good, but because of the gankfest and one guild in particular from what I can remember that had over 100 members in it that would just steam roll everything that server died. But I can tell by the rambling of your responses that you're pretty immature, and because you cannot put a clear concise response together I seriously doubt your ability to interpret data in a logical and rational manner. You are still arguing some of my points in part of your post which is laughable. I will concede one thing to you, there is no reason for me to try and have an intelligent discussion with you anymore.
You might have been thinking of Torcan, but it wasn't their numbers that made them good, other guilds like Legends and Shadowclan certainly had equal numbers. It was really TOA that killed Mordred (and the rest of DAOC for that matter) in that hardcore players like Torcan were able to get the 10/10 TOA powers when other more casual players couldn't and it defintiely destroyed the game.
I recall once roaming with my guild in a gouup of three 9 mans and we hit a single Torcan 8 man who had such powers. We could not kill even one of them despite focused fire by our entire team.
No game since DAOC has the beauty of the 8 man group, preferring 5 or 6 man groups which really has taken away from fun PVP combat IMO..
Blizzard doesn't get it. Nice game for what it does, but its no DAOC in terms of PVP.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
You might have been thinking of Torcan, but it wasn't their numbers that made them good, other guilds like Legends and Shadowclan certainly had equal numbers. It was really TOA that killed Mordred (and the rest of DAOC for that matter) in that hardcore players like Torcan were able to get the 10/10 TOA powers when other more casual players couldn't and it defintiely destroyed the game. I recall once roaming with my guild in a gouup of three 9 mans and we hit a single Torcan 8 man who had such powers. We could not kill even one of them despite focused fire by our entire team. No game since DAOC has the beauty of the 8 man group, preferring 5 or 6 man groups which really has taken away from fun PVP combat IMO.. Blizzard doesn't get it. Nice game for what it does, but its no DAOC in terms of PVP.
Yes Kyleran, it was Torcan I was thinking of at the end. I played on mordred a bit but just didn't enjoy the level disparities whether I had the advantage or not. It's just not enjoyable to be a level 45-50 killing level 30 players even if there is 4-5 of them.
Shadowclan was just cool because of the roleplaying aspect of it. But from what you're saying that's just another reason why expansions like ToA killed daoc and why I don't like op'd gear driven games.
With the failure of WAR and Aion on the way,, I really hope that EA will sometime in the future do a sequel to daoc going back to its roots of Old Frontiers and S.I. days. If WAR had daoc's systems and frontier setups they'd have easily kept those million people from box sales.
That would actually be much better(if true)...consequences. WoW is exactly the same as being last place in a summer youth soccer league....everyone gets a trophy.
You hit the nail right on the head. Blizzard has dumbed down WoW because they are afraid that if anyone fails in the game it might hurt their feelings. They don't cater to the masses, they cater to senseless, insecure simpletons. These are the people who need a game as easy as their other favorite pastime -- lying on the couch with TV remote in hand. If they were not playing WoW, they would be watching American Idol. WoW basically plays itself, so it feels just like television. A perfect match.
Actually WoW is popular mainly due it is easy to access and the fact that the fan base was already there. Anyone who was a fan of Blizzard's previous works would have gave WoW a try at the very least, including myself. It basically skipped the first 2 years of a standard MMO launch process due to Blizzard fans jumping on the wagon. This is very good way to do business BTW, very good indeed.
However, why are you bringing up Starcraft II to dictate why you believe WoW is great? It is even worse than using subscription number as a measurement of the quality of a game. (Note I said quality, not popularity) WoW is WoW, Starcraft is Starcraft. The two games have nothing to do with each other except the fact it is produced by the same company. Yes, I do believe Blizzard is good at doing business and making interesting games. But no, I don't accept this illogical way of using one game to praise another, especially not on games based on different archetypes.
WoW is hardcore? *chuckles* Try some MMOs that are actually challenging. Easy to access games are usually rather easy to play too, and WoW is about as easy as it gets. There are always the issue of what determines "hardcore" in MMORPG too, however I'll leave that for a more suitable topic should I come across one.
Actually WoW is popular mainly due it is easy to access and the fact that the fan base was already there. Anyone who was a fan of Blizzard's previous works would have gave WoW a try at the very least, including myself. It basically skipped the first 2 years of a standard MMO launch process due to Blizzard fans jumping on the wagon. This is very good way to do business BTW, very good indeed. However, why are you bringing up Starcraft II to dictate why you believe WoW is great? It is even worse than using subscription number as a measurement of the quality of a game. (Note I said quality, not popularity) WoW is WoW, Starcraft is Starcraft. The two games have nothing to do with each other except the fact it is produced by the same company. Yes, I do believe Blizzard is good at doing business and making interesting games. But no, I don't accept this illogical way of using one game to praise another, especially not on games based on different archetypes. WoW is hardcore? *chuckles* Try some MMOs that are actually challenging. Easy to access games are usually rather easy to play too, and WoW is about as easy as it gets. There are always the issue of what determines "hardcore" in MMORPG too, however I'll leave that for a more suitable topic should I come across one.
I would have to disagree sir.
Design philosophy can and does carry over from one game to another, from one genre to another, if made by the same company. Easy to get into, hard to master, and polished are the basic tenants of any Blizzard game despite what genre it is. Starcraft, Diablo, Warcraft, they make all of their games the same way. Easy to get into, hard to master, polished beyond comparison.
Look at Bethesda with Oblivion and then Fallout 3. Same genre, totally different games, same design philosophy. Bioware and KOTOR 1, Mass Effect, and now the upcoming SW: ToR.
Same design philosophy, same company. I think the comparison to how Blizzard is doing SC2 is valid, the Blizzard person in the OP article says it himself lol.
WoW is pretty damn hardcore. Sure, there may not be naked corpse runs or full loot or strict death penalties and such, but those things are not "hardcore" they are old school. There is a HUGE difference.
To me, hardcore is the PvP honor grind, the Arena ladders, Reputation/Faction grinds, daily quests grinds, all of what is involved in raiding... I've been playing MMOs a long time and I've never had to invest so much time and effort into a game as I have had to in World of Warcraft.
UO and SWG were a LOT more casual. Log in, do some stuff, log out. Extremely casual. Didn't have to log in and grind mats and dailies for money and potions etc. for raiding for hours, then raid for 5-6 hours straight, and do it every day for years.
WoW may be extremely casual in the level-up process, but at end-game it's just as hardcore if not a LOT more hardcore then any other MMO I have ever played, and I've played them all. It may not be "old school" as in too many pointless time sinks and mechanics designed to frustrate and punish, but it certainly is Hardcore in terms of time investment and involvement.
I'd say that fits the bill perfectly for "easy to get into, hard to master, polished beyond comparison" wouldn't you?
Bioware doesn't design their games toward hardcores. They've said in an interview that their design philosophy for their upcoming MMO is NOT to cater to the hardcore MMO gamer, but rather to the KOTOR and story oriented crowd. They will have things like crafting and raiding, but the primary focus is on the story and the journey to end game. Something tells me they aren't going the cheesy route of bait and switch like Blizzard.
Blizzard has drawn in a lot of people with their casual oriented leveling content, but I see absolutely no proof that the hardcore end game is responsible for any of that or that it retains anyone but hardcores. When less than 20% of their player base even participates in raids, how could you even come to that conclusion.
With PvE raiding, it has never been a question of being "good enough". I play games to have fun, not to be a simpering toady sitting through hour after hour of mind numbing boredom and fawning over a guild master in the hopes that he will condescend to reward me with shiny bits of loot. But in games where those people get the highest progression, anyone who doesn't do that will just be a moving target for them and I'll be damned if I'm going to pay money for the privilege. - Neanderthal
Bioware doesn't design their games toward hardcores. They've said in an interview that their design philosophy for their upcoming MMO is NOT to cater to the hardcore MMO gamer, but rather to the KOTOR and story oriented crowd. They will have things like crafting and raiding, but the primary focus is on the story and the journey to end game. Something tells me they aren't going the cheesy route of bait and switch like Blizzard.
I know and I will be playing and I think it will make a very cool and fun casual, story oriented, small group or solo game. I don't even care if it's a MMO I'll be playing it lol. Blizzard has drawn in a lot of people with their casual oriented leveling content, but I see absolutely no proof that the hardcore end game is responsible for any of that or that it retains anyone but hardcores. When less than 20% of their player base even participates in raids, how could you even come to that conclusion.
Sure not everyone who hits 80 raids, but if only 20% of their player base raids, what does everyone else do when they hit level 80? It's obviously fun enough or interesting enough to retain the other 8,800,000 players who don't raid (80% of 11 mil).
I hate to use sub numbers, because "sub numbers do not a good game make" but at the same time if only 20% raid but so many people play the game... they have to be doing SOMETHING right to retain that many players who aren't participating in the "end-game" content because it is too hardcore or whatever.
Know what I mean?
That's how I draw my conclusions anyway, dunno about the OP.
what does everyone else do when they hit level 80?I hate to use sub numbers, because "sub numbers do not a good game make" but at the same time if only 20% raid but so many people play the game... they have to be doing SOMETHING right to retain that many players who aren't participating in the "end-game" content because it is too hardcore or whatever.
Know what I mean?
That's how I draw my conclusions anyway, dunno about the OP.
The answer is re-roll.
Alot of players that hit level cap, will re-roll and also do dailies with their main. There's 10 class to play and that's a ot and can keep players for quite some time.
That's why the failure of other mmo is they fail to see how WoW design their class, their world, their quest, the detail that Blizz put in etc...
Im really wondering, those devs of other companies, do they still play mmo anymore? Or their last mmo is UO or EQ?
what does everyone else do when they hit level 80?I hate to use sub numbers, because "sub numbers do not a good game make" but at the same time if only 20% raid but so many people play the game... they have to be doing SOMETHING right to retain that many players who aren't participating in the "end-game" content because it is too hardcore or whatever.
Know what I mean?
That's how I draw my conclusions anyway, dunno about the OP.
The answer is re-roll.
Alot of players that hit level cap, will re-roll and also do dailies with their main. There's 10 class to play and that's a ot and can keep players for quite some time.
That's why the failure of other mmo is they fail to see how WoW design their class, their world, their quest, the detail that Blizz put in etc...
Im really wondering, those devs of other companies, do they still play mmo anymore? Or their last mmo is UO or EQ?
Exactly my point.
I don't know if "re-rolling" is the only answer to what do those other players who don't raid do, but I think it's fairly obvious that Blizzard is doing something right if so many people still play, even if 80% of them don't raid.
So I'd agree with the threads subject, Blizzard really does "get it."
Doesn't matter if I think WoW is a good game or not, truthfully I'm kind of putzing around waiting for Faction transfer service so I can kind of "start over" and see if I can bring the magic back...
But I don't argue with solid logic and fact, to do so is insanity.
what does everyone else do when they hit level 80?I hate to use sub numbers, because "sub numbers do not a good game make" but at the same time if only 20% raid but so many people play the game... they have to be doing SOMETHING right to retain that many players who aren't participating in the "end-game" content because it is too hardcore or whatever.
Know what I mean?
That's how I draw my conclusions anyway, dunno about the OP.
The answer is re-roll.
Alot of players that hit level cap, will re-roll and also do dailies with their main. There's 10 class to play and that's a ot and can keep players for quite some time.
That's why the failure of other mmo is they fail to see how WoW design their class, their world, their quest, the detail that Blizz put in etc...
Im really wondering, those devs of other companies, do they still play mmo anymore? Or their last mmo is UO or EQ?
People reroll alts in almost every game they play, it's not unique to wow and what exactly is it that makes wow classes so spectacular? Personally I found wow's classes completely uninspiring. Give me a bard or shaman in daoc, stalker or defender in coh , or a shaman and witch hunter in war.
People continually talk about wow and their quest system is so much better. You know what I've found, the mechanics are exactly the same as any other game.
Quests: Go kill x mobs, deliver a letter, talk to a guy, fish, cook, travel alll over. Just because wow has people addicted to doing daily quests like gerbils to the dinner bell doesn't make it better, it just means people are easily manipulated to punching the clock for a few gold.
Bioware doesn't design their games toward hardcores. They've said in an interview that their design philosophy for their upcoming MMO is NOT to cater to the hardcore MMO gamer, but rather to the KOTOR and story oriented crowd. They will have things like crafting and raiding, but the primary focus is on the story and the journey to end game. Something tells me they aren't going the cheesy route of bait and switch like Blizzard.
I know and I will be playing and I think it will make a very cool and fun casual, story oriented, small group or solo game. I don't even care if it's a MMO I'll be playing it lol. Blizzard has drawn in a lot of people with their casual oriented leveling content, but I see absolutely no proof that the hardcore end game is responsible for any of that or that it retains anyone but hardcores. When less than 20% of their player base even participates in raids, how could you even come to that conclusion.
Sure not everyone who hits 80 raids, but if only 20% of their player base raids, what does everyone else do when they hit level 80? It's obviously fun enough or interesting enough to retain the other 8,800,000 players who don't raid (80% of 11 mil).
I hate to use sub numbers, because "sub numbers do not a good game make" but at the same time if only 20% raid but so many people play the game... they have to be doing SOMETHING right to retain that many players who aren't participating in the "end-game" content because it is too hardcore or whatever.
Know what I mean?
That's how I draw my conclusions anyway, dunno about the OP.
How many of them would stay if there was another MMO that was adult oriented and casual from beginning to end. There isn't a single adult MMO that does this, so why not stick with WoW since it's the best the casual market can get right now?
I played WoW for 2 years and never got a class past 60 and got 4 classes up to level 60. I quit, not because I was tired of re-rolling, but because my tolerance for gaming companies that consider my play style to be second rate to hardcores was more than I could stand. Hardcore bias is the reason I have left every MMO I have tried since EverQuest in 1999. I keep hoping someone will make a game that allows my play style to actually enjoy playing at high level.
With PvE raiding, it has never been a question of being "good enough". I play games to have fun, not to be a simpering toady sitting through hour after hour of mind numbing boredom and fawning over a guild master in the hopes that he will condescend to reward me with shiny bits of loot. But in games where those people get the highest progression, anyone who doesn't do that will just be a moving target for them and I'll be damned if I'm going to pay money for the privilege. - Neanderthal
Those aren't just words. Their products exude this philosophy. I never understood where peope are coming from who say wow is too easy. Too easy to what? Get to level 10? Ok you win.
How many of them would stay if there was another MMO that was adult oriented and casual from beginning to end. There isn't a single adult MMO that does this, so why not stick with WoW since it's the best the casual market can get right now? I played WoW for 2 years and never got a class past 60 and got 4 classes up to level 60. I quit, not because I was tired of re-rolling, but because my tolerance for gaming companies that consider my play style to be second rate to hardcores was more than I could stand. Hardcore bias is the reason I have left every MMO I have tried since EverQuest in 1999. I keep hoping someone will make a game that allows my play style to actually enjoy playing at high level.
Things are shifting.
Even the "hardcore" aspects of raiding and PvP are getting more and more casual friendly. Large time commitments gone, forced class compositions gone, mindless trash clearing gone, high entry costs (time/gear) gone.
Eventually, the content will get smaller and smaller and more and more accessible.
I honestly believe one day, you'll hop into a group to go to a cool dungeon or kill a special boss and afterwards you won't even realize that you just raided.
But as long as they keep in the "hardcore" challenges, hard modes and achievements and such it'll continue to grow in popularity and more and more play styles will be catered too at the same time.
Comments
really 10 seconds? What if their kid called for them in those 10 seconds,cat knocked over a cup of coffee, or they sneezed, or got a lag spike? Is ten seconds all you really need? WoW you must be psychic then to know that person wasn't distracted by some real life event or system failure in that 10 seconds. I guess nobody has ever screwed up and hit the wrong key either before. That ten second mistake definitely encompasses their whole pvp career and skill.
You can interpret stats all you want. In WAR Bright wizards do tons of dps on the charts, but most of them suck because they're spamming ae's on the tanks. They're not assisting tanks, choosing soft targets. Healers healing the BW to keep them alive from backlash are getting inflated numbers on healing, but that doesn't help the tank or dps in the back lines that is dying because they can't get a heal. Those charts you covet so much can lie and usually do.
From this highlighted quote I am willing to bet you were a complete zerger in daoc who didn't run with a tight group that was successful more often than not against equal or better numbers.
I don't think Blizzard's marketing team would typically agree with those highlighted statements lol... It's actually very contradicting in a sense that no company forces to cator their product or service to a small destintive market. Normally, most companies (especially corperations) would cator to specific target makets, but at a broad-span, and they would definitely not want to reduce their market vision as a whole.
The fact is, if Blizzard did infact primarily focus on their "Hardcore" player-base from the start, they would have never reached the amount of subscriptions they have today. You can't engineer a product that way, especially an online game where you are trying to capture as many potential players as you can. Based on my experience (I've played WoW since beta, and within several guilds), most players are your typical casuals who get home from school or work, and want to spend an hour or two either raiding, PvPing, questing, etc. They sometimes even just want to get online and start chatting with their guild-mates, making WoW a sort-of "social IM client" as well.
The MANY changes they made to the game along the way have definitely made life easier for their subscribers, this in itself contradicts the highlighted statements above. You have to understand that Blizzard really wants to be involved in the "eSport" aspect of the online gaming genre, they did very well with the original StarCraft. However, they will bring in developers & directors into interviews yelping these eSport statements all day long. This doesn't necessarily make their games "eSports" automatically. One of the recent issues is that StarCraft 2 has had some negative feedback by Blizzard's highest competitive market, South Korea / Taiwan. Apparently the game is coming along quite nicely, however there is one major concern, there is no LAN support available. So how does this game suppose to remain "hardcore" and truely competitive as an eSport when it cannot be hosted at LAN tournaments around the world?
Actually, as proved above the lead designer of WoW says that their main focus was not on the casual gamer but on the hard core. Clearly it comes to show that you can design a game like that and make it succesful. The reason for this is that whilst the game caters for the hard core it has sufficient depth to keep more casually oriented players satisfied. Also, by providing hard core goals (e.g. defeating the, at time, hardest raid encounter or by gaining an arena rating of over # value etc.) they give the casuals an incentive to strive for those goals as a pinnacle of success. What hard core plays down and considers a trivial task can function as an ultimate goal for the mere mortal (i.e. casual player).I think that, as a matter of fact, Blizzard's CEO also agrees with that point of view. In an Eurogamer interview not-too-long-ago Rob Pardo states almost word-for-word the same thing: "One of the ways we do that is that we build for the depth first - for the hardcore first." Come to think of it, maybe it is just the kind of advertisement Blizzard wants for their games: these are the games for the hardcore where you can become one. I think it is fairly basic human need to feel yourself better than the rest and providing your game with road to grandeur for a single player or a collective of players is likely the thing to hook them for ages.
Its pathetic to see guys saying that needing internet to play lan is something really hard and killing a game.Its 2009 and i dont believe there is any civilized place which will host a lan tournament or party and not being able to have internet for less than 40E.Even if there is no telephone line there are wireless internet usb cards.There is no excuse to not have access to internet these days.
Actually, the hackers will have no problem dissecting the game and offer LAN gameplay. People getting their hands on pirated copies won't be able to connect to battle.net naturally. The legit players will be the only ones without LAN, while the ones pirating will play in a LAN without any problem.
The LAN gameplay was definitely not cut due to piracy, but to promote Battle.net in a manner that xbox service works.
Well, it all depends on whether you consider Diablo or Starcraft a single player or a mulitplayer game. For me Diablo was a multiplayer game but starcraft was a single player one, that's just the way I was gaming. In this regard, I don't care if there won't be any LAN support, but I would certainly mind if the game was unplayable because it couldn't connect to the internet.
By the way, I buy games from Steam service, but I tend to buy only those that I enjoy playing online most of the time. I avoid buying single player games, since I want to game on my laptop when I'm not at home (traveling).
Well, it all depends on whether you consider Diablo or Starcraft a single player or a mulitplayer game. For me Diablo was a multiplayer game but starcraft was a single player one, that's just the way I was gaming. In this regard, I don't care if there won't be any LAN support, but I would certainly mind if the game was unplayable because it couldn't connect to the internet.
By the way, I buy games from Steam service, but I tend to buy only those that I enjoy playing online most of the time. I avoid buying single player games, since I want to game on my laptop when I'm not at home (traveling).
If you want to play single player campaign and custom games or watch replays u dont need to login in battle.net.Also when a game is created on battle.net and the host is in your LAN you play lagfree like you would playing on LAN.Its the exact same thing.You only need something like a 56k Internet connection to login in battle.net,create the game everyone from your LAN to join and your playing exactly as you would on LAN.
If internet is the key to battle piracy, then Microsoft is doing something very wrong with their operating systems and office suite.
The only thing that those pirates need to do is to disable whatever check the game is making with the battle net servers and enable LAN support. If the game doesn't check for the battle.net, how will Blizzard manage to detect the pirated copy?
People pirating will lose the internet part of the game, but that was always a given.
Edit: Oh, and WAN is a LAN, just without cables. So no, you won't be able to play through WAN alone, you still need the internet connection.
Of course it was left out purely for pricay reasons.
And they use the latest tools to rectify the problem: the internet.
Simple.
By making it only through Battle.net they motivate everyone to play there (with their achievements) and who wants to play on a personal server anyway (look at WOW) in the long run.
BTW. I am not even interested in SC2. But I find the Battle.net solution the ONLY good solution to play co-op games in 2009. It also is a very good controlling technique against hacks (see D2, which I WILL play).
Portable? LAN, WAN's everywhere. Who uses cables anyway ?
And you can always play solo .... without the on line achievement status.
All in all a perfect soution to motivate everyone to buy a legal copy, without resorting to ridiculous one time protection codes and CD inserts.
And X .... we WERE talking about hardcore. The EAXCT same group that copies EVERYTHING they can lay their hands on.
people liked lan because they could burn the SC disk and play with their friends (since you cannot play online with a burned disk). It isnt about playing with strangers over the internet like MMORPGs. It's about playing with friends in the same house as you who might not have the game.
P.S. Me and everyone else i know uses cables.
EDIT: tbh i dont care much about the lan being removed, it;ll just force me to look online for a something to give me that option again, or i'll have to have multiple copies. Either one i can live with.
Playing: EVE Online
Favorite MMOs: WoW, SWG Pre-cu, Lineage 2, UO, EQ, EVE online
Looking forward to: Archeage, Kingdom Under Fire 2
KUF2's Official Website - http://www.kufii.com/ENG/ -
To Zorndorf:
That makes some sense, that is, if you care about achievements. Basically, it sort of a psychological discouragement to piracy and not a technological one. The software checks through the internet will not diminish the amount of pirated copies distributed. If Blizzard is trying to convince people with that argument, they must think we're naive. However, losing bragging rights can be a discouraging factor for some people.
Bottom line, if all you care is having LAN parties with your friends, then the pirated copies will be superior to the legit game. If however you want to look good on the scoreboards as well, then acquiring the legit game is inevitable (which I believe was the case for the original Diablo and SC, even when they did offer LAN gameplay).
We may love the games this company produces, but we don't need to struggle to justify a feature taken away from us. It's the same with the SC campaign and how they decided to split it in three. They had to justify this decision, because it sounds greedy if you listen to it with no explanation.
Your so right you know , i was so foolish i finally understood this when think what happens if this totaly eleet dude was playing verse me and the a nuclear bomb went off in his basment. Totaly dude you can never tell if who you are fighting is good or not, for sure.
Ok for real your examples are so weak its not even funny if they sucked one time becuase of rl isues then the next time i fought them id know. THE FACT IS YOU CAN EASILY IDENTIFY PEOPLES ABILITY TO PLAY BY WATCHIGN THEM, DAMAGE MODS AND SCORE BOARDS. IF you disagree your bad theres no other way to say it and everyone on these forums knows your bad if you disagree.
Whats funny is now that its clear i have more pvp experience you try to attack it saying while the quantity is big your quality was bad. AS the top 1% of people leveling on mordred (the pvp server) when it first came out and a guild member of one of the two guilds that first had a max level 8 man group on it , your proably right (me and my brother both played the same account at one point it never logged off for 7 and 1/2 days while leveling). Had many fights solo as a healer vs shadow clan killed 15 of the 19 vs me once due to level differnce was fun times.
I also have been a member of many 8-16 man roaming guides, but i never avoided zergs for the simple reason that dispite what people want to think 8 man groups do not take keeps. I cannot name the number of times my 8 man ran into 3-5 groups to kill 1/2 , most of them, or somethime almost none (all it takes is skilled players in the zerg to stop you). While i 8 man roamed, i feel bad about it, becuase hoestly that is just a rp grab its not to accomplish anythign but harassment (sometimes reinforcment disruption). But if there was a keep to take we would roll up on that, becuase that was the point of the game and where the fun was.
ps im done with this line of discusion, if you disagree fine.
Now no lan is dumb, i can understand people with no rl friedn that play games not caring , i however, love to have lan parties. Sure you could still do it but its not as fast thats for sure.
But this is not a giant issue to me the 3 copies of sc2 are tho. thast some bs
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one ..." - Thomas Paine
Mordred!??!!! Please, Mordred was a gank fest of higher level players killing lowbies. You had a few guilds on there that were good, but because of the gankfest and one guild in particular from what I can remember that had over 100 members in it that would just steam roll everything that server died.
But I can tell by the rambling of your responses that you're pretty immature, and because you cannot put a clear concise response together I seriously doubt your ability to interpret data in a logical and rational manner. You are still arguing some of my points in part of your post which is laughable.
I will concede one thing to you, there is no reason for me to try and have an intelligent discussion with you anymore.
You might have been thinking of Torcan, but it wasn't their numbers that made them good, other guilds like Legends and Shadowclan certainly had equal numbers. It was really TOA that killed Mordred (and the rest of DAOC for that matter) in that hardcore players like Torcan were able to get the 10/10 TOA powers when other more casual players couldn't and it defintiely destroyed the game.
I recall once roaming with my guild in a gouup of three 9 mans and we hit a single Torcan 8 man who had such powers. We could not kill even one of them despite focused fire by our entire team.
No game since DAOC has the beauty of the 8 man group, preferring 5 or 6 man groups which really has taken away from fun PVP combat IMO..
Blizzard doesn't get it. Nice game for what it does, but its no DAOC in terms of PVP.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Yes Kyleran, it was Torcan I was thinking of at the end. I played on mordred a bit but just didn't enjoy the level disparities whether I had the advantage or not. It's just not enjoyable to be a level 45-50 killing level 30 players even if there is 4-5 of them.
Shadowclan was just cool because of the roleplaying aspect of it. But from what you're saying that's just another reason why expansions like ToA killed daoc and why I don't like op'd gear driven games.
With the failure of WAR and Aion on the way,, I really hope that EA will sometime in the future do a sequel to daoc going back to its roots of Old Frontiers and S.I. days. If WAR had daoc's systems and frontier setups they'd have easily kept those million people from box sales.
You hit the nail right on the head. Blizzard has dumbed down WoW because they are afraid that if anyone fails in the game it might hurt their feelings. They don't cater to the masses, they cater to senseless, insecure simpletons. These are the people who need a game as easy as their other favorite pastime -- lying on the couch with TV remote in hand. If they were not playing WoW, they would be watching American Idol. WoW basically plays itself, so it feels just like television. A perfect match.
Actually WoW is popular mainly due it is easy to access and the fact that the fan base was already there. Anyone who was a fan of Blizzard's previous works would have gave WoW a try at the very least, including myself. It basically skipped the first 2 years of a standard MMO launch process due to Blizzard fans jumping on the wagon. This is very good way to do business BTW, very good indeed.
However, why are you bringing up Starcraft II to dictate why you believe WoW is great? It is even worse than using subscription number as a measurement of the quality of a game. (Note I said quality, not popularity) WoW is WoW, Starcraft is Starcraft. The two games have nothing to do with each other except the fact it is produced by the same company. Yes, I do believe Blizzard is good at doing business and making interesting games. But no, I don't accept this illogical way of using one game to praise another, especially not on games based on different archetypes.
WoW is hardcore? *chuckles* Try some MMOs that are actually challenging. Easy to access games are usually rather easy to play too, and WoW is about as easy as it gets. There are always the issue of what determines "hardcore" in MMORPG too, however I'll leave that for a more suitable topic should I come across one.
I would have to disagree sir.
Design philosophy can and does carry over from one game to another, from one genre to another, if made by the same company. Easy to get into, hard to master, and polished are the basic tenants of any Blizzard game despite what genre it is. Starcraft, Diablo, Warcraft, they make all of their games the same way. Easy to get into, hard to master, polished beyond comparison.
Look at Bethesda with Oblivion and then Fallout 3. Same genre, totally different games, same design philosophy. Bioware and KOTOR 1, Mass Effect, and now the upcoming SW: ToR.
Same design philosophy, same company. I think the comparison to how Blizzard is doing SC2 is valid, the Blizzard person in the OP article says it himself lol.
WoW is pretty damn hardcore. Sure, there may not be naked corpse runs or full loot or strict death penalties and such, but those things are not "hardcore" they are old school. There is a HUGE difference.
To me, hardcore is the PvP honor grind, the Arena ladders, Reputation/Faction grinds, daily quests grinds, all of what is involved in raiding... I've been playing MMOs a long time and I've never had to invest so much time and effort into a game as I have had to in World of Warcraft.
UO and SWG were a LOT more casual. Log in, do some stuff, log out. Extremely casual. Didn't have to log in and grind mats and dailies for money and potions etc. for raiding for hours, then raid for 5-6 hours straight, and do it every day for years.
WoW may be extremely casual in the level-up process, but at end-game it's just as hardcore if not a LOT more hardcore then any other MMO I have ever played, and I've played them all. It may not be "old school" as in too many pointless time sinks and mechanics designed to frustrate and punish, but it certainly is Hardcore in terms of time investment and involvement.
I'd say that fits the bill perfectly for "easy to get into, hard to master, polished beyond comparison" wouldn't you?
Your opinion is immaterial.
Bioware doesn't design their games toward hardcores. They've said in an interview that their design philosophy for their upcoming MMO is NOT to cater to the hardcore MMO gamer, but rather to the KOTOR and story oriented crowd. They will have things like crafting and raiding, but the primary focus is on the story and the journey to end game. Something tells me they aren't going the cheesy route of bait and switch like Blizzard.
Blizzard has drawn in a lot of people with their casual oriented leveling content, but I see absolutely no proof that the hardcore end game is responsible for any of that or that it retains anyone but hardcores. When less than 20% of their player base even participates in raids, how could you even come to that conclusion.
With PvE raiding, it has never been a question of being "good enough". I play games to have fun, not to be a simpering toady sitting through hour after hour of mind numbing boredom and fawning over a guild master in the hopes that he will condescend to reward me with shiny bits of loot. But in games where those people get the highest progression, anyone who doesn't do that will just be a moving target for them and I'll be damned if I'm going to pay money for the privilege. - Neanderthal
Sure not everyone who hits 80 raids, but if only 20% of their player base raids, what does everyone else do when they hit level 80? It's obviously fun enough or interesting enough to retain the other 8,800,000 players who don't raid (80% of 11 mil).
I hate to use sub numbers, because "sub numbers do not a good game make" but at the same time if only 20% raid but so many people play the game... they have to be doing SOMETHING right to retain that many players who aren't participating in the "end-game" content because it is too hardcore or whatever.
Know what I mean?
That's how I draw my conclusions anyway, dunno about the OP.
Your opinion is immaterial.
The answer is re-roll.
Alot of players that hit level cap, will re-roll and also do dailies with their main. There's 10 class to play and that's a ot and can keep players for quite some time.
That's why the failure of other mmo is they fail to see how WoW design their class, their world, their quest, the detail that Blizz put in etc...
Im really wondering, those devs of other companies, do they still play mmo anymore? Or their last mmo is UO or EQ?
RIP Orc Choppa
The answer is re-roll.
Alot of players that hit level cap, will re-roll and also do dailies with their main. There's 10 class to play and that's a ot and can keep players for quite some time.
That's why the failure of other mmo is they fail to see how WoW design their class, their world, their quest, the detail that Blizz put in etc...
Im really wondering, those devs of other companies, do they still play mmo anymore? Or their last mmo is UO or EQ?
Exactly my point.
I don't know if "re-rolling" is the only answer to what do those other players who don't raid do, but I think it's fairly obvious that Blizzard is doing something right if so many people still play, even if 80% of them don't raid.
So I'd agree with the threads subject, Blizzard really does "get it."
Doesn't matter if I think WoW is a good game or not, truthfully I'm kind of putzing around waiting for Faction transfer service so I can kind of "start over" and see if I can bring the magic back...
But I don't argue with solid logic and fact, to do so is insanity.
Your opinion is immaterial.
The answer is re-roll.
Alot of players that hit level cap, will re-roll and also do dailies with their main. There's 10 class to play and that's a ot and can keep players for quite some time.
That's why the failure of other mmo is they fail to see how WoW design their class, their world, their quest, the detail that Blizz put in etc...
Im really wondering, those devs of other companies, do they still play mmo anymore? Or their last mmo is UO or EQ?
People reroll alts in almost every game they play, it's not unique to wow and what exactly is it that makes wow classes so spectacular? Personally I found wow's classes completely uninspiring. Give me a bard or shaman in daoc, stalker or defender in coh , or a shaman and witch hunter in war.
People continually talk about wow and their quest system is so much better. You know what I've found, the mechanics are exactly the same as any other game.
Quests: Go kill x mobs, deliver a letter, talk to a guy, fish, cook, travel alll over. Just because wow has people addicted to doing daily quests like gerbils to the dinner bell doesn't make it better, it just means people are easily manipulated to punching the clock for a few gold.
Sure not everyone who hits 80 raids, but if only 20% of their player base raids, what does everyone else do when they hit level 80? It's obviously fun enough or interesting enough to retain the other 8,800,000 players who don't raid (80% of 11 mil).
I hate to use sub numbers, because "sub numbers do not a good game make" but at the same time if only 20% raid but so many people play the game... they have to be doing SOMETHING right to retain that many players who aren't participating in the "end-game" content because it is too hardcore or whatever.
Know what I mean?
That's how I draw my conclusions anyway, dunno about the OP.
How many of them would stay if there was another MMO that was adult oriented and casual from beginning to end. There isn't a single adult MMO that does this, so why not stick with WoW since it's the best the casual market can get right now?
I played WoW for 2 years and never got a class past 60 and got 4 classes up to level 60. I quit, not because I was tired of re-rolling, but because my tolerance for gaming companies that consider my play style to be second rate to hardcores was more than I could stand. Hardcore bias is the reason I have left every MMO I have tried since EverQuest in 1999. I keep hoping someone will make a game that allows my play style to actually enjoy playing at high level.
With PvE raiding, it has never been a question of being "good enough". I play games to have fun, not to be a simpering toady sitting through hour after hour of mind numbing boredom and fawning over a guild master in the hopes that he will condescend to reward me with shiny bits of loot. But in games where those people get the highest progression, anyone who doesn't do that will just be a moving target for them and I'll be damned if I'm going to pay money for the privilege. - Neanderthal
Those aren't just words. Their products exude this philosophy. I never understood where peope are coming from who say wow is too easy. Too easy to what? Get to level 10? Ok you win.
Things are shifting.
Even the "hardcore" aspects of raiding and PvP are getting more and more casual friendly. Large time commitments gone, forced class compositions gone, mindless trash clearing gone, high entry costs (time/gear) gone.
Eventually, the content will get smaller and smaller and more and more accessible.
I honestly believe one day, you'll hop into a group to go to a cool dungeon or kill a special boss and afterwards you won't even realize that you just raided.
But as long as they keep in the "hardcore" challenges, hard modes and achievements and such it'll continue to grow in popularity and more and more play styles will be catered too at the same time.
Your opinion is immaterial.