WoW teaches the wrong things
littlemute
Nice article about WOW, and, suprisingly, Street Fighter.
chainbreaker
> Nice article about WOW, and, suprisingly, Street Fighter.
>
> http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20060222/sirlin_01.shtml
Anybody with half a brain has probably already figured out everything he
says for themselves. The primary function of WoW--and any other MMOG for
that matter--is to perpetuate itself as long as possible. To that end, it's
designed to get as many players as possible playing for as many months/years
as possible. Ergo, that's why Group>Solo, all the big rewards go to big
guilds, etc. etc.
It ain't rocket science.
--
chainbreaker-who's determined he's just about that far- from having a
completely anti-mmog personality
littlemute
chainbreaker wrote:
> littlemute wrote:
> > Nice article about WOW, and, suprisingly, Street Fighter.
> >
> > http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20060222/sirlin_01.shtml
>
> Anybody with half a brain has probably already figured out everything he
> says for themselves. The primary function of WoW--and any other MMOG for
> that matter--is to perpetuate itself as long as possible. To that end, it's
> designed to get as many players as possible playing for as many months/years
> as possible. Ergo, that's why Group>Solo, all the big rewards go to big
> guilds, etc. etc.
>
But not by simply adding more content? I've never played those types
of games (since the UO beta) but the complaints seem the same then as
they are now for the most part. The real shocking thing is the comment
about how people are competing with people that play 10 hours a day or
more. Is that an exaggeration? Is he serious?
Wolfing
course, but on weekends that's very easy to do. Play 2-3 hours in the
morning, 2-3 hours in the afternoon, and a nice evening 7-midnight
session :) I still do that once in a while, although it's much more
common when the game just comes out and novelty hasn't worn off
Wolfing
littlemute wrote:
> Nice article about WOW, and, suprisingly, Street Fighter.
>
> http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20060222/sirlin_01.shtml
I do agree in that time>skill is a wrong thing to teach, and frankly, I
don't know why they would encourage it as:
- It may create 'burnout' of the game and people leaving
- In a flat fee game, companies should encourage people to play less
hours at a time, for a longer period of time, in order to maximize
earnings.
Now, after that the writer goes on and on why group>solo is bad. In
fact I believe this is the best thing these games are teaching kids.
In order to get the best things in life, you should cooperate with
others. Help others and they will help you when you need it. Those
who coordinate efforts reap better benefits. It teaches leadership and
cooperation, etc.
BTW, funny that the writer complains about WoWs "grouping requirements"
when I consider WoW the most solo-friendly MMORPG out there LOL
Grant Anderson
> BTW, funny that the writer complains about WoWs "grouping requirements"
> when I consider WoW the most solo-friendly MMORPG out there LOL
Not sure whether GW counts as a(n) MMORPG in this context, but I love
the way I can grab NPC henchmen and 'solo' there. There're a few
missions where it doesn't work, but if I'm just running to a new zone,
or hunting down a collector, I can just pick up a team of henchies and go.
I also soloed a fair amount of CoH. The AVs were trickier - I soloed a
few, but it was definitely easier in a team.
Cheers,
Grant
Nate Engle
> Actually I disagree with the article.
Me too. I started feeling a little uneasy at the point the
author claimed that Grand Theft Auto is about "exploration
and freedom".
> I do agree in that time>skill is a wrong thing to teach, and frankly, I
> don't know why they would encourage it as:
I'm not convinced that WoW DOES teach "time>skill" unless
you're considering it solely from the standpoint of PvP
ranks (which are a part of the game I ignore entirely).
> - It may create 'burnout' of the game and people leaving
> - In a flat fee game, companies should encourage people to play less
> hours at a time, for a longer period of time, in order to maximize
> earnings.
> Now, after that the writer goes on and on why group>solo is bad. In
> fact I believe this is the best thing these games are teaching kids.
Agreed. The writer seems not to like it because he prefers
solo, but practically everything of enduring value in this
world is produced as a collaborative or derivative effort.
> In order to get the best things in life, you should cooperate with
> others. Help others and they will help you when you need it. Those
> who coordinate efforts reap better benefits. It teaches leadership and
> cooperation, etc.
> BTW, funny that the writer complains about WoWs "grouping requirements"
> when I consider WoW the most solo-friendly MMORPG out there LOL
I don't doubt the guy understands Street Fighter really well.
I'm not convinced about anything else he says.
Andrew
<nathan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Me too. I started feeling a little uneasy at the point the
>author claimed that Grand Theft Auto is about "exploration
>and freedom".
As I spend about 1% of gameplay time in GTA games doing the missions,
I would completely agree about the exploration and freedom, they are
fantastic games.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
drocket
wrote:
>
>Nice article about WOW, and, suprisingly, Street Fighter.
>
>http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20060222/sirlin_01.shtml
Can't say I really agree with it.
1. Investing a lot of time in something is worth more than actual
skill.
Remember kids, if you try something new and you're not immediately
good at it, just give up. Its obviously not your forte and you'd just
be wasting time practicing.
3. Group > Solo
Social skills are for losers. When I want to play a game alone, I
know the first thing I always do is fire up a MMORPG. And what's the
deal with chess? I was sitting at home alone the other day and
decided to get a game going. I got out the board, set up the pieces,
then discovered you need 2 players. Man, chess sucks.
6) The Terms of Service.
I got $20 on the writer of this article having recently gotten
suspended for running around calling everyone fags.
Wolfing
the back of my mind.
CoH is also soloable, although since I group in there 100% of the time
didn't consider it a solo game, but you're right, those 3 games are
very solo friendly. The difference is that in CoH the game kinda
encourages you to play in groups (a lot more fun, better exp, a great
LFG system, etc) while in WoW with so many solo quests and a horrible
LFG system, it doesn't really encourage you to get in a group, same
with GW actually.
Mean_Chlorine
>
>Nice article about WOW, and, suprisingly, Street Fighter.
>
>http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20060222/sirlin_01.shtml
The guy who wrote that is a GW player trapped in WoW.
--
O
-|- <--- Caricature of Muhammed.
/ \
Nostromo
Domini:
Also, the diff between CoH & GW is that you actually can *solo* most of CoH,
whereas if you tried that in GW with just your char (NO henchies) you
wouldn't get anywhere imo, or it would take forever.
--
A killfile is a friend for life.
Replace 'spamfree' with the other word for 'maze' to reply via email.
Nostromo
Anno Domini:
ROFL! Nice, accurate expose drocket.
Knight37
> I'm not convinced that WoW DOES teach "time>skill" unless
> you're considering it solely from the standpoint of PvP
> ranks (which are a part of the game I ignore entirely).
PVP ranks tought me that anyone with rank > 10 is a complete and total
loser with no life.
--
Knight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com
Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer.
Grackle
news:pmcsv15t029rqgtus...@4ax.com...
:
: O
: -|- <--- Caricature of Muhammed.
: / \
LOL
Xocyll
of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
Only why would you compare CoH (which has no NPCs) to GW which has
hireable NPCs.
There's still only one _person_ playing so it is a legit comparison,
since most (I'm assuming) soloers are playing that way because they
don't want to deal with other people (at that moment or ever) and/or
can't play for very long at a sitting.
Yeah having henchmen along will cut your drops since they get a share,
but it's not really noticeable since those things aren't dropped for
them to pick up so you never see them.
Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
Xocyll
porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>On 23 Feb 2006 06:45:43 -0800, "littlemute" <littl...@woodenmen.org>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Nice article about WOW, and, suprisingly, Street Fighter.
>>
>>http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20060222/sirlin_01.shtml
>
>Can't say I really agree with it.
>
>1. Investing a lot of time in something is worth more than actual
>skill.
>
>Remember kids, if you try something new and you're not immediately
>good at it, just give up. Its obviously not your forte and you'd just
>be wasting time practicing.
He has a point, you're just skipping the time invested to get the skill
in the first place.
Some have it to start with (natural skill), others will gain skill over
time, and still others will be skill-less even if they put in a million
hours of practice.
[The tone deaf guy is never going to be a good musician no matter how
long he practices, just as the blind guy isn't ever going to be a good
portrait artist.]
A simple "more hours = more rewards" does remove player skill from the
equation.
Nostromo
Anno Domini:
It was a matter of comparing team sizes required to get through the game,
not whether they had NPCs or not. AFAIK WoW has no team NPCs, so Wolfing's
comparison is just as meaningless...?
>There's still only one _person_ playing so it is a legit comparison,
>since most (I'm assuming) soloers are playing that way because they
>don't want to deal with other people (at that moment or ever) and/or
>can't play for very long at a sitting.
I disagree. Try it alone (no henchies) & see how far you get. As you've said
yourself many times here, the henchies are actually better & _more_
intelligent than humans, so they are of definite value, but I think people
need to understand that GW is not a "solo" game per se, because you have to
take henchies along to fill out a party & manage them. And pet classes in
CoH/WoW really aren't the same thing at all.
>Yeah having henchmen along will cut your drops since they get a share,
>but it's not really noticeable since those things aren't dropped for
>them to pick up so you never see them.
Yeah, I agree, it's never bothered me - it bothers me more when I see humans
leaving stuff behind *I* actually would like to pick up! ;)
Mean_Chlorine
>>There's still only one _person_ playing so it is a legit comparison,
>>since most (I'm assuming) soloers are playing that way because they
>>don't want to deal with other people (at that moment or ever) and/or
>>can't play for very long at a sitting.
>
>I disagree. Try it alone (no henchies) & see how far you get. As you've said
>yourself many times here, the henchies are actually better & _more_
>intelligent than humans, so they are of definite value, but I think people
>need to understand that GW is not a "solo" game per se, because you have to
>take henchies along to fill out a party & manage them. And pet classes in
>CoH/WoW really aren't the same thing at all.
No, they're not better than humans. They're better than total moron
human players, but semi-decent humans are far better, and good humans
are in a totally different league.
Also, if playing with partially computer-controlled teammates isn't
soloing, does that mean that Planescape: Torment and KOTOR were
multiplayer games?
Or are you just making a distinction between 'soloing' and
'single-player'? If so I can agree, as the computer npc's have most of
the characteristics of players (except they're single-classed & less
smart), and while you can finish the PvE campaign with henches, I
doubt it is possible to do so completely alone.
--
Bateau
>
>Nice article about WOW, and, suprisingly, Street Fighter.
>
>http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20060222/sirlin_01.shtml
"Fun is learning in a safe-environment." Haha right. I'm not having fun
in a game when I'm learning the controls, as the article suggests. I'm
having fun in a game when I'm TEACHING some bitch that I am his GOD.
I only skimmed that article but it's obviously written by a bitch who
got owned online one too many times. Only a MMORPG player could moan and
whine like such a little sissy.
Gerry Quinn
littl...@woodenmen.org says...
>
> Nice article about WOW, and, suprisingly, Street Fighter.
>
> http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20060222/sirlin_01.shtml
It's still just a whinge about how the game is not designed to suit his
play-style.
Players who play for longer get higher on ranks? - well, play for
longer or else don't aim to be top of the ranks. WOW already has that
blue experience thing that doubles your experience if you keep the
gameplay hours down.
Not enough high-level solo content? Well, start a new character when
who hit some point at which it gets boring.
Don't like the combat rules? Don't like anti-exploit rules? Play
Morrowind.
- Gerry Quinn
littlemute
Knight37 wrote:
> Nate Engle <nathan...@yahoo.com> once tried to test me with:
>
> > I'm not convinced that WoW DOES teach "time>skill" unless
> > you're considering it solely from the standpoint of PvP
> > ranks (which are a part of the game I ignore entirely).
>
> PVP ranks tought me that anyone with rank > 10 is a complete and total
> loser with no life.
Ok, put that person next to someone that actually wins a Street Fighter
tournament. The SF player probably plays/trains at least 3-4 hours a
day, and like he said, MUST train with other people near his skill
level. Would you put them in the same loser with no life category? I
say no way. They're both games, the people are putting in a good
portion of their waking hours into it, but for me, I see someone that
is good at street fighter as someone to idolize, the tenacity, the
almost supernatural gift of being able to predict the other player (the
most important skill in high level play), the focus and concentration
required to actually win. It's exactly like someone playing a musical
instrument. If you appreciate the art and witness a master making the
near impossible look easy, it's an amazing sight. When I listen to my
friends lost inside the WOW for 10-12 hours per day (every day) talk
about their 'feats,' my reaction is: "get a life dude!" because it
doesn't take more than sitting in a chair and logging in the time to
make the levels...getting points EVEN IF YOU LOSE!
Xocyll
Well there is no GW class that's as powerful as COH classes.
>>There's still only one _person_ playing so it is a legit comparison,
>>since most (I'm assuming) soloers are playing that way because they
>>don't want to deal with other people (at that moment or ever) and/or
>>can't play for very long at a sitting.
>
>I disagree. Try it alone (no henchies) & see how far you get. As you've said
>yourself many times here, the henchies are actually better & _more_
>intelligent than humans, so they are of definite value, but I think people
>need to understand that GW is not a "solo" game per se, because you have to
>take henchies along to fill out a party & manage them. And pet classes in
>CoH/WoW really aren't the same thing at all.
That's irrelevant though.
I'm still soloing, since i'm the only real person in the group, and *I*
make all the decisions on where to go, what to do and when to leave -
the hallmarks of the "solo" experience.
Come to think of it you could slot an illusion controller into GW
without really breaking anything and it would play not unlike a GW necro
minion herder.
Is a phantom Army using illu controller any less solo than a kat/regen
scrapper? Seems so by your definition since they aren't totally alone.
>>Yeah having henchmen along will cut your drops since they get a share,
>>but it's not really noticeable since those things aren't dropped for
>>them to pick up so you never see them.
>
>Yeah, I agree, it's never bothered me - it bothers me more when I see humans
>leaving stuff behind *I* actually would like to pick up! ;)
The even more annoying thing is that after a while those items become
unbranded and can be picked up by anyone.
Of course by that time you're usually far away from them (barring a
couple missions like Thunderhead Keep, where you're not going anywhere
since you're defending.)
Knight37
> Knight37 wrote:
> > Nate Engle <nathan...@yahoo.com> once tried to test me with:
> >
> > > I'm not convinced that WoW DOES teach "time>skill" unless
> > > you're considering it solely from the standpoint of PvP
> > > ranks (which are a part of the game I ignore entirely).
> >
> > PVP ranks tought me that anyone with rank > 10 is a complete and total
> > loser with no life.
>
> Ok, put that person next to someone that actually wins a Street Fighter
> tournament. The SF player probably plays/trains at least 3-4 hours a
> day, and like he said, MUST train with other people near his skill
> level. Would you put them in the same loser with no life category? I
> say no way.
First of all to achieve a rank > 10 you're approaching 10-12 hours per
day of playing, not 3-4. Anyone who devotes that much time to gaming is
either a professional gamer, or a loser with no life. Someone who plays
3-4 hours of day of Streetfighter (unless they are doing it for money)
really needs a better hobby, but they still have time for a life.
> They're both games, the people are putting in a good
> portion of their waking hours into it, but for me, I see someone that
> is good at street fighter as someone to idolize, the tenacity, the
> almost supernatural gift of being able to predict the other player (the
> most important skill in high level play), the focus and concentration
> required to actually win.
I don't. I do not idolize gamers with no life.
> It's exactly like someone playing a musical instrument.
Umm no. It's not like that. At all. Someone playing a musical
instrument is doing a wonderful thing that other people can enjoy.
Watching some dude playing streetfighter is extremely boring.
> If you appreciate the art and witness a master making the
> near impossible look easy, it's an amazing sight.
Art is in the eye of the beholder, but I don't call it that. YMM(aad)V.
> When I listen to my
> friends lost inside the WOW for 10-12 hours per day (every day) talk
> about their 'feats,' my reaction is: "get a life dude!" because it
> doesn't take more than sitting in a chair and logging in the time to
> make the levels...getting points EVEN IF YOU LOSE!
Exactly. Losers with no life. Just like the streetfighter loser. I
found it amusing that the guy who wrote the article was a streetfighter
loser and a wow loser. And he thought this was important enough to put
on his "resume" on the site.
Knight37
littlemute
Knight37 wrote:
> littlemute wrote:
> > Knight37 wrote:
> > > Nate Engle <nathan...@yahoo.com> once tried to test me with:
>
> Exactly. Losers with no life. Just like the streetfighter loser. I
> found it amusing that the guy who wrote the article was a streetfighter
> loser and a wow loser. And he thought this was important enough to put
> on his "resume" on the site.
>
> Knight37
I just don't buy this. I think this is a cultural association with
gaming you're applying. Is someone that does Karate 9 hours a day a
loser? Tennis? GO? Chess? There's a clear distinction between someone
who trains in a game that requires skill (like Go, Chess, Street
Fighter) and one where the only prequisite to being 'powerful' is
putting time in. In Korea there are people that make big bucks at
Starcraft and they show the matches on TV for people to watch, and like
a concert or boxing match, enjoy. Quake and the like are similar here
in the states, but doesn't have the fanatic veiwership as there.
Watching replays of someone with that has the gosu at
Starcraft/Warcraft 3/TA can certainly be quite a sight better than
enjoying someone strumming away at a guitar or boxing in a ring. The
latter are culturally acceptable as positive past-times or life hobbies
in the West, while gaming isn't. It's all lumped in, like your doing,
the true basement dwelling stuff like WOW and the games of skill, like
Street Fighter and Warcraft 3 as gaming nerdery, and that just ain't
right.
As for streetfighter, you should watch some SF combo videos.
Nostromo
2006 10:36:41 +0100, Anno Domini:
>Thusly Nostromo <nost...@spamfree.net.au> Spake Unto All:
>
>
>>>There's still only one _person_ playing so it is a legit comparison,
>>>since most (I'm assuming) soloers are playing that way because they
>>>don't want to deal with other people (at that moment or ever) and/or
>>>can't play for very long at a sitting.
>>
>>I disagree. Try it alone (no henchies) & see how far you get. As you've said
>>yourself many times here, the henchies are actually better & _more_
>>intelligent than humans, so they are of definite value, but I think people
>>need to understand that GW is not a "solo" game per se, because you have to
>>take henchies along to fill out a party & manage them. And pet classes in
>>CoH/WoW really aren't the same thing at all.
>
>No, they're not better than humans. They're better than total moron
>human players, but semi-decent humans are far better, and good humans
>are in a totally different league.
Well...yes. Though at least they *never* run ahead like melee players so
often do, whether you're ready or not.
>Also, if playing with partially computer-controlled teammates isn't
>soloing, does that mean that Planescape: Torment and KOTOR were
>multiplayer games?
I never said 'multiplayer' per se - that's not the distinction I wanted to
draw nor split semantic hairs; whether a game is playable with a single,
solo char that you control, OR you have to manage multiple party NPCs is an
important distinction imo which may affect a lot of soloists' choice to play
GW or not. PST are Kotor are not mmorpgs & don't really enter into this
debate. CoH, EQ2 & WoW are examples of typical mmorpgs you can solo
single-handedly (pet classes aside - they are a special exception as _all_
they do is summon pets to do your work so the player knows what he's getting
into when he picks to play one); GW is an atypical mmorpg in this regard,
though one obviously to many ppl's liking. I wish there were more like it in
regards to this playable NPC issue.
>Or are you just making a distinction between 'soloing' and
>'single-player'? If so I can agree, as the computer npc's have most of
>the characteristics of players (except they're single-classed & less
>smart), and while you can finish the PvE campaign with henches, I
>doubt it is possible to do so completely alone.
That's all I was getting at, but letting prospective players know that you
can 'solo' the game is not the whole story & I get the feeling that several
newbs here over the past year were unintentionally misled by omission on
this point & thus as soloists didn't enjoy the game as they may have if
properly informed (i.e. you MUST take henchies along to complete the SP
campaign) - or they may have chosen not to buy & play the game, which is
just as well, because no press is better than bad press ;)
Nostromo
Anno Domini:
>>It was a matter of comparing team sizes required to get through the game,
>>not whether they had NPCs or not. AFAIK WoW has no team NPCs, so Wolfing's
>>comparison is just as meaningless...?
>
>Well there is no GW class that's as powerful as COH classes.
The reason *why* doesn't negate my point that you can't get through GW with
just one char to control & it's an important distinction with GW that no
other mmorpg offers - henchies YOU (have to) control to simulate a full
party. Soloists should be informed up front imo. This is a good thing btw.
>>>There's still only one _person_ playing so it is a legit comparison,
>>>since most (I'm assuming) soloers are playing that way because they
>>>don't want to deal with other people (at that moment or ever) and/or
>>>can't play for very long at a sitting.
>>
>>I disagree. Try it alone (no henchies) & see how far you get. As you've said
>>yourself many times here, the henchies are actually better & _more_
>>intelligent than humans, so they are of definite value, but I think people
>>need to understand that GW is not a "solo" game per se, because you have to
>>take henchies along to fill out a party & manage them. And pet classes in
>>CoH/WoW really aren't the same thing at all.
>
>That's irrelevant though.
>I'm still soloing, since i'm the only real person in the group, and *I*
>make all the decisions on where to go, what to do and when to leave -
>the hallmarks of the "solo" experience.
It's my opinion & I believe it IS relevant - that's why I made it. You need
to listen to ppl more Xocyll & perhaps argue with them less - words like
'irrelevant' you really need to save for special occasions ;-p
>Come to think of it you could slot an illusion controller into GW
>without really breaking anything and it would play not unlike a GW necro
>minion herder.
Now THAT'S irrelevant (as per my other posts) - pet classes are a special
case where the players _opts_ to play a class where he has to control
multiple pets from the start & knows what he's getting into. Btw, in
some/most cases it's not even 'control' per se - just summon them & they do
their thing, not unlike GW necro pets - very little management, other than
maneuvering them into position, or healing/buffing when needed, not unlike
what you would do for a player char if you were a support class.
>Is a phantom Army using illu controller any less solo than a kat/regen
>scrapper? Seems so by your definition since they aren't totally alone.
Like most threads here this one also seems to be about who decides what
they're arguing about :)
>>>Yeah having henchmen along will cut your drops since they get a share,
>>>but it's not really noticeable since those things aren't dropped for
>>>them to pick up so you never see them.
>>
>>Yeah, I agree, it's never bothered me - it bothers me more when I see humans
>>leaving stuff behind *I* actually would like to pick up! ;)
>
>The even more annoying thing is that after a while those items become
>unbranded and can be picked up by anyone.
>Of course by that time you're usually far away from them (barring a
>couple missions like Thunderhead Keep, where you're not going anywhere
>since you're defending.)
Yup...seen so many unidentified blues & even purples(!) that ppl left behind
in their rush to, well, rush ahead.
Knight37
littlemute wrote:
> Knight37 wrote:
> > littlemute wrote:
> > > Knight37 wrote:
> > > > Nate Engle <nathan...@yahoo.com> once tried to test me with:
>
> >
> > Exactly. Losers with no life. Just like the streetfighter loser. I
> > found it amusing that the guy who wrote the article was a streetfighter
> > loser and a wow loser. And he thought this was important enough to put
> > on his "resume" on the site.
> >
> > Knight37
>
> I just don't buy this.
It's my opinion. Sorry you don't like it.
> I think this is a cultural association with
> gaming you're applying. Is someone that does Karate 9 hours a day a
> loser?
A loser who could kick my ass, but still a loser. Unless their job is
to know karate and it's a source of income. I spend > 8 hours a day
programming, but I do it to make a living, I wouldn't do it without
compensation, and I spend as much time as possible doing things that
are more fun, like theater, movies, golf, travel, etc. I don't devote
my life to one thing to the exclusion of all others.
> Tennis? GO? Chess?
If they can make money at it, I guess it's more of a career and I can't
fault them. But if they spend that much time playing a game or sport at
the exclusion of all other things, and they have no life other than
Tennis, Go, or Chess, then yeah, that makes them a loser.
What makes you a loser or not is whether or not you regularly spend
time doing other things besides one thing. I think people that work at
a job 16 hours a day are losers too. I know people like this, and I
don't get it. What's the point of living like that? And yes, my
definition of loser includes a lot of people.
> There's a clear distinction between someone
> who trains in a game that requires skill (like Go, Chess, Street
> Fighter) and one where the only prequisite to being 'powerful' is
> putting time in.
There's a distinction but what does being a Street Fighter champion
really get you in life? I mean, do chicks fall in line for this guy?
"Oooh, your mad streetfighter skillz are sooo 1337!!! do me! take me
now, you big button-mashing studd you!!" I mean even Chess is pretty
questionable, does anyone really admire Bobby Fisher just because he
spent/wasted his whole life memorizing chess moves? I don't.
> In Korea there are people that make big bucks at
> Starcraft and they show the matches on TV for people to watch, and like
> a concert or boxing match, enjoy. Quake and the like are similar here
> in the states, but doesn't have the fanatic veiwership as there.
Yeah well, I wouldn't waste my time watching it. I don't watch
professional sports, either, so go figure.
> Watching replays of someone with that has the gosu at
> Starcraft/Warcraft 3/TA can certainly be quite a sight better than
> enjoying someone strumming away at a guitar or boxing in a ring. The
Bore. Me. To Tears. But so would boxing.
> latter are culturally acceptable as positive past-times or life hobbies
> in the West, while gaming isn't. It's all lumped in, like your doing,
> the true basement dwelling stuff like WOW and the games of skill, like
> Street Fighter and Warcraft 3 as gaming nerdery, and that just ain't
> right.
I'm sorry, but I lump anyone who wastes the majority life playing a
game in the loser bucket. I don't care if it's a skill game or what. If
they do it professionally, I can at least see where there's a point to
it, sort of like pro sports athletes, but I don't have to accept it as
a valid life-choice.
It's also okay for me to think other people's ideas of fun are stupid.
If they don't like it, they can make fun of me. Not like I'd care.
> As for streetfighter, you should watch some SF combo videos.
No. No I shouldn't.
Knight37
Joe Mama
>
>
> "Fun is learning in a safe-environment." Haha right. I'm not having fun
> in a game when I'm learning the controls, as the article suggests. I'm
> having fun in a game when I'm TEACHING some bitch that I am his GOD.
>
> I only skimmed that article but it's obviously written by a bitch who
> got owned online one too many times. Only a MMORPG player could moan and
> whine like such a little sissy.
Do you ever have anything constructive and/or worthwhile to contribute?
Genuinely curious.
-joe.
Xocyll
of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>Thus spake Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net>, Fri, 24 Feb 2006 15:06:27 -0500,
>Anno Domini:
>
>>>It was a matter of comparing team sizes required to get through the game,
>>>not whether they had NPCs or not. AFAIK WoW has no team NPCs, so Wolfing's
>>>comparison is just as meaningless...?
>>
>>Well there is no GW class that's as powerful as COH classes.
>
>The reason *why* doesn't negate my point that you can't get through GW with
>just one char to control & it's an important distinction with GW that no
>other mmorpg offers - henchies YOU (have to) control to simulate a full
>party. Soloists should be informed up front imo. This is a good thing btw.
They pretty much are.
I'd rather have GW's party simulator henchpeople than CoH's ever
increasing levels of "solo, oh no we can't have that, this is a
multi-player game" attitude.
>>>>There's still only one _person_ playing so it is a legit comparison,
>>>>since most (I'm assuming) soloers are playing that way because they
>>>>don't want to deal with other people (at that moment or ever) and/or
>>>>can't play for very long at a sitting.
>>>
>>>I disagree. Try it alone (no henchies) & see how far you get. As you've said
>>>yourself many times here, the henchies are actually better & _more_
>>>intelligent than humans, so they are of definite value, but I think people
>>>need to understand that GW is not a "solo" game per se, because you have to
>>>take henchies along to fill out a party & manage them. And pet classes in
>>>CoH/WoW really aren't the same thing at all.
By your definitions even having a pet or an ally makes it no longer
soloing, that's why I don't consider your interpretation valid.
>>That's irrelevant though.
>>I'm still soloing, since i'm the only real person in the group, and *I*
>>make all the decisions on where to go, what to do and when to leave -
>>the hallmarks of the "solo" experience.
>
>It's my opinion & I believe it IS relevant - that's why I made it. You need
>to listen to ppl more Xocyll & perhaps argue with them less - words like
>'irrelevant' you really need to save for special occasions ;-p
It might be relevant in games other than GW but since GW is designed
SOLOLY to be played with a party of some sort, the only soloing possible
is ONE PLAYER with NPC associates.
There's only one intelligence so it's solo.
Just as a D2 Amazon with a valkyrie and no other players is solo, just
as a D2 necromancer with skeleton hordes and golem but no players is
solo.
Yes I guess you could party with Steamkiller and still have it count as
solo play. :)
>>Come to think of it you could slot an illusion controller into GW
>>without really breaking anything and it would play not unlike a GW necro
>>minion herder.
>
>Now THAT'S irrelevant (as per my other posts) - pet classes are a special
>case where the players _opts_ to play a class where he has to control
>multiple pets from the start & knows what he's getting into. Btw, in
>some/most cases it's not even 'control' per se - just summon them & they do
>their thing, not unlike GW necro pets - very little management, other than
>maneuvering them into position, or healing/buffing when needed, not unlike
>what you would do for a player char if you were a support class.
You have no more control over the henchmen that the necro does over
raised minions.
The best you can HOPE for is to have the move where you order, but I can
tell you they won't always obey if they'd rather fight.
Just try to stop a healer type from trying to raise a dead hench (or
player) - if they're out of range they'll continually run back and
forth, endlessly trying to reach the fallen hero and endlessly turning
back and running to the party only to spin around and run back.
Whichever dev gave the monk henchies Restore Life (touch range) instead
of Resurrect needs a bludgeoning.
>>Is a phantom Army using illu controller any less solo than a kat/regen
>>scrapper? Seems so by your definition since they aren't totally alone.
>
>Like most threads here this one also seems to be about who decides what
>they're arguing about :)
>
>>>>Yeah having henchmen along will cut your drops since they get a share,
>>>>but it's not really noticeable since those things aren't dropped for
>>>>them to pick up so you never see them.
>>>
>>>Yeah, I agree, it's never bothered me - it bothers me more when I see humans
>>>leaving stuff behind *I* actually would like to pick up! ;)
>>
>>The even more annoying thing is that after a while those items become
>>unbranded and can be picked up by anyone.
>>Of course by that time you're usually far away from them (barring a
>>couple missions like Thunderhead Keep, where you're not going anywhere
>>since you're defending.)
>
>Yup...seen so many unidentified blues & even purples(!) that ppl left behind
>in their rush to, well, rush ahead.
Which is why solo play with henchies is preferable a lot, less
aggravation from drops you can see but not have.
Nostromo
Anno Domini:
>Nostromo <nost...@spamfree.net.au> looked up from reading the entrails
>of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>
>>Thus spake Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net>, Fri, 24 Feb 2006 15:06:27 -0500,
>>Anno Domini:
>>
>>>>It was a matter of comparing team sizes required to get through the game,
>>>>not whether they had NPCs or not. AFAIK WoW has no team NPCs, so Wolfing's
>>>>comparison is just as meaningless...?
>>>
>>>Well there is no GW class that's as powerful as COH classes.
>>
>>The reason *why* doesn't negate my point that you can't get through GW with
>>just one char to control & it's an important distinction with GW that no
>>other mmorpg offers - henchies YOU (have to) control to simulate a full
>>party. Soloists should be informed up front imo. This is a good thing btw.
>
>They pretty much are.
Told, yes, but it never becomes apparent that you HAVE TO party with real
people or _henchies_ to get through the game until much later. A lot of ppl
don't even realise until they're some way into post-searing. Not everyone
reads manuals. In my XP with the game to date, & I join PUGs a lot more than
you from what I've read.
>I'd rather have GW's party simulator henchpeople than CoH's ever
>increasing levels of "solo, oh no we can't have that, this is a
>multi-player game" attitude.
Likewise, to be sure.
>>>>>There's still only one _person_ playing so it is a legit comparison,
>>>>>since most (I'm assuming) soloers are playing that way because they
>>>>>don't want to deal with other people (at that moment or ever) and/or
>>>>>can't play for very long at a sitting.
>>>>
>>>>I disagree. Try it alone (no henchies) & see how far you get. As you've said
>>>>yourself many times here, the henchies are actually better & _more_
>>>>intelligent than humans, so they are of definite value, but I think people
>>>>need to understand that GW is not a "solo" game per se, because you have to
>>>>take henchies along to fill out a party & manage them. And pet classes in
>>>>CoH/WoW really aren't the same thing at all.
>
>By your definitions even having a pet or an ally makes it no longer
>soloing, that's why I don't consider your interpretation valid.
I made the exception & expectation for pet classes very clear, in 3 posts
now. A player who wants to play a Warrior or Mage may reasonably expect to
solo with NO other players/henchies in most mmorpgs - they would be wrong &
sorely mistaken in GW.
>>>That's irrelevant though.
>>>I'm still soloing, since i'm the only real person in the group, and *I*
>>>make all the decisions on where to go, what to do and when to leave -
>>>the hallmarks of the "solo" experience.
>>
>>It's my opinion & I believe it IS relevant - that's why I made it. You need
>>to listen to ppl more Xocyll & perhaps argue with them less - words like
>>'irrelevant' you really need to save for special occasions ;-p
>
>It might be relevant in games other than GW but since GW is designed
>SOLOLY to be played with a party of some sort, the only soloing possible
>is ONE PLAYER with NPC associates.
>
>There's only one intelligence so it's solo.
I never argued about the semantics of what 'solo' meant, but that it was
important to inform new players that solo does not mean in GW what it means
in most other classes. Where I can solo through _most_ missions in CoH, EQ2
& WoW for example, I likely wouldn't get past the 1st storyline mish in GW,
game over. New players should know that & it's an important distinction I
wanted to raise when talking about 'soloing' this game.
>Just as a D2 Amazon with a valkyrie and no other players is solo, just
>as a D2 necromancer with skeleton hordes and golem but no players is
>solo.
There are however many variants for D2 Amazons & Necros that can solo w/o
any mercs or pets (& in fact a lot did from personal xp), but in GW name me
one class combo that can get through the game with no henchies (even with
pets)...?
>Yes I guess you could party with Steamkiller and still have it count as
>solo play. :)
*cringe* the only thing that boy parties with is too many non-prescription
drugs! :)
>>>Come to think of it you could slot an illusion controller into GW
>>>without really breaking anything and it would play not unlike a GW necro
>>>minion herder.
>>
>>Now THAT'S irrelevant (as per my other posts) - pet classes are a special
>>case where the players _opts_ to play a class where he has to control
>>multiple pets from the start & knows what he's getting into. Btw, in
>>some/most cases it's not even 'control' per se - just summon them & they do
>>their thing, not unlike GW necro pets - very little management, other than
>>maneuvering them into position, or healing/buffing when needed, not unlike
>>what you would do for a player char if you were a support class.
>
>You have no more control over the henchmen that the necro does over
>raised minions.
>The best you can HOPE for is to have the move where you order, but I can
>tell you they won't always obey if they'd rather fight.
Yes, but henchies require more management as you can't just let them die as
they cost you XP penalty; also, the healing (if you're a monk) would be just
as if not more intensive as if they were PCs, though granted you wouldn't
play a primary healer monk & expect to solo :) As a necro I dabble in buffs
for my henchies w/o which they would never get through in some close shaves.
It all makes for a much more button/concentration-intensive game than a
simple soloist fighter or even mage blasting away imo.
>Just try to stop a healer type from trying to raise a dead hench (or
>player) - if they're out of range they'll continually run back and
>forth, endlessly trying to reach the fallen hero and endlessly turning
>back and running to the party only to spin around and run back.
>
>Whichever dev gave the monk henchies Restore Life (touch range) instead
>of Resurrect needs a bludgeoning.
He, he, yes, but that supports my point that solo players need to know that
henchies are essential, though painful, & that might be a dealbreaker for
normal solo mmorpg players. It's almost like you don't get to make all the
decisions as henchies throw in a liberal dose of uncertainty all too often.
I mujst say, whereas I enjoyed that in Fallout, I really don't all that much
in GW - there's always the cringe factor b4 going into a tough/unknown
situation with them.
>>>Is a phantom Army using illu controller any less solo than a kat/regen
>>>scrapper? Seems so by your definition since they aren't totally alone.
>>
>>Like most threads here this one also seems to be about who decides what
>>they're arguing about :)
>>
>>>>>Yeah having henchmen along will cut your drops since they get a share,
>>>>>but it's not really noticeable since those things aren't dropped for
>>>>>them to pick up so you never see them.
>>>>
>>>>Yeah, I agree, it's never bothered me - it bothers me more when I see humans
>>>>leaving stuff behind *I* actually would like to pick up! ;)
>>>
>>>The even more annoying thing is that after a while those items become
>>>unbranded and can be picked up by anyone.
>>>Of course by that time you're usually far away from them (barring a
>>>couple missions like Thunderhead Keep, where you're not going anywhere
>>>since you're defending.)
>>
>>Yup...seen so many unidentified blues & even purples(!) that ppl left behind
>>in their rush to, well, rush ahead.
>
>Which is why solo play with henchies is preferable a lot, less
>aggravation from drops you can see but not have.
Yuppers. Must get back to GW before my holidays are over in the next few
days. Been enjoying COD2 all too much this past week, though it's on the
short side.
Bateau
Yes if you would shut up and pay attention instead of crying you would
notice.
chainbreaker
> I'd rather have GW's party simulator henchpeople than CoH's ever
> increasing levels of "solo, oh no we can't have that, this is a
> multi-player game" attitude.
Which sort of substantiates my rather cynical view of that being a ploy to
get as many people as possible playing the game.
It's sort of odd for a superhero game, though, especially considering how
many of the comic book heroes are known mostly for their solo
exploits--sure, there's the JLA, etc. but Superman, Batman, Green Lantern,
Spiderman, etc. etc. were originally mostly loners.
And yeah, I know Batman has Robin, but in keeping with what you said about
pets, I figured he fits, too. :-)
--
chainbreaker
chainbreaker
> There are however many variants for D2 Amazons & Necros that can solo
> w/o any mercs or pets (& in fact a lot did from personal xp), but in
> GW name me one class combo that can get through the game with no
> henchies (even with pets)...?
>
Heh, I'm back on another foray with D2, after renewing my characters--gets
me every time.
I noticed a bunch of zon stuff on the mules, and decided for the first time
ever to make a Javazon, instead of giving those Titans' Revenges, etc. stuff
away as I've always done.
Damn shame you can't rename a character--I'd call her "Tunguska" if you
could. She's just now started Hell, but I bet she could make it without any
help--of course she's twinked to the nines, too. She's skating through the
game quicker than any character I've ever made--three or four pokes and
almost everything for the next three screens over is toast. It's no wonder
people who've played characters like this get nervous when they play "real"
melee characters who have to get up close and personal. :-)
--
chainbreaker
Allan C Cybulskie
"Wolfing" <wolf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140714674.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Now, after that the writer goes on and on why group>solo is bad. In
> fact I believe this is the best thing these games are teaching kids.
> In order to get the best things in life, you should cooperate with
> others. Help others and they will help you when you need it. Those
> who coordinate efforts reap better benefits. It teaches leadership and
> cooperation, etc.
I think his complaint there is not so much that it teaches people that
grouping with others is good, but that it ignores personality types that
prefer -- at least at some times -- to work on their own. Basically,
grouping is forced on people. Someone who wanted to train solo and gain
skill that way would be at a disadvantage, not because of their skill
difference, but because solo you simply cannot get the same equipment.
No one would expect a solo gamer to learn PvP skills, just like someone who
only trained in his basement would be expected to learn how to play against
other players. But if they did and HAD the skills, they'd dominate. In
WoW, they wouldn't, simply because of the equipment that group instances
deliver, which is one of his main complaints -- that time and other factors
outweigh skill.
> BTW, funny that the writer complains about WoWs "grouping requirements"
> when I consider WoW the most solo-friendly MMORPG out there LOL
CoH is much more solo-friendly. Skip TFs and Archvillains, and you can
still get all of the "equipment" and levels that you could ever want (minus
HOs). Plus, if you run missions and don't street hunt I don't know of any
class -- maybe defenders -- that you can't solo to at least 20 with ...
Xocyll
of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>Thus spake Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net>, Sat, 25 Feb 2006 22:13:17 -0500,
>Anno Domini:
>
>>Nostromo <nost...@spamfree.net.au> looked up from reading the entrails
>>of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>>
>>>Thus spake Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net>, Fri, 24 Feb 2006 15:06:27 -0500,
>>>Anno Domini:
>>>
>>>>>It was a matter of comparing team sizes required to get through the game,
>>>>>not whether they had NPCs or not. AFAIK WoW has no team NPCs, so Wolfing's
>>>>>comparison is just as meaningless...?
>>>>
>>>>Well there is no GW class that's as powerful as COH classes.
>>>
>>>The reason *why* doesn't negate my point that you can't get through GW with
>>>just one char to control & it's an important distinction with GW that no
>>>other mmorpg offers - henchies YOU (have to) control to simulate a full
>>>party. Soloists should be informed up front imo. This is a good thing btw.
>>
>>They pretty much are.
>
>Told, yes, but it never becomes apparent that you HAVE TO party with real
>people or _henchies_ to get through the game until much later. A lot of ppl
>don't even realise until they're some way into post-searing. Not everyone
>reads manuals. In my XP with the game to date, & I join PUGs a lot more than
>you from what I've read.
Sure it does - the first time you absolutely cannot make it to the next
area or cannot deal with a mission alone.
They get you to party once in presear to get the res signet, again if
you want to go over the wall.
Once you get to post sear your very first mission (talking to the
ambassador) REQUIRES a second person in your team whether person of
hench - you cannot complete this alone.
>>I'd rather have GW's party simulator henchpeople than CoH's ever
>>increasing levels of "solo, oh no we can't have that, this is a
>>multi-player game" attitude.
>
>Likewise, to be sure.
>
>>>>>>There's still only one _person_ playing so it is a legit comparison,
>>>>>>since most (I'm assuming) soloers are playing that way because they
>>>>>>don't want to deal with other people (at that moment or ever) and/or
>>>>>>can't play for very long at a sitting.
>>>>>
>>>>>I disagree. Try it alone (no henchies) & see how far you get. As you've said
>>>>>yourself many times here, the henchies are actually better & _more_
>>>>>intelligent than humans, so they are of definite value, but I think people
>>>>>need to understand that GW is not a "solo" game per se, because you have to
>>>>>take henchies along to fill out a party & manage them. And pet classes in
>>>>>CoH/WoW really aren't the same thing at all.
>>
>>By your definitions even having a pet or an ally makes it no longer
>>soloing, that's why I don't consider your interpretation valid.
>
>I made the exception & expectation for pet classes very clear, in 3 posts
>now. A player who wants to play a Warrior or Mage may reasonably expect to
>solo with NO other players/henchies in most mmorpgs - they would be wrong &
>sorely mistaken in GW.
They can expect anything they want, but their expectations from other
games have no relevance in GW.
The manual categorically states that it is designed to be played with a
party of 2-8 members, people or henchmen.
>>>>That's irrelevant though.
>>>>I'm still soloing, since i'm the only real person in the group, and *I*
>>>>make all the decisions on where to go, what to do and when to leave -
>>>>the hallmarks of the "solo" experience.
>>>
>>>It's my opinion & I believe it IS relevant - that's why I made it. You need
>>>to listen to ppl more Xocyll & perhaps argue with them less - words like
>>>'irrelevant' you really need to save for special occasions ;-p
>>
>>It might be relevant in games other than GW but since GW is designed
>>SOLOLY to be played with a party of some sort, the only soloing possible
>>is ONE PLAYER with NPC associates.
>>
>>There's only one intelligence so it's solo.
>
>I never argued about the semantics of what 'solo' meant, but that it was
>important to inform new players that solo does not mean in GW what it means
>in most other classes. Where I can solo through _most_ missions in CoH, EQ2
>& WoW for example, I likely wouldn't get past the 1st storyline mish in GW,
>game over. New players should know that & it's an important distinction I
>wanted to raise when talking about 'soloing' this game.
There's the manual, the party with an ally missions, the over the wall
mission, the first post-sear mission...
Just how many times do you think a new player needs to be hit over the
head that he must party at some point?
Say fucking what?
Henchmen dying doesn't cost you anything at all.
They die, they get weaker, just as you do when you die, there's no
experience loss of any kind, they just get squishier.
This is one of the big advantages of a ranger - since the pet doesn't
get weaker when it dies and gets raised a high beast mastery pet makes a
pretty good tank.
I can and do run away and let all the henchies die if we get swarmed,
that's one of the main reasons I take a monk secondary so I can have
infinite raises.
Run away, wait till the critters go back to their places, sneak up and
start raising the crew.
>>Just try to stop a healer type from trying to raise a dead hench (or
>>player) - if they're out of range they'll continually run back and
>>forth, endlessly trying to reach the fallen hero and endlessly turning
>>back and running to the party only to spin around and run back.
>>
>>Whichever dev gave the monk henchies Restore Life (touch range) instead
>>of Resurrect needs a bludgeoning.
>
>He, he, yes, but that supports my point that solo players need to know that
>henchies are essential, though painful, & that might be a dealbreaker for
>normal solo mmorpg players. It's almost like you don't get to make all the
>decisions as henchies throw in a liberal dose of uncertainty all too often.
>I mujst say, whereas I enjoyed that in Fallout, I really don't all that much
>in GW - there's always the cringe factor b4 going into a tough/unknown
>situation with them.
It's something that becomes apparent the first time you have a dead
henchman and a healer hench trying to raise them.
For most players using henchmen that's going to be pretty soon in post
sear.
You don't get to make _ANY_ decisions where henchies are concerned
except which ones to take - that's exactly why it counts as solo play in
GW.
You only really control your character, as opposed to the party control
in a game like Baldur's Gate.
You can't affect their actions, choose their armor, skills, etc.
At least the henchies are consistent in their behavior, unlike real
players.
For me and for many (if not all soloists) soloing means I don't have to
put up with another person screwing around, behaving like an idiot,
bailing out of the mission, going afk, running off and then come
screaming back with a crowd of baddies following him, etc.
GW's play with henchies mode is soloing.
>>>>Is a phantom Army using illu controller any less solo than a kat/regen
>>>>scrapper? Seems so by your definition since they aren't totally alone.
>>>
>>>Like most threads here this one also seems to be about who decides what
>>>they're arguing about :)
>>>
>>>>>>Yeah having henchmen along will cut your drops since they get a share,
>>>>>>but it's not really noticeable since those things aren't dropped for
>>>>>>them to pick up so you never see them.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yeah, I agree, it's never bothered me - it bothers me more when I see humans
>>>>>leaving stuff behind *I* actually would like to pick up! ;)
>>>>
>>>>The even more annoying thing is that after a while those items become
>>>>unbranded and can be picked up by anyone.
>>>>Of course by that time you're usually far away from them (barring a
>>>>couple missions like Thunderhead Keep, where you're not going anywhere
>>>>since you're defending.)
>>>
>>>Yup...seen so many unidentified blues & even purples(!) that ppl left behind
>>>in their rush to, well, rush ahead.
>>
>>Which is why solo play with henchies is preferable a lot, less
>>aggravation from drops you can see but not have.
>
>Yuppers. Must get back to GW before my holidays are over in the next few
>days. Been enjoying COD2 all too much this past week, though it's on the
>short side.
Yeah noticed you are listed as not having been online in 3 weeks in the
guild thing.
The latest ranger is about to go play with Glint in the grain of sand.
Then in a few days I guess i'll have to delete another character and
start another ranger.
Allan C Cybulskie
"drocket" <dro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:q42sv1pl84d3co3kc...@4ax.com...
> >
> >http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20060222/sirlin_01.shtml
>
>
> 1. Investing a lot of time in something is worth more than actual
> skill.
>
> Remember kids, if you try something new and you're not immediately
> good at it, just give up. Its obviously not your forte and you'd just
> be wasting time practicing.
The problem is that in real life it's skill and time spent practising that
matters, whereas in WoW it's simply time. Getting high levels to run you
through instances gives you uber equipment that makes you stronger than
characters who skip the instances and learn the games.
CoH and its "Winter Lord" fiasco demonstrates that really well. You have a
lot of poor players on high levels from the massive XP from that event,
whereas for example I -- who barely participated in that event -- have a
better idea how to play and lower level chars.
(I also have alt-itis ...)
>
>
> 3. Group > Solo
>
> Social skills are for losers. When I want to play a game alone, I
> know the first thing I always do is fire up a MMORPG. And what's the
> deal with chess? I was sitting at home alone the other day and
> decided to get a game going. I got out the board, set up the pieces,
> then discovered you need 2 players. Man, chess sucks.
The equipment you can get from going through group instances is far better
than anything you can get solo. This makes grouping forced, unless you want
to be behind the 8-ball compared to everyone else. While grouping should be
encouraged, solo players should not be disadvantaged simply because they
don't group as much as other people (and with random drops and rolls in WoW,
you end up running instances again and again to get equipment).
CoH does this really well. You can gain more XP safer in a group, but in
general if you are careful you can solo most things, especially if you focus
on running instanced missions.
>
>
> 6) The Terms of Service.
>
> I got $20 on the writer of this article having recently gotten
> suspended for running around calling everyone fags.
I think his complaint is more that things that the ToS are limiting are
things that the playerbase should be limiting.
Allan C Cybulskie
"Nate Engle" <nathan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dtl1hr$5dl$1...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
> Wolfing wrote:
> > Actually I disagree with the article.
>
> Me too. I started feeling a little uneasy at the point the
> author claimed that Grand Theft Auto is about "exploration
> and freedom".
>
> > I do agree in that time>skill is a wrong thing to teach, and frankly, I
> > don't know why they would encourage it as:
>
> I'm not convinced that WoW DOES teach "time>skill" unless
> you're considering it solely from the standpoint of PvP
> ranks (which are a part of the game I ignore entirely).
If you don't play PvP in WoW, then that argument does fall apart since it
doesn't matter how much better than you another person is and thus the fact
that they have better equipment doesn't matter ... until they start
balancing content based on the equipment that most people get, of course.
>
> > - It may create 'burnout' of the game and people leaving
> > - In a flat fee game, companies should encourage people to play less
> > hours at a time, for a longer period of time, in order to maximize
> > earnings.
>
> > Now, after that the writer goes on and on why group>solo is bad. In
> > fact I believe this is the best thing these games are teaching kids.
>
> Agreed. The writer seems not to like it because he prefers
> solo, but practically everything of enduring value in this
> world is produced as a collaborative or derivative effort.
Actually, that's "Yes, and no". Most flashes of brilliance are solo
endeavours, followed by group work to finalize the details. Sometimes, ya
just gots ta be alone [grin].
Xocyll
of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>Xocyll wrote:
>> I'd rather have GW's party simulator henchpeople than CoH's ever
>> increasing levels of "solo, oh no we can't have that, this is a
>> multi-player game" attitude.
>
>Which sort of substantiates my rather cynical view of that being a ploy to
>get as many people as possible playing the game.
To a point yes.
I think of it more as a method of sidestepping one of the common
problems of MMORPGs, getting a full group with all the "required"
classes.
Many, many, many times i've been in a mission area and seen "5/6 group
looking for monk" repeated over and over and over and...
So much better to be able to say "fuck it, get Alesia and lets go."
instead of loitering around waiting for a player monk to arrive.
Lord know CoH would have been improved with hireable NPC healers, tanks,
etc so you didn't have to stand around waiting.
>It's sort of odd for a superhero game, though, especially considering how
>many of the comic book heroes are known mostly for their solo
>exploits--sure, there's the JLA, etc. but Superman, Batman, Green Lantern,
>Spiderman, etc. etc. were originally mostly loners.
That was my take on CoH, and the biggest reason why I stopped playing.
They had decided that soloing was bad and they'd make it as hard as
possible to do so.
When the devs actively try to destroy what I found fun, there really
wasn't much point in hanging around.
When they finally get around to adding the winged race I might give it
another go, assuming that they ever do.
>And yeah, I know Batman has Robin, but in keeping with what you said about
>pets, I figured he fits, too. :-)
Heh, yeah. Sidekicks are kind of a special case of pet.
Allan C Cybulskie
"Bateau" <Batea...@MAN.invalid> wrote in message
news:u8otv1hr2a34vrftf...@4ax.com...
> "littlemute" <littl...@woodenmen.org> wrote:
> >
> >Nice article about WOW, and, suprisingly, Street Fighter.
> >
> >http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20060222/sirlin_01.shtml
>
> "Fun is learning in a safe-environment." Haha right. I'm not having fun
> in a game when I'm learning the controls, as the article suggests. I'm
> having fun in a game when I'm TEACHING some bitch that I am his GOD.
If there's nothing new to learn in a game, most people quit it and claim it
has "no reply value". That's why there are difficulty levels, which force
you to learn new ways to play in order to beat the harder game.
Now, there are exceptions to this, but it does seem fairly clear that if you
never encounter anything new in a game most people get bored of it and quit.
And I'm probably the biggest exception to that ...
Allan C Cybulskie
"Gerry Quinn" <ger...@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e690c97a...@news1.eircom.net...
> In article <1140705943....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
> littl...@woodenmen.org says...
> >
> > Nice article about WOW, and, suprisingly, Street Fighter.
> >
> > http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20060222/sirlin_01.shtml
>
> It's still just a whinge about how the game is not designed to suit his
> play-style.
>
> Players who play for longer get higher on ranks? - well, play for
> longer or else don't aim to be top of the ranks. WOW already has that
> blue experience thing that doubles your experience if you keep the
> gameplay hours down.
The problem is that you can get equipment from those ranks that makes it
even harder for you to advance. And it does seem unfair to say that if you
don't kill as much as people who can play 5 - 10 times more time than you do
that they are more skilled than you are, which is what the ranks -- in his
opinion -- SHOULD indicate.
>
> Not enough high-level solo content? Well, start a new character when
> who hit some point at which it gets boring.
WoW does not have enough classes/races that make a difference in gameplay to
make that feasible. That's the reason I won't play it and didn't play it
after the 14 day trial I got, and will play DAoC and CoH.
Allan C Cybulskie
"littlemute" <littl...@woodenmen.org> wrote in message
news:1140705943....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>
> Nice article about WOW, and, suprisingly, Street Fighter.
>
> http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20060222/sirlin_01.shtml
>
I actually, in a lot of ways, agree with him.
First, when it was first announced that the "epic" items would only drop
from 40 man raids, I griped that what it meant was that casual gamers who
wanted to get those items would never get them, and that that was unfair.
Others replied that it was fair since because these raids took a lot of
organization to set-up and to perform, they demonstrated more skill than
others who didn't participate in raids. Well, the problem is that if you
want to participate in PvP in WoW -- which you can do on all servers, BTW --
you'll find that at high or at even levels equipment matters. A lot. So if
you don't participate in group instances or raids, there is no way for you
to get the top level equipment in the game ... meaning that in PvP you get
killed by someone who isn't as good a player as you are, but who has had a
high level run them through instances or has participated in raids. And
despite what the WoW board people say, you only need to be average in raids,
not highly skilled (with a good guild). So simply because you don't have
the time to participate in raids, you might as well give up hope of ever
getting any rank or success in PvP. Something's not right, here.
And the problem is loot. The equipment that you get in instances and in
raids is not only pretty or more customizable than other loot, it's BETTER
than the loot you can get elsewhere. It BOOSTS THE SKILL OF THE CHARACTER.
So if you don't get it, you aren't as good as you could be and as others
are. And that makes it very, very desirable, and makes anyone who doesn't
have it "gimped" compared to everyone else.
Why can't the loot from instances and raids be, functionally, as good as
anything you can get anywhere else, but prettier or more customizable? One
of the claims people made about having good raid loot is that it was a
reward for doing the raid. But why does the raid have to grant an advantage
to the character? Why isn't a trophy a good enough reward for doing it?
And you can even put in the idea of raid sets to make people want to do it
again and again. People hunted the infected in Outbreak just to get a
BADGE, so why wouldn't people do it for raid sets that showed that, hey,
they did and were good at the raids?
There's no reason why a solo player or a group player or a raid player
cannot have loot of the same functional quality.
Grant Anderson
Yup, that was me. I was able to solo most of pre-Searing (this was
before things ran -out- of Fire Storm) and so I assumed that this state
of affairs would continue, and was roundly disabused of this notion
shortly after I stepped outside the city. I tried with one hench, and
eventually realised that I might as well max it out, as there was no
need to be greedy over combat xp. The quest xp is high enough that
combat's not particularly necessary - another thing I approve of.
I've tried a couple of pick-up groups, and occasionally you hit a really
good one - but in 3 of the last 4, I've had people go afk at the start
of the mission and hope to get a free ride, or afk midway through -
'lunch' - and leave the rest of us to struggle through. And there was
one guy that a couple of people said was a bot, because he just charged
forward into enemy mobs and aggroed them all (and then died), and didn't
respond to tells/team chat.
On the bright side, I'm up to the Ring of Fire now with my Elementalist,
and have unlocked my extra 30 attribute points and all the skills I can
unlock via quests - guess I'll have to buy/capture the rest.
One thing I'm not so up with the play on yet is which weapon mods are
worthwhile (for Elementalists and other classes) - people spam various
weapon mods and prices in trade, but I'm not buying anything without a
decent idea of what it's worth, as I've seen an awful lot of rip-off
merchants about. I'd love something with bonus Energy regen - the
default 4 bars just don't seem to be enough, even starting at around 81
Energy.
Cheers,
Grant
Nostromo
Anno Domini:
>>Told, yes, but it never becomes apparent that you HAVE TO party with real
>>people or _henchies_ to get through the game until much later. A lot of ppl
>>don't even realise until they're some way into post-searing. Not everyone
>>reads manuals. In my XP with the game to date, & I join PUGs a lot more than
>>you from what I've read.
>
>Sure it does - the first time you absolutely cannot make it to the next
>area or cannot deal with a mission alone.
>
>They get you to party once in presear to get the res signet, again if
>you want to go over the wall.
>Once you get to post sear your very first mission (talking to the
>ambassador) REQUIRES a second person in your team whether person of
>hench - you cannot complete this alone.
Those are a couple once-off 'hardcoded' exceptions - again, it doesn't imply
that this would be an ongoing requirement due to game difficulty, just that
these small multiplayer missions may be giving you a 'taste' of multi, not
saying "hey, you're always going to have to use multiple chars, real or
NPC".
>>I made the exception & expectation for pet classes very clear, in 3 posts
>>now. A player who wants to play a Warrior or Mage may reasonably expect to
>>solo with NO other players/henchies in most mmorpgs - they would be wrong &
>>sorely mistaken in GW.
>
>They can expect anything they want, but their expectations from other
>games have no relevance in GW.
>The manual categorically states that it is designed to be played with a
>party of 2-8 members, people or henchmen.
I, like many other ppl, bought the game online. Ummm...what manual? :-/
>>I never argued about the semantics of what 'solo' meant, but that it was
>>important to inform new players that solo does not mean in GW what it means
>>in most other classes. Where I can solo through _most_ missions in CoH, EQ2
>>& WoW for example, I likely wouldn't get past the 1st storyline mish in GW,
>>game over. New players should know that & it's an important distinction I
>>wanted to raise when talking about 'soloing' this game.
>
>There's the manual, the party with an ally missions, the over the wall
>mission, the first post-sear mission...
>
>Just how many times do you think a new player needs to be hit over the
>head that he must party at some point?
Pre-sear is just a tutorial & the transition into post-sear just a once-off.
The *game* never states explicitly "you have zero chance of completing the
storyline missions or the game w/o partying a LOT" anywhere (well, except
the manual you mention that I & probably 90% of players have never laid eyes
on :).
>>Yes, but henchies require more management as you can't just let them die as
>>they cost you XP penalty; also, the healing (if you're a monk) would be just
>>as if not more intensive as if they were PCs, though granted you wouldn't
>>play a primary healer monk & expect to solo :) As a necro I dabble in buffs
>>for my henchies w/o which they would never get through in some close shaves.
>>It all makes for a much more button/concentration-intensive game than a
>>simple soloist fighter or even mage blasting away imo.
>
>Say fucking what?
>Henchmen dying doesn't cost you anything at all.
>They die, they get weaker, just as you do when you die, there's no
>experience loss of any kind, they just get squishier.
My bad - I meant DP, as per what your char & other PCs get - pets don't have
that drawback & they play out very different at any rate.
>This is one of the big advantages of a ranger - since the pet doesn't
>get weaker when it dies and gets raised a high beast mastery pet makes a
>pretty good tank.
Yes, which is why henchmen need more TLC or they cost you as they get weaker
& at some point you have to restart - not what most soloists from other
mmorpgs would by used to.
>I can and do run away and let all the henchies die if we get swarmed,
>that's one of the main reasons I take a monk secondary so I can have
>infinite raises.
>
>Run away, wait till the critters go back to their places, sneak up and
>start raising the crew.
A more & more ineffective crew. I've played with them at -60%DP & just
managed to squeeze through when there were only 2 or 3 baddies left, but
that was that mission just outside Beetletun(?) where you had to defend the
gates & the spawn was right next to them, so you could just chip away ad
infinitum. Anywhere else & it's a restart, plain & simple. If the baddies
regen too quick & you respawn too far away - restart. Not at all like
soloing with pets I must say.
Well, you kinda got me there :). But I still think there's plenty of
management work on them, as mentioned with my necro.
>For me and for many (if not all soloists) soloing means I don't have to
>put up with another person screwing around, behaving like an idiot,
>bailing out of the mission, going afk, running off and then come
>screaming back with a crowd of baddies following him, etc.
>GW's play with henchies mode is soloing.
That's fine - as I've said, not the distinction I tried to draw, nor change
the definition - just to say that GW soloing plays out quite different to
other mmorpgs & you WILL be teaming with NPCs to get through.
>>Yuppers. Must get back to GW before my holidays are over in the next few
>>days. Been enjoying COD2 all too much this past week, though it's on the
>>short side.
>
>Yeah noticed you are listed as not having been online in 3 weeks in the
>guild thing.
Yeah :( when I booked 2 weeks leave I though I'd have lots of time to do the
things *I* wanted to do...*huge Shrek sigh*...women...
>The latest ranger is about to go play with Glint in the grain of sand.
>Then in a few days I guess i'll have to delete another character and
>start another ranger.
Cool - you'll probably catch me again in a week or so ;) (still at Aurora
Glade, lvl 18). Btw, is it worth doing the armor collectors at this point to
get AL51 necro armor, or should I just keep going & get the top end AL60
gear from the Crystal Desert collectors - whatchu reckon?
Mean_Chlorine
>One thing I'm not so up with the play on yet is which weapon mods are
>worthwhile (for Elementalists and other classes) - people spam various
>weapon mods and prices in trade, but I'm not buying anything without a
>decent idea of what it's worth, as I've seen an awful lot of rip-off
>merchants about. I'd love something with bonus Energy regen - the
>default 4 bars just don't seem to be enough, even starting at around 81
>Energy.
Wouldn't we all. :)
Unfortunately there's no items which give you more than 4 pips of
energy regen. If you're an elementalist and tend to run out of energy,
you may want to look in to switching to mesmer secondary, or reserve a
couple of slots for energy management spells (e.g. Ether Prodigy).
Anyway, what upgrades are worthwhile for you depends on your playing
style. Most of the time, for an ele, a collectors staff with +20%
recharge/casting speed, and then slap on a +5 energy and +5 armor
upgrades, is affordable & pretty optimal. Of course, if you can find
one-hand weapons with +energy, then those plus an offhand item rock,
but one hand weapons with +5 energy are rare.
--
O
-|- <--- Caricature of Muhammed.
/ \
Nostromo
+1300, Anno Domini:
>>They get you to party once in presear to get the res signet, again if
>>you want to go over the wall.
>>Once you get to post sear your very first mission (talking to the
>>ambassador) REQUIRES a second person in your team whether person of
>>hench - you cannot complete this alone.
>>
>Yup, that was me. I was able to solo most of pre-Searing (this was
>before things ran -out- of Fire Storm) and so I assumed that this state
>of affairs would continue, and was roundly disabused of this notion
>shortly after I stepped outside the city. I tried with one hench, and
>eventually realised that I might as well max it out, as there was no
>need to be greedy over combat xp. The quest xp is high enough that
>combat's not particularly necessary - another thing I approve of.
Pls tell Xocyll that soloing ain't 'soloing' in GW then >;-)
>I've tried a couple of pick-up groups, and occasionally you hit a really
>good one - but in 3 of the last 4, I've had people go afk at the start
>of the mission and hope to get a free ride, or afk midway through -
>'lunch' - and leave the rest of us to struggle through. And there was
>one guy that a couple of people said was a bot, because he just charged
>forward into enemy mobs and aggroed them all (and then died), and didn't
>respond to tells/team chat.
Yes, they really, *really*, REALLY need a party leader who can kick ppl in
this game *sigh*.
I've called a vote a couple times in the past to restart & ditch the
leeches/rude bastards & ppl generally don't mind if they aren't short on
time - had some of the best games that way, short-handed (2-4 of us) with
henchies to round off.
>On the bright side, I'm up to the Ring of Fire now with my Elementalist,
>and have unlocked my extra 30 attribute points and all the skills I can
>unlock via quests - guess I'll have to buy/capture the rest.
Man, I am a slow poke! *sniff*
>One thing I'm not so up with the play on yet is which weapon mods are
>worthwhile (for Elementalists and other classes) - people spam various
>weapon mods and prices in trade, but I'm not buying anything without a
>decent idea of what it's worth, as I've seen an awful lot of rip-off
>merchants about. I'd love something with bonus Energy regen - the
>default 4 bars just don't seem to be enough, even starting at around 81
>Energy.
MC to follow...
Nostromo
2006 23:45:18 +0100, Anno Domini:
>Thusly Grant Anderson <gp...@cs.waikato.ac.nz> Spake Unto All:
>
>>One thing I'm not so up with the play on yet is which weapon mods are
>>worthwhile (for Elementalists and other classes) - people spam various
>>weapon mods and prices in trade, but I'm not buying anything without a
>>decent idea of what it's worth, as I've seen an awful lot of rip-off
>>merchants about. I'd love something with bonus Energy regen - the
>>default 4 bars just don't seem to be enough, even starting at around 81
>>Energy.
>
>Wouldn't we all. :)
>Unfortunately there's no items which give you more than 4 pips of
>energy regen. If you're an elementalist and tend to run out of energy,
>you may want to look in to switching to mesmer secondary, or reserve a
>couple of slots for energy management spells (e.g. Ether Prodigy).
How about playing a necro primary with an elem 2ndary - guarantee you won't
be short on energy then :) In fact, I can't wait to ditch the ranger 2ndary
now as I only use my necro, given the pet just ain't that effective for the
2 slot cost.
>Anyway, what upgrades are worthwhile for you depends on your playing
>style. Most of the time, for an ele, a collectors staff with +20%
>recharge/casting speed, and then slap on a +5 energy and +5 armor
>upgrades, is affordable & pretty optimal. Of course, if you can find
>one-hand weapons with +energy, then those plus an offhand item rock,
>but one hand weapons with +5 energy are rare.
--
Leo
> Why can't the loot from instances and raids be, functionally, as good as
> anything you can get anywhere else, but prettier or more customizable? One
> of the claims people made about having good raid loot is that it was a
> reward for doing the raid. But why does the raid have to grant an advantage
> to the character? Why isn't a trophy a good enough reward for doing it?
> And you can even put in the idea of raid sets to make people want to do it
> again and again. People hunted the infected in Outbreak just to get a
> BADGE, so why wouldn't people do it for raid sets that showed that, hey,
> they did and were good at the raids?
>
> There's no reason why a solo player or a group player or a raid player
> cannot have loot of the same functional quality.
>
>
I agree.
I played a char to 60 in wow and several to their 30's, one to 40.
WoW, I still think, is very fun up until very late 50's, but at that
point its a dead zone. And for me, since I've seen it all, its now also
a dead zone in that otherwise 1-50's range.
I did like that they added battlegrounds, brought some life to my lvl
60 again for me, but I have the same reservations about how the pvp
rankings work. Time is rewarded more than skill. I don't mind time
bein' an element really, but it shouldn't be the primary element.
It is nice though that you can get good lvl 60 epic items in a way
other than 40 man raids. Unfortunately, even through pvp, it not only
takes time, but gets recalculated on a weekly basis. Honor points
earned per week, as compared to other players, decides your rise or fall
in rank. So you can't just be a casual player who waits patiently 'till
he finally manages to get x kills and gets the good gear, while the '10
hour a day' players merely get it faster. That wouldn't be unfair, its
ok if it just takes the casual player the same amount of actual game
hours to get his deserved reward. But as it is, if you don't play
enough hours in that week, you won't get the rank, no matter how much
better you were than people who did have all those more hours to play.
And if anything should be about skill rather than time or the number of
times you've done the thing - its pvp. PvP is about competition at its
very heart.
Not to mention those people who share their accounts w/roommates,
brothers, sisters, parents, kids, so that someone is on their account
runnin' battlegrounds 24/7 so they can shoot up in rank (then they all
switch over to do the same for another of the groups' characters). The
higher ranks only allow a fixed percentage of the population onto them,
so people who resort to such gimmicks to get rank necessarily exclude
yet another casual gamer from the fold.
Efficiency should enter into it. I felt the same way about UT99 stats
pages ranking people by kill numbers instead of efficiency. Luckily
that game is very moddable and keeps logs of fights, so someone made
their own stat tracking parser, called aestats (there were others too,
but that's the one I used, and it also grew to work w/other FPS's) which
could be set to rank by efficiency instead of straight kill numbers.
Also, there were several sub-options insofar on how it rated efficiency
(how skilled was the person you killed, not counting people who only
played a small number of games, etc...).
As to raids again, I personally don't mind them havin' unique uber
equipment that can only be had by goin' through the raid, even if I
never do such raids. Its a different way of getting such gear than I
want to pursue, but many love such things so more power to WoW for
providing content for such people. But comparative equipment, should be
available in other ways. Those other ways should also be difficult of
course, none of us solo-minded people are suggesting that purple epics
should just drop from non-elite world mobs or anything, but there should
be ways a casual solo-minded gamer could get comparable, if different,
equipment. The raid elite equipment could still be unique w/procs and
stats that are only found on the gear you can get in those raids, and
the same can be true for these other methods. It'd add even more
variety to the pvp arena as very differently geared people fight it out
- differently geared, but balanced.
Adding pvp rewards was a great step in this direction, though
unfortunately pvp rankings were arranged in such a way as to yet again
exclude the casual gamer. If they would just change it to make
efficiency the primary element to count towards ones pvp ranking, it'd
be a breath of fresh air for casual gamers. Rate everyone against the
other people of their own class on a kill/death basis, after they reach
a minimum number of kills (so that someone who was merely lucky w/only a
few kills can't get a high rank because of a 100% efficiency). Or maybe
some other method, who knows. But somethin' other than what they
currently have for sure.
Also, why not have a one man instance? High level. Ever since they
began talkin' about hero classes I always thought it'd be a great way to
'earn' your hero class. Make it very hard, repeatable, class/race
specific, w/rare drops (so there's an incentive to repeat it) ,
w/puzzles and bosses etc.. w/all the difficulty inherant in high level
raids - but tailored for just one person to do. You're rewarded the
first time you make it through w/ your class/race hero class. Plus,
it'd make for a nice difference in the high end game for when you
brought your second/third/fourth character up to that level, for some
good variety. If you manage to get your hero class, it'd be a badge of
honor, because its very hard and you managed, by definition, all on your
own w/out any help. And you'd be able to take everything you got from
this difficult endeavor into the massively multiplayer aspect of the
game through PvP. Plus then you can have yet another way to get class
specific epic sets and such that would be different from the raid sets,
unique, but comparable, for those who don't like the hassle of tryin'
to coordinate w/39 other people, repeatedly, just for a chance of
somethin' useful to drop.
If wow were like that, I'd never have left. Not that I regret my time
in wow, I really did enjoy the time I had in it. I'm just sayin' I'd
still be in there if not for the above.
Leo
Leo
>
> I can and do run away and let all the henchies die if we get swarmed,
> that's one of the main reasons I take a monk secondary so I can have
> infinite raises.
>
> Run away, wait till the critters go back to their places, sneak up and
> start raising the crew.
>
>
As an interesting side note to this discussion, this talk of soloing an
MMO (as I tend to do in MMO's probably 80-90 percent of the time)
reminded me of somethin':
There's an independant little MMO (which I think has been discussed
here, that's how I found it I seem to remember) that lets you create a
full party of characters and actually control them all. However, all
but the one you control are 'invisible' and the whole party is just
represented graphically by the one you are controlling (but they are all
there). You can also group normally w/each party member controlled by a
separate individuals just like in normal MMO's though of course. From
the forum talk at the time I perused a discussion of it, most people
seem to like making a group of 3 or so to run around w/rather than a
full group.
Plus, if you want, instead of playing online it also lets you play it
single player, no other players in the world at all. Also, they
released the source code so you can alter the game however ya want and
even run your own altered unique server, make it public or just for you
and your friends, and some of the players are appearantly doing so. No
monthly fee either. And its all allowed and encouraged by its creators,
doing such is no violation of a EULA or anything. Sounds like MMO
paradise.
The only real flaw is that it is an independantly made MMO, and it
really shows. Haven't played it but looked at the screenies, reminded
me of the first release of DAOC, around that level. But I'm probably
wrong about that. At any rate, not too bad, not 1980's bad for sure,
nor as bad as many other independant MMO's out there, but still pretty
dated nonetheless. And that's a pretty big flaw for this type of game,
since MMO's, imho, are inherantly lacking in role playing type content
compared to regular single player RPG's to begin with, so really need
that extra 'candy' to grab ya. And I have no idea how good/bad the
interface is. From screenshots it don't look bad at all, at least no
worse than DAOC's, which I was able to get used to back when I played
it. But in the forums people do seem to have complaints about the
interface so I have worries.
A screenie from their site:
http://www.prairiegames.com/nshots/mom_11.jpg
I haven't given it a try, but the description couldn't fail to catch my
notice as someone who likes to go mostly solo in MMO's, so its on my
list of things to try. Even though it has no monthly fee, you do have
to pay for the game to intially get it in the first place, 25 bucks I
think it was, though I think they do have a free trial. And me, well,
I'm a cheap bastard, payin' 25 dollars on an unknown quantity is so very
hard for me to do. I might try the free trial though, but dunno how
representative a short stint would be of the actual game in its entirety.
So if some csipg* regular were to volunteer to go be the guinea pig and
sacrifice some of their free time and hard earned money to try it out,
then return to let us know what they thought of it, I'd be eternally
grateful. =>
Its called Minions of Mirth:
Leo
Mean_Chlorine
>How about playing a necro primary with an elem 2ndary - guarantee you won't
>be short on energy then :)
For soul reaping? Yeah, soul reaping is great - I try to keep it at 10
or better, and it really makes a difference. If you're a minionmancer
it means your minions are effectively free or even turns a little
profit, energy wise... I still carry Offering of Blood for extra
energy, though.
> In fact, I can't wait to ditch the ranger 2ndary
>now as I only use my necro, given the pet just ain't that effective for the
>2 slot cost.
Yeah, ranger secondary often isn't really worth it IMO. You get some
good stances, interrupts, speedboosts and Tigers Fury, but those
things aren't all that useful to a necro. And pets are pretty useless
unless you invest heavily into Beast Mastery. Primary rangers otoh are
very powerful, but like mesmers they don't really start to shine until
the desert.
I've got an N/Mo minionmancer; monk and necro skills complement
nicely, IMO.
Nostromo
2006 00:56:50 +0100, Anno Domini:
>Thusly Nostromo <nost...@spamfree.net.au> Spake Unto All:
>
>>How about playing a necro primary with an elem 2ndary - guarantee you won't
>>be short on energy then :)
>
>For soul reaping? Yeah, soul reaping is great - I try to keep it at 10
>or better, and it really makes a difference. If you're a minionmancer
>it means your minions are effectively free or even turns a little
>profit, energy wise... I still carry Offering of Blood for extra
>energy, though.
Yet to get that, but it reads real good ;)
>> In fact, I can't wait to ditch the ranger 2ndary
>>now as I only use my necro, given the pet just ain't that effective for the
>>2 slot cost.
>
>Yeah, ranger secondary often isn't really worth it IMO. You get some
>good stances, interrupts, speedboosts and Tigers Fury, but those
>things aren't all that useful to a necro. And pets are pretty useless
>unless you invest heavily into Beast Mastery. Primary rangers otoh are
>very powerful, but like mesmers they don't really start to shine until
>the desert.
I just wanted as many minions as I could get so N/R was a natural first
choice, but silly in retrospect.
>I've got an N/Mo minionmancer; monk and necro skills complement
>nicely, IMO.
Yeah, that'll be my first switch I imagine.
Bateau
Stop trying to shoehorn a definition that doesn't fit.
Xocyll
of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>Thus spake Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net>, Sun, 26 Feb 2006 15:50:51 -0500,
>Anno Domini:
>
>>>Told, yes, but it never becomes apparent that you HAVE TO party with real
>>>people or _henchies_ to get through the game until much later. A lot of ppl
>>>don't even realise until they're some way into post-searing. Not everyone
>>>reads manuals. In my XP with the game to date, & I join PUGs a lot more than
>>>you from what I've read.
>>
>>Sure it does - the first time you absolutely cannot make it to the next
>>area or cannot deal with a mission alone.
>>
>>They get you to party once in presear to get the res signet, again if
>>you want to go over the wall.
>>Once you get to post sear your very first mission (talking to the
>>ambassador) REQUIRES a second person in your team whether person of
>>hench - you cannot complete this alone.
>
>Those are a couple once-off 'hardcoded' exceptions - again, it doesn't imply
>that this would be an ongoing requirement due to game difficulty, just that
>these small multiplayer missions may be giving you a 'taste' of multi, not
>saying "hey, you're always going to have to use multiple chars, real or
>NPC".
So what if they are one offs?
They introduce the new player to the NPCs and the fact that at some
points you'll want/need to team up.
It doesn't have to be spelled out in 90 pt type and one syllable words.
>>>I made the exception & expectation for pet classes very clear, in 3 posts
>>>now. A player who wants to play a Warrior or Mage may reasonably expect to
>>>solo with NO other players/henchies in most mmorpgs - they would be wrong &
>>>sorely mistaken in GW.
>>
>>They can expect anything they want, but their expectations from other
>>games have no relevance in GW.
>>The manual categorically states that it is designed to be played with a
>>party of 2-8 members, people or henchmen.
>
>I, like many other ppl, bought the game online. Ummm...what manual? :-/
Well I dare say there's the equivalent of a manual on the various gw
sites.
>>>I never argued about the semantics of what 'solo' meant, but that it was
>>>important to inform new players that solo does not mean in GW what it means
>>>in most other classes. Where I can solo through _most_ missions in CoH, EQ2
>>>& WoW for example, I likely wouldn't get past the 1st storyline mish in GW,
>>>game over. New players should know that & it's an important distinction I
>>>wanted to raise when talking about 'soloing' this game.
>>
>>There's the manual, the party with an ally missions, the over the wall
>>mission, the first post-sear mission...
>>
>>Just how many times do you think a new player needs to be hit over the
>>head that he must party at some point?
>
>Pre-sear is just a tutorial & the transition into post-sear just a once-off.
>The *game* never states explicitly "you have zero chance of completing the
>storyline missions or the game w/o partying a LOT" anywhere (well, except
>the manual you mention that I & probably 90% of players have never laid eyes
>on :).
You never need to explicitly state that.
Sheesh man, the way you keep on about this makes it sound like you're in
the US not Aus.
You can expect people to pay attention to what they're shown, OR, what
they run into in game.
Eventually they'll run into something they can't do alone, at which
point they'll team/grab henchies/try different skills/whatever.
The point at which they'll hit this will vary widely depending on the
player.
Some classes are far more "small party" friendly than others, and
frankly some people are so unskilled they need to have a max size party
to carry their incompetent asses through.
Ie a war/monk with high levels of healing can run around alone if they
are careful about aggro management until they run into things that
remove enchantments.
>>>Yes, but henchies require more management as you can't just let them die as
>>>they cost you XP penalty; also, the healing (if you're a monk) would be just
>>>as if not more intensive as if they were PCs, though granted you wouldn't
>>>play a primary healer monk & expect to solo :) As a necro I dabble in buffs
>>>for my henchies w/o which they would never get through in some close shaves.
>>>It all makes for a much more button/concentration-intensive game than a
>>>simple soloist fighter or even mage blasting away imo.
>>
>>Say fucking what?
>>Henchmen dying doesn't cost you anything at all.
>>They die, they get weaker, just as you do when you die, there's no
>>experience loss of any kind, they just get squishier.
>
>My bad - I meant DP, as per what your char & other PCs get - pets don't have
>that drawback & they play out very different at any rate.
>
>>This is one of the big advantages of a ranger - since the pet doesn't
>>get weaker when it dies and gets raised a high beast mastery pet makes a
>>pretty good tank.
>
>Yes, which is why henchmen need more TLC or they cost you as they get weaker
>& at some point you have to restart - not what most soloists from other
>mmorpgs would by used to.
They are there for their skills, not their hp.
In lots of missions henchies will die, sometimes very frequently, that
doesn't mean that i'll have to quit the mission though.
They are there to heal me and/or take some of the aggro so I don't get
steamrollered - I don't care if they die and get weaker, it's just not
an issue.
>>I can and do run away and let all the henchies die if we get swarmed,
>>that's one of the main reasons I take a monk secondary so I can have
>>infinite raises.
>>
>>Run away, wait till the critters go back to their places, sneak up and
>>start raising the crew.
>
>A more & more ineffective crew. I've played with them at -60%DP & just
>managed to squeeze through when there were only 2 or 3 baddies left, but
>that was that mission just outside Beetletun(?) where you had to defend the
>gates & the spawn was right next to them, so you could just chip away ad
>infinitum. Anywhere else & it's a restart, plain & simple. If the baddies
>regen too quick & you respawn too far away - restart. Not at all like
>soloing with pets I must say.
Well drastically different than necro pets yeah since those expire.
You can do things TO them, but you can't control their actions.
That's a very significant point.
>>For me and for many (if not all soloists) soloing means I don't have to
>>put up with another person screwing around, behaving like an idiot,
>>bailing out of the mission, going afk, running off and then come
>>screaming back with a crowd of baddies following him, etc.
>>GW's play with henchies mode is soloing.
>
>That's fine - as I've said, not the distinction I tried to draw, nor change
>the definition - just to say that GW soloing plays out quite different to
>other mmorpgs & you WILL be teaming with NPCs to get through.
Since people define soloing as having no other people involved, it's not
an issue if NPCs are used.
I am heavy into soloing and so is Mean Chlorine (I think), because it
means I am never dependant on some other person's actions.
>>>Yuppers. Must get back to GW before my holidays are over in the next few
>>>days. Been enjoying COD2 all too much this past week, though it's on the
>>>short side.
>>
>>Yeah noticed you are listed as not having been online in 3 weeks in the
>>guild thing.
>
>Yeah :( when I booked 2 weeks leave I though I'd have lots of time to do the
>things *I* wanted to do...*huge Shrek sigh*...women...
>
>>The latest ranger is about to go play with Glint in the grain of sand.
>>Then in a few days I guess i'll have to delete another character and
>>start another ranger.
>
>Cool - you'll probably catch me again in a week or so ;) (still at Aurora
>Glade, lvl 18). Btw, is it worth doing the armor collectors at this point to
>get AL51 necro armor, or should I just keep going & get the top end AL60
>gear from the Crystal Desert collectors - whatchu reckon?
She's in droks now having made her way through the grain of sand and
killing Glint (during which the minions died many times because they are
stupid lemmings).
This was exactly my point about control - i'd move to attack Glint
(using a max range bow), and whichever healer was up would run right
_past_ Glint to try and raise the other monk. Something I could not stop
them doing, and even my click moving [which tells the whole party to go
to that location] would not stop her suicide runs.
Once they got within like 150 feet of their dead comrade they'd just
charge in to try and raise them.
As a result, almost all the henchies died at least once, and the two
monks died at least 8 times each because they made themselves the main
target and at melee range.
Xocyll
the entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the
signs say:
>news:q42sv1pl84d3co3kc...@4ax.com...
>> On 23 Feb 2006 06:45:43 -0800, "littlemute" <littl...@woodenmen.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Nice article about WOW, and, suprisingly, Street Fighter.
>> >
>> >http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20060222/sirlin_01.shtml
>>
>> Can't say I really agree with it.
>>
>> 1. Investing a lot of time in something is worth more than actual
>> skill.
>>
>> Remember kids, if you try something new and you're not immediately
>> good at it, just give up. Its obviously not your forte and you'd just
>> be wasting time practicing.
>
>The problem is that in real life it's skill and time spent practising that
>matters, whereas in WoW it's simply time. Getting high levels to run you
>through instances gives you uber equipment that makes you stronger than
>characters who skip the instances and learn the games.
>
>CoH and its "Winter Lord" fiasco demonstrates that really well. You have a
>lot of poor players on high levels from the massive XP from that event,
>whereas for example I -- who barely participated in that event -- have a
>better idea how to play and lower level chars.
I ran into a case of this in GW yesterday.
A fairly mature sounding person (he actually used whole words spelled
properly and punctuation) who didn't know what resurrect did.
Apparently his 8 year old nephew had power leveled him, so there he was
at level 20, in the desert, with no idea how things worked.
We won't get into the "I spent all my gold get power leveled and run to
droks, and can't afford my armor - hey everybody give me money cause i'm
broke" idiots.
Alex Mars
ROFL, thanks for the laugh. That has got to be the funniest thing I
have read in a while.
Mean_Chlorine
>Since people define soloing as having no other people involved, it's not
>an issue if NPCs are used.
>I am heavy into soloing and so is Mean Chlorine (I think), because it
>means I am never dependant on some other person's actions.
Until now it never even occurred to me that anyone might not consider
playing with computer teammates soloing. I mean, 99% of the time I
play GW like if it was a party-based single-player rpg. I like henches
because they allow me to do that. I'm not into socializing, and if I
had to put up with other humans all the time I'd rather be replaying
PS:T or something.
Oh, and yeah, battlefield rezzing is a problem with the monk AI. It
wasn't always so, but people complained that the monk henches didn't
rez them immediately when they died in battle, so the AI was tweaked.
Result: 8 seconds of no healing and no protection in the middle of a
battle pitched enough that one teammate have gone down... Not good.
Alesias tanking, on the other hand, was actually even worse before. I,
and many others, complained about her use of healing touch (she'd run
into the thick of melee, use healing touch on one of the wars, THEN
STAY THERE), so she was given healing breeze.
drocket
<allan.c....@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>The problem is that in real life it's skill and time spent practising that
>matters, whereas in WoW it's simply time. Getting high levels to run you
>through instances gives you uber equipment that makes you stronger than
>characters who skip the instances and learn the games.
I would disagree that skill doesn't play a part, though. In WoW, I've
been in UD Strath (its a high dungeon, for those who don't play WoW)
groups that have blown through to the end in a half-hour without
breaking a sweat. I've been in other groups that have taken 2 hours
and wiped 5 times doing the same thing.
Ok, so we're back to the whole group/solo thing, but it doesn't change
the fact that skill IS involved. Sure, its more of a team-oriented
skill (think, say, basketball as opposed to painting), but its still
skill. If you find some competent players to hang around with, its
quite easy to find good equipment in WoW without having to play 24/7.
(of course, if you're an idiot, the competent players are't going to
want to hang around with you, but that's the skill thing again.)
>The equipment you can get from going through group instances is far better
>than anything you can get solo. This makes grouping forced, unless you want
>to be behind the 8-ball compared to everyone else. While grouping should be
>encouraged, solo players should not be disadvantaged simply because they
>don't group as much as other people (and with random drops and rolls in WoW,
>you end up running instances again and again to get equipment).
But why are you even playing WoW (or any MMORPG) if you don't want to
group? If you insist on playing solo, the game basically boils down
to bashing the same monsters over and over and over and over again.
95% of the fun comes from interacting with other players. That's just
the nature of the beast.
That's not even a complain specifically about WoW: WoW is probably
the best/funnest MMORPG ever made for soloing. CoH (since you
mentioned it...) was VASTLY more boring to play solo. It had some
interesting storylines the first 20 levels or so, but after that it
just devolved into beating up the same ~10 bad guys for weeks on end.
You would have to be completely insane to even WANT to solo in that
game.
>I think his complaint is more that things that the ToS are limiting are
>things that the playerbase should be limiting.
Blizzard is occasionally a bit too strict with regards to policing
player's actions, and they probably need to relax somewhat. I've
found, though, that those who complain about it the loudest are almost
always the ones who are the worst sort of offenders, the ones for whom
the rules were created in the first place.
Nostromo
>Thusly Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net> Spake Unto All:
>
>>Since people define soloing as having no other people involved, it's not
>>an issue if NPCs are used.
>>I am heavy into soloing and so is Mean Chlorine (I think), because it
>>means I am never dependant on some other person's actions.
>
>Until now it never even occurred to me that anyone might not consider
>playing with computer teammates soloing. I mean, 99% of the time I
>play GW like if it was a party-based single-player rpg. I like henches
>because they allow me to do that. I'm not into socializing, and if I
>had to put up with other humans all the time I'd rather be replaying
>PS:T or something.
My point was, GW is unlike most other mmorpgs BECAUSE you have to team with
PCs or NPCs to complete it - NOT to quibble over semantics about what the
fucking word 'solo' means. It is exactly because of this difference that I
think it is important to stress this to anyone who plans to buy GW & is a
preferred *soloist* - it won't really out play like a warrior or mage or
similar in almost any other mmorpg (pet classes notwithstanding, as
explained twice now as well). I have now stated this for the 3rd or 4th time
& I'm done.
Allan C Cybulskie
"Bateau" <Batea...@MAN.invalid> wrote in message
I'll do that as soon as you stop trying to insist that a definition that is
at least somewhat applicable is completely wrong.
Nostromo
Anno Domini:
> So if some csipg* regular were to volunteer to go be the guinea pig and
>sacrifice some of their free time and hard earned money to try it out,
>then return to let us know what they thought of it, I'd be eternally
>grateful. =>
>
> Its called Minions of Mirth:
>
> http://www.prairiegames.com/
>
> Leo
Good feedback from peeps here on this a month ago so I've d/led it now to
give it a go. Total system lockup after creating a new offline world &
trying to load it (had to do a hard reset on Win XP Pro). I have a 2 strikes
rule about this. There's plenty of games out there that don't cause this
sort of grief (Gods was another I uninstalled because of task switching
lockups). If they can't do basic windows programming or they intercept shit
at the driver/OS level, they can go & get farked.
Nostromo
+1100, Anno Domini:
>Thus spake Leo <Anon...@Anonymous.com>, Sun, 26 Feb 2006 23:10:57 GMT,
>Anno Domini:
>
>> So if some csipg* regular were to volunteer to go be the guinea pig and
>>sacrifice some of their free time and hard earned money to try it out,
>>then return to let us know what they thought of it, I'd be eternally
>>grateful. =>
>>
>> Its called Minions of Mirth:
>>
>> http://www.prairiegames.com/
>>
>> Leo
>
>Good feedback from peeps here on this a month ago so I've d/led it now to
>give it a go. Total system lockup after creating a new offline world &
>trying to load it (had to do a hard reset on Win XP Pro). I have a 2 strikes
>rule about this. There's plenty of games out there that don't cause this
>sort of grief (Gods was another I uninstalled because of task switching
>lockups). If they can't do basic windows programming or they intercept shit
>at the driver/OS level, they can go & get farked.
Strike 2 & 3. Total lockup every time I hit the Load World button (tried
creating a couple now). And no FAQ, support or problem text file or web page
anywhere to be found. I strongly caution any would-be victims against this
eastern-block crapware.
Does it have a problem with ATI cards, or s/w firewalls or something??? My
system is fairly high end with recent drivers across the board. Let's see
how long it takes for their support to respond <insert sound of Nostromo
breathing & not holding breath>
Mean_Chlorine
>My point was, GW is unlike most other mmorpgs BECAUSE you have to team with
>PCs or NPCs to complete it - NOT to quibble over semantics about what the
>fucking word 'solo' means.
Sorry, didn't mean to quibble, like I said it had just never occurred
to me that someone might consider single-playing-with-henches to not
be soloing.
>It is exactly because of this difference that I
>think it is important to stress this to anyone who plans to buy GW & is a
>preferred *soloist*
Sure, you're right - while you can play the entire PvE campaign and a
(very) little of the PvP without grouping with *humans*, you will not
get far beyond Lions Arch with a party-size of one, as no avatar is
self-sufficient against varied opponents.
I don't know, do people who like to "solo-solo" in other mmorpgs find
it annoying to use henches in GW? Honest question.
Bateau
Learning can be fun, learning can be boring. Fun can involve learning,
fun can not involve learning. There is no relationship between the two.
Leo
>
> Ok, so we're back to the whole group/solo thing, but it doesn't change
> the fact that skill IS involved. Sure, its more of a team-oriented
> skill (think, say, basketball as opposed to painting), but its still
> skill. If you find some competent players to hang around with, its
> quite easy to find good equipment in WoW without having to play 24/7.
> (of course, if you're an idiot, the competent players are't going to
> want to hang around with you, but that's the skill thing again.)
>
>
>
....
>
>
> But why are you even playing WoW (or any MMORPG) if you don't want to
> group? If you insist on playing solo, the game basically boils down
> to bashing the same monsters over and over and over and over again.
> 95% of the fun comes from interacting with other players. That's just
> the nature of the beast.
>
I'm someone who likes to play an MMO mostly solo, so perhaps I can
explain the the appeal MMO's still manage to have to us solo types. For
me at least, its because I like to treat my MMO like an FPS, I like the
massive scale pvp w/a character I've built up semi-RP style. Its like
UT w/an economy and a fantasy mod on a persistant map the size of a
whole world and w/far more than 16 players to compete w/at a time.
Someone goin' solo really can enjoy an MMO and still get stuff out of it
they wouldn't find in a single player game. Also, inn wow at least, I
liked the crafting and economy too, was fun to watch the swings and take
advantage of 'em and all that. I could craft and sit in the AH all day.
hehe. I don't normally like PvE, but it was fun when I was doin' it for
crafting on my pvp server because sure enough, you'd come across
alliance at some point and the pvp goodness would begin. => I could do
all this solo, and yet, I was still taking part in the 'massively
multiplayer' aspect of the game, adding crafted items into the economy,
speculating in the economy (wow tycoon), and of course - pvp goodness.
I don't doubt doin' a 40 man raid successfully takes a lot of skill,
and I don't disagree that they deserve some reward for such a feat as
bein' able to pull it off well, fast, w/good coordination, multiple
times to get the rare drops. All I'm sayin' is that there should be
equally difficult, but soloable ways to get comparable gear. They
already do this by giving epic pvp rewards, and that hasn't broken the
game, though their pvp ranking system is designed poorly again rewards
the wrong things (rewards time played and ignores efficiency).
I liked diablo, and diablo 2, considered them to be good games, but I
played them once. I've tried to go back to play d2 again, even years
later, but since I've seen it all before, I get bored after a couple
hours and uninstall it again. I don't find it fun to repeatedly play it
just so I can get slightly different items. Even w/different characters
its still the same game. Not saying there's anything wrong the game, I
really enjoyed it my first time through. I'm just sayin', after I've
played it through once, any subsequent attempts, after an hour or so,
feels like work instead of a game. I feel the same about repeating an
instance I've already done. Very fun the first time, wow has some nice
instances. After that - no interest.
I play for the pvp, mainly, and if the raid junkies have uber gear that
I can't get since i'm not willing to do stuff I consider boring for
hours on end just to get virtual items, then the pvp experience, that
part which is my whole reason for playing, suffers. Fighting a warrior
w/my rogue is normally a fine and fun experience, such a fight can last
a very very long time if its one on one and he's a good player, but
fighting a fully epic equipped warrior w/my non-epic equipped rogue,
however, is just high comedy, as I'm sure you can imagine. Some have
freakin' thunderfury too, hi-larious.
Now, all that bein' said, because of the way in which I like MMO's, I'd
be just as happy w/an FPS that allowed for character development in a
persistant world, w/classes and equippable items, thousands of players
on a server at once, and some sort of economy. No PvE necessary for me
to enjoy an MMO. In fact, I'd like it better since FPS's tend not to
have monthly fees. =>
I do agree w/you that just bashing the same monsters over and over
again gets boring after an hour or so, much less days on end. I too
find simply 'grinding' boring. And to me, doin' 40 man raid instances
over and over seem just as boring and in the same way. Just as you are
riddled about how people can enjoy playin' an MMO solo and wonder why
they don't just play an SP game, I find it hard to understand how people
who agree w/me that grinding out levels in PVE is boring can somehow
also find it fun to do the same 40 man raid over and over.
At any rate, that's just me, other soloists might enjoy soloing in
MMO's for other reasons, but those are mine. =>
Leo
Leo
>
> Strike 2 & 3. Total lockup every time I hit the Load World button (tried
> creating a couple now). And no FAQ, support or problem text file or web page
> anywhere to be found. I strongly caution any would-be victims against this
> eastern-block crapware.
> Does it have a problem with ATI cards, or s/w firewalls or something??? My
> system is fairly high end with recent drivers across the board. Let's see
> how long it takes for their support to respond <insert sound of Nostromo
> breathing & not holding breath>
>
Thx for the report, definitely a red flag. I may be old fashioned but
I like my games to work. hehe. If you get it up and goin' at some
point please post your impressions.
Leo
Xocyll
the entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the
signs say:
>Thusly Grant Anderson <gp...@cs.waikato.ac.nz> Spake Unto All:
Why a staff other than maybe adding the +armor?
Collector wands/artifacts are easy enough to come by in the desert/south
shiver;
IE my elementalist is equipped with
Fire Wand (from Luven Underwood outside Elona, 5 mino horns)
[11-22 fire damage, halves skill recharge of fire magic spells 20%]
Fire Artifact (from Sir Pohl Sanbert in arid sea - 5 Dune burrower jaws)
[+12 energy, halves casting time of fire magic skills 20% and halves
skill recharge of fire magic spells 20%]
+12 energy, 20% half cast time and 40% half recharge time makes for a
fairly potent combination.
drocket
> I do agree w/you that just bashing the same monsters over and over
>again gets boring after an hour or so, much less days on end. I too
>find simply 'grinding' boring. And to me, doin' 40 man raid instances
>over and over seem just as boring and in the same way. Just as you are
>riddled about how people can enjoy playin' an MMO solo and wonder why
>they don't just play an SP game, I find it hard to understand how people
>who agree w/me that grinding out levels in PVE is boring can somehow
>also find it fun to do the same 40 man raid over and over.
For the same reason that PvP doesn't get boring - human beings
inherently add unpredictability to any situation. If that wasn't
true, then there's be no difference between bashing mountain lions
over and over again, and engaging in PvP. Even in an extremely
experienced group, you can still have some really wacky stuff happen
in any raid situation.
Regarding getting epics solo: entirely possible. There are many epic
items that have a change of dropping from any appropriate-level
monsters, which means that grinding through 10,000 dragonkin will most
likely eventually get you that purple you're lusting after (and even
if it doesn't, you'll eventually get enough money to buy it in AH from
someone a bit luckier.)
Xocyll
porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 15:37:42 -0500, "Allan C Cybulskie"
><allan.c....@yahoo.ca> wrote:
<snip>
>>The equipment you can get from going through group instances is far better
>>than anything you can get solo. This makes grouping forced, unless you want
>>to be behind the 8-ball compared to everyone else. While grouping should be
>>encouraged, solo players should not be disadvantaged simply because they
>>don't group as much as other people (and with random drops and rolls in WoW,
>>you end up running instances again and again to get equipment).
>
>But why are you even playing WoW (or any MMORPG) if you don't want to
>group? If you insist on playing solo, the game basically boils down
>to bashing the same monsters over and over and over and over again.
>95% of the fun comes from interacting with other players. That's just
>the nature of the beast.
95% of the aggravation also comes from player interaction.
Playing solo isn't about "I never want to deal with other people", it's
about "I don't want to be forced to rely on other people."
A subtle but distinct difference.
Forced grouping means you have to sit around while a team gets formed,
only to find out that one or more people in the team are total idiots,
or have gone afk, or are death magnets (sprinting into enemies then
running back to the team when they get too much aggro) or bail out of
the team the first time they die from doing something stupid or...
Solo play, even when it takes longer/more effort is infinitely
preferable to some team compositions.
As was hashed out several hundred time in CoH, there are also people who
just plain can't play for very long and don't want to waste what time
they have trying to get a group together and/or don't want to be in a
group because they might have to leave at any moment.
CoH was pretty good about that - someone could log on, play for 20
minutes and then leave again, then pop back in for a bit - street
hunting or a not-too-long mission could be done in the time they had
before they had to bail again.
GW is also fairly good at this with the henchmen, except that a lot of
the missions and quests may take a lot longer than 20 minutes.
Henchmen don't bitch if you have to leave suddenly though, nor do you
feel you have let them down when real life calls you away.
I do group on occasion in GW since it can be more fun, but I also keep a
book to read while the group gets formed since it rarely happens fast -
there's usually a long wait to get a healer type.
I can and have grabbed henchmen and completed a mission while other
people are still trying to get a group formed.
The increasing numbers of people who have gotten run through and/or
power-leveled make for some seriously unskilled players in GW these
days, making teaming with real people even more uncertain.
burt...@hotmail.com
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 18:25:00 GMT, Leo <Anon...@Anonymous.com> wrote:
>
> > I do agree w/you that just bashing the same monsters over and over
> >again gets boring after an hour or so, much less days on end. I too
> >find simply 'grinding' boring. And to me, doin' 40 man raid instances
> >over and over seem just as boring and in the same way. Just as you are
> >riddled about how people can enjoy playin' an MMO solo and wonder why
> >they don't just play an SP game, I find it hard to understand how people
> >who agree w/me that grinding out levels in PVE is boring can somehow
> >also find it fun to do the same 40 man raid over and over.
>
> For the same reason that PvP doesn't get boring - human beings
> inherently add unpredictability to any situation. If that wasn't
> true, then there's be no difference between bashing mountain lions
> over and over again, and engaging in PvP. Even in an extremely
> experienced group, you can still have some really wacky stuff happen
> in any raid situation.
The problem is that once you hit 60, the game becomes entirely about
gear. If you don't participate in 40 man raids, you will routinely get
your ass kicked in PvP by those who do because their gear will be
significantly better than yours. Things aren't decided by skill,
they're decided by who has the time and the inclination to spend 6+
hours at a time running through the big raid instances and who doesn't.
> Regarding getting epics solo: entirely possible. There are many epic
> items that have a change of dropping from any appropriate-level
> monsters, which means that grinding through 10,000 dragonkin will most
> likely eventually get you that purple you're lusting after (and even
> if it doesn't, you'll eventually get enough money to buy it in AH from
> someone a bit luckier.)
You MIGHT get AN epic item after killing 10,000 dragonkin. There's no
guarantee that it'll be an epic you can use. And even if it is, it
won't be as good as the stuff you get from raiding anyway.
And as far as buying epics in the AH, almost all the really good ones
are bind-on-pickup, so that isn't an option.
Blizzard touted WoW as "the everyman's MMORPG." And, from level 1-59,
it is. But once you hit 60, it's a completely different story. It
devolves into endless running through the same few instances over and
over again in the hopes that THIS time, that item you want will drop
and it won't go to someone else in the raid. Boring. And if you can't
devote a lot of time to raids because you have a life, or if you just
plain don't like raiding, there's really nothing left to do.
The game is tremendous fun up until the end, so it's a real shame that
Blizzard did such a poor job on the endgame.
drocket
wrote:
>95% of the aggravation also comes from player interaction.
Nah, AT LEAST 50% of the aggravation comes from having login queues of
500+ players, followed by massive lag when you finally do manage to
log in. Blizzard has been having some 'issues' since Christmas.
They're slowly getting better, but things are still far from good...
>Forced grouping means you have to sit around while a team gets formed,
>only to find out that one or more people in the team are total idiots,
>or have gone afk, or are death magnets (sprinting into enemies then
>running back to the team when they get too much aggro) or bail out of
>the team the first time they die from doing something stupid or...
That's why you join a decent guild. Find a guild that matches your
playstyle (some guilds demand a lot from their members, but there's a
lot of casual guilds, too.) You'll not only make friends, but you'll
have a ready supply of party members who are competent.
Pick-up groups generally suck, because they're predominately made up
of complete morons who get thrown out of any decent guild (as well as
the requisite 5% or so who are Chinese farmers there to ninja any good
BoE that may drop.)
The Whole Truth
>We won't get into the "I spent all my gold get power leveled and run to
>droks, and can't afford my armor - hey everybody give me money cause i'm
>broke" idiots.
Actually saw a player yesterday begging for 600 gold because he gave 600g to
someone to run him through a mission and they just left. Takes a dork to be
admitting you got scammed in public like that; takes an even bigger dork to be
asking to be compensated by the public at large for being stupid.
Then again there was someone begging in post-Ascalon City for 40g the same
time I hit post for the first time. I went out, ran some of the early quests
(deliver the letter to the ambassador, deliver the supplies to the city, kill a
few gargoyles) and when I got back to town he was still begging for 40. Hell, I
made more gold from the loot that dropped than he was asking for in addition to
the quest rewards.
I laughed even harder at people asking for money to run to Piken Square, when
if you just play through a bit, you can head through the breech and get your
very own guide to Piken Square who shows you the easiest route, helps you get
there, and doesn't cost a dime.
The Whole Truth
>GW is also fairly good at this with the henchmen, except that a lot of
>the missions and quests may take a lot longer than 20 minutes.
>Henchmen don't bitch if you have to leave suddenly though, nor do you
>feel you have let them down when real life calls you away.
Leave? Bah, just get to a clear spot (out of patrol pathing which isn't
exactly hard to do) and leave the game on. I once took a 6 hour break in the
middle of a mission. I didn't hear a single complaint from any of my Henchmen
and didn't have to redo the half I'd already completed. :)
The Whole Truth
>Learning can be fun, learning can be boring. Fun can involve learning,
>fun can not involve learning. There is no relationship between the two.
I'd say it has a slight relationship, people tend to learn faster when it's
fun. Of course people tend to learn damn fast when learning is painful. :-)
Mean_Chlorine
>Why a staff other than maybe adding the +armor?
The staff is easier to come by, and can be added with +5 energy (to a
total of 15). But mainly it is easier to come by.
Grant Anderson
>Sure, you're right - while you can play the entire PvE campaign and a
>(very) little of the PvP without grouping with *humans*, you will not
>get far beyond Lions Arch with a party-size of one, as no avatar is
>self-sufficient against varied opponents.
>
>I don't know, do people who like to "solo-solo" in other mmorpgs find
>it annoying to use henches in GW? Honest question.
>
>
It's fine by me - it allows me to focus my character on a particular
build and select henches around it, rather than having to provide the
healing/damage/debuffs/etc all myself. Of course, in the late game, you
can take just about all the henchmen with you.
(I'm up to the Ring of Fire now, and my first attempt (with henches)
went somewhat awry - I was heading around the fortress, and a horde of
fiery spider critters leapt at me, and I got peppered with interrupts,
which rather hampered the Echoed Meteor Swarm plan!)
I'm considering trying out an Earth build - it looks like I could tank
for days with Kinetic Armour and a quick-refresh spell like Stone Daggers.
Cheers,
Grant
Mean_Chlorine
>(I'm up to the Ring of Fire now, and my first attempt (with henches)
>went somewhat awry - I was heading around the fortress, and a horde of
>fiery spider critters leapt at me, and I got peppered with interrupts,
>which rather hampered the Echoed Meteor Swarm plan!)
Taking the roundabout route suggested by the Vizir is quite difficult
with henches (you'll find out why a bit past those fiery spiders), I
found it easiest to simply kick down the main door and go in guns
blazing... :)
Grant Anderson
Awesome, I'll give that a shot tonight. Just out of curiousity, you
wouldn't happen to know where
Jyth Sprayburst (Breeze Keeper) is in the Ring of Fire, would you? I'd quite like to capture Ether Prodigy from him. The description says "gains energy regen of 6" and as I mentioned, that would go down quite well.
Cheers,
Grant
Lazy Jones
> But not by simply adding more content? I've never played those types
> of games (since the UO beta) but the complaints seem the same then as
> they are now for the most part. The real shocking thing is the comment
> about how people are competing with people that play 10 hours a day or
> more. Is that an exaggeration? Is he serious?
Absolutely serious. Let me quote one of the rank 14 PVPers on my old
(non-PVP) servers:
"Sure it just takes "time".. but how would you like to sit infront of
the PC for 18 hours a day non-stop, skipping RL stuff 7 days a week, for
3-4 months? Don't ask the rank 13/14s why they do it, just consider this
fact that they had to do it.[...] At rank 13 you'll need standing
1-2-3-4 to get a good progression.. and even when playing 16-18 hours
per day, you're in no way guaranteed to get that standing. [...] The
total time i spent to attain rank 14 is somewhere roughly 1,600 hours
in-BG time.. yes I made charts for every week since week 1."
-lj
Gerry Quinn
allan.c....@yahoo.ca says...
> "Gerry Quinn" <ger...@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1e690c97a...@news1.eircom.net...
> > It's still just a whinge about how the game is not designed to suit his
> > play-style.
> >
> > Players who play for longer get higher on ranks? - well, play for
> > longer or else don't aim to be top of the ranks. WOW already has that
> > blue experience thing that doubles your experience if you keep the
> > gameplay hours down.
>
> The problem is that you can get equipment from those ranks that makes it
> even harder for you to advance. And it does seem unfair to say that if you
> don't kill as much as people who can play 5 - 10 times more time than you do
> that they are more skilled than you are, which is what the ranks -- in his
> opinion -- SHOULD indicate.
Well, they don't.
> > Not enough high-level solo content? Well, start a new character when
> > who hit some point at which it gets boring.
>
> WoW does not have enough classes/races that make a difference in gameplay to
> make that feasible. That's the reason I won't play it and didn't play it
> after the 14 day trial I got, and will play DAoC and CoH.
How can you tell if you haven't played it? Certainly there is enough
variety for much more than a couple of weeks.
But each to his own, and clearly if one MMORPG doesn't float your boat,
others do. Which is how it should be.
- Gerry Quinn
Nostromo
>Thusly Nostromo <nost...@spamfree.net.au> Spake Unto All:
>
>>My point was, GW is unlike most other mmorpgs BECAUSE you have to team with
>>PCs or NPCs to complete it - NOT to quibble over semantics about what the
>>fucking word 'solo' means.
>
>Sorry, didn't mean to quibble, like I said it had just never occurred
>to me that someone might consider single-playing-with-henches to not
>be soloing.
>
>>It is exactly because of this difference that I
>>think it is important to stress this to anyone who plans to buy GW & is a
>>preferred *soloist*
>
>Sure, you're right - while you can play the entire PvE campaign and a
>(very) little of the PvP without grouping with *humans*, you will not
>get far beyond Lions Arch with a party-size of one, as no avatar is
>self-sufficient against varied opponents.
No, I agree with Xocyll & yourself that the definition of 'soloing' in a
mmorpg should stay as is to mean just you the lone ranger as a PC only, with
or w/o henchies, pets, mercs, etc. BUT, GW strays from most mmorpgs with
it's almost single-player extension of must-have henchies, so that's why I
reckon it's important to note, as soloists from other games may get pissed
off in short order when they realise you _have to_ party with dumb NPCs (or
humans) to get through the game. And what Xocyll says about it being obvious
is BS - a prospective player asking about it hasn't read the manual or
probably even played any of the game before he purchases it, thus it's
better to make this distinction clear up front than end up with a
disgruntled player & bad word of mouth.
>I don't know, do people who like to "solo-solo" in other mmorpgs find
>it annoying to use henches in GW? Honest question.
I've come across several players who were clearly annoyed that they had to
play with henchies, & even more annoyed (& less sociable!) about having to
play with a PUG because the henchies weren't good enough to get through a
particular mission. You can spot them a mile away: they only talk in single
words, get very antsy when anyone drags behind or dies or fucks up in any
way, they're pushy, rude and most telling of all, they are only there to
complete the primary or bonus mission & then they disappear w/o a word the
moment they get what they want.
Grant from here mentioned recently that he was unaware you *had to* group
with henchies to get through the game, though he didn't mind.
Mean_Chlorine
>Just out of curiousity, you wouldn't happen to know where
>
>Jyth Sprayburst (Breeze Keeper) is in the Ring of Fire, would you?
'fraid not. Never completed the game as elementalist - my one try only
ever got to Piken Square, I think.
Mean_Chlorine
>> about how people are competing with people that play 10 hours a day or
>> more. Is that an exaggeration? Is he serious?
>
>Absolutely serious.
Well, they've got me beat. And seldom has my signature been more apt,
I think.
--
"We also found that for university students, total time spent in the recent past
on video games has a potential detrimental effect on grades."
-- Anderson & Dill makes a Discovery, in 'Video Games and Aggressive Thoughts,
Feelings, and Behavior in the Laboratory and in Life'. 2004.
Allan C Cybulskie
"Gerry Quinn" <ger...@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote in message
> In article <rroMf.2494$972....@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> allan.c....@yahoo.ca says...
> > "Gerry Quinn" <ger...@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1e690c97a...@news1.eircom.net...
>
> > > It's still just a whinge about how the game is not designed to suit
his
> > > play-style.
> > >
> > > Players who play for longer get higher on ranks? - well, play for
> > > longer or else don't aim to be top of the ranks. WOW already has that
> > > blue experience thing that doubles your experience if you keep the
> > > gameplay hours down.
> >
> > The problem is that you can get equipment from those ranks that makes it
> > even harder for you to advance. And it does seem unfair to say that if
you
> > don't kill as much as people who can play 5 - 10 times more time than
you do
> > that they are more skilled than you are, which is what the ranks -- in
his
> > opinion -- SHOULD indicate.
>
> Well, they don't.
And that's his complaint.
See how easy that is? And he has a point in that the PvP ranks don't
indicate skill in any way.
>
> > > Not enough high-level solo content? Well, start a new character when
> > > who hit some point at which it gets boring.
> >
> > WoW does not have enough classes/races that make a difference in
gameplay to
> > make that feasible. That's the reason I won't play it and didn't play
it
> > after the 14 day trial I got, and will play DAoC and CoH.
>
> How can you tell if you haven't played it? Certainly there is enough
> variety for much more than a couple of weeks.
I actually ended up playing for a day, and then got sick of it.
I tried playing a warlock on the Horde side, got tired of it, and switched
to a Paladin. Basically, at low levels I was doing the same thing in almost
the same way. And this would have happened with any classes. Just compare
the number of classes (what is it, 7 at best?) that play differently to
games like CoH and DAoC, where there are much more classes that play
differently, including differences between the realms in DAoC. All
controllers in CoH play differently, not to mention the 5 different
archetypes. Simply put, if you get bored playing one class in WoW you will
not long be able to replace it with a new character in a new or interesting
class. I have trouble keeping my CoH and DAoC alts down to TEN! You
couldn't even make 10 interesting alts in WoW.
Allan C Cybulskie
"The Whole Truth" <nos...@no.com> wrote in message
news:00q6025dns95u2j1a...@4ax.com...
It's also the case that if you are still learning, you don't get bored and
complain you are just doing the same things over and over again [grin].
Allan C Cybulskie
"drocket" <dro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:89o602569op11aio2...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 14:05:45 -0500, Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net>
> wrote:
> >Forced grouping means you have to sit around while a team gets formed,
> >only to find out that one or more people in the team are total idiots,
> >or have gone afk, or are death magnets (sprinting into enemies then
> >running back to the team when they get too much aggro) or bail out of
> >the team the first time they die from doing something stupid or...
>
> That's why you join a decent guild. Find a guild that matches your
> playstyle (some guilds demand a lot from their members, but there's a
> lot of casual guilds, too.) You'll not only make friends, but you'll
> have a ready supply of party members who are competent.
But if you play most often in off-hours, how do you find a "decent guild"?
>
> Pick-up groups generally suck, because they're predominately made up
> of complete morons who get thrown out of any decent guild (as well as
> the requisite 5% or so who are Chinese farmers there to ninja any good
> BoE that may drop.)
That's probably true in WoW, but isn't really the case in games like CoH.
Oh, pick-up groups generally still suck, but they aren't people who got
kicked out of supergroups and there are no farmers [grin].
Allan C Cybulskie
that
> >matters, whereas in WoW it's simply time. Getting high levels to run you
> >through instances gives you uber equipment that makes you stronger than
> >characters who skip the instances and learn the games.
>
> I would disagree that skill doesn't play a part, though. In WoW, I've
> been in UD Strath (its a high dungeon, for those who don't play WoW)
> groups that have blown through to the end in a half-hour without
> breaking a sweat. I've been in other groups that have taken 2 hours
> and wiped 5 times doing the same thing.
Oh, I agree that if you are completely useless, you PROBABLY won't get very
far, but if you are even average you'll manage to outperform someone who is
a great player if you can run the instances/raids and he can't.
> >The equipment you can get from going through group instances is far
better
> >than anything you can get solo. This makes grouping forced, unless you
want
> >to be behind the 8-ball compared to everyone else. While grouping should
be
> >encouraged, solo players should not be disadvantaged simply because they
> >don't group as much as other people (and with random drops and rolls in
WoW,
> >you end up running instances again and again to get equipment).
>
> But why are you even playing WoW (or any MMORPG) if you don't want to
> group?
It isn't "I don't want to group". It's "I don't want to group ALL THE
TIME!".
I play CoH/CoV. I solo most of the time. Yet when I've had the time, I've
also run various TFs. I've also grouped with other people, especially to do
AVs. But when I log on at 9am on a Saturday, finding a group is hard and I
want to solo. If I have time for only one mission, I want to solo. And if
I want to solo even most of the time, I shouldn't be automatically placed on
a lower tier of "skill".
And another reason is this: supposedly, these guys create a fun world to
play in. Why do you not think that even guys who aren't particularly social
might want to play in it?
> That's not even a complain specifically about WoW: WoW is probably
> the best/funnest MMORPG ever made for soloing. CoH (since you
> mentioned it...) was VASTLY more boring to play solo. It had some
> interesting storylines the first 20 levels or so, but after that it
> just devolved into beating up the same ~10 bad guys for weeks on end.
> You would have to be completely insane to even WANT to solo in that
> game.
I have something like 15 characters, all lower than 20 (except for one).
I'm finding the storylines more interesting as I get later in the game. But
I'll admit that I'm not too much higher than 20 [grin].
Then again, I don't solo all the time either.
Allan C Cybulskie
"Leo" <Anon...@Anonymous.com> wrote in message
news:WzqMf.2088$FE2.1624@trnddc01...
> Allan C Cybulskie wrote:
[snipped]
After all that typing that you did, I felt you deserved an acknowledgement.
I agree with everything you said [grin].
Grant Anderson
> Collector wands/artifacts are easy enough to come by in the desert/south
> shiver;
> IE my elementalist is equipped with
> Fire Wand (from Luven Underwood outside Elona, 5 mino horns)
> [11-22 fire damage, halves skill recharge of fire magic spells 20%]
> Fire Artifact (from Sir Pohl Sanbert in arid sea - 5 Dune burrower jaws)
> [+12 energy, halves casting time of fire magic skills 20% and halves
> skill recharge of fire magic spells 20%]
>
> +12 energy, 20% half cast time and 40% half recharge time makes for a
> fairly potent combination.
Does recharge time reduction probability stack like that, so that two
20% chances of half recharge time make a 40%? Or is the interaction
more complex?
Cheers,
Grant
drocket
<allan.c....@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>But if you play most often in off-hours, how do you find a "decent guild"?
That's the benefit of the 'massive' part of 'massively multiplayer' -
no matter what time of the day or night you may play, there are ALWAYS
lots of players online. I play during off-hours, too, and the guild
I'm in still has 40+ players online even in the dead of night (and
easily twice that during prime time.) We're not even close to the
largest guild on the server, either.
drocket
<allan.c....@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>Oh, I agree that if you are completely useless, you PROBABLY won't get very
>far, but if you are even average you'll manage to outperform someone who is
>a great player if you can run the instances/raids and he can't.
Considering that you haven't even played past the 14 day trial, I'll
just say that you're quite wrong. This isn't even true of warriors,
who are probably the simplest and most item-dependant class in the
game.
>And another reason is this: supposedly, these guys create a fun world to
>play in. Why do you not think that even guys who aren't particularly social
>might want to play in it?
Because MMORPGs simply don't provide anything more than a reasonably
amusing arena in which players can interact with other players. I
don't think they even CAN provide anything more, because of the
limitations inherent in the medium. If you allow someone to slay the
evil dragon and bring peace to the world - well, that's kind of a
problem when you have 5,000,000 other players who want to keep
playing.
The simple reality of the medium is that the players can never be
allowed to win. The only thing players can ever accomplish is finding
a sword that does 2 more damage, or some other nearly meaningless
gewgaw. All you can really do is make players jump through ever more
elaborate hoops to find the fancy sword that's marginally better (and
then you wind up with people whining that its not fair that everyone
doesn't have the fancy sword that does 2 more damage - witness this
thread.)
>I have something like 15 characters, all lower than 20 (except for one).
>I'm finding the storylines more interesting as I get later in the game. But
>I'll admit that I'm not too much higher than 20 [grin].
Well, that's the problem there. The storylines kind of build up to a
peak around level 20 or so, then basically just stop. The Council has
build another secret base (the 237th one), the Circle of Thorns has
kidnapped someone (for the 112th time), the Family is holding someone
hostage (their 87th hostage this week), and a couple more for the
other evil groups. Its like they just gave up on even trying to write
an actual storyline and just have you repeat the same 5 missions over
and over and over and over again.
As I said, though, that's just the nature of the medium. They can't
permit you to ever WIN anything, so you fight eternally against a bad
guy that apparently has infinite resources because no matter how many
of their bases you destroy, they just keep building new ones. And so
the battle rages on forever (or at least until you get sick of playing
$14.95/month to keep doing the same thing over and over and over
again.)
Nostromo
Anno Domini:
Early on in the game I got halfway through a mission I thought was gonna be
very long (it kinda was for a newb like me then ;). We had to go out & visit
friends & I minimised it & forgot about it until late morning the following
day (15+ hrs I think it was). I even had P2P running at 75% all night IIRC.
Show me another mmorpg with netcode THAT stable! :)
Mean_Chlorine
>> +12 energy, 20% half cast time and 40% half recharge time makes for a
>> fairly potent combination.
>
>Does recharge time reduction probability stack like that, so that two
>20% chances of half recharge time make a 40%? Or is the interaction
>more complex?
I thought it was (1-(0.8 x 0.8))*100 = 36%, but when I start thinking
about it ("hmm... is that really the probability for at least one
firing? isn't that the probability for both firing?") I get all
confused and unsure.
Gerry Quinn
> "Gerry Quinn" <ger...@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote in message
> > > that they are more skilled than you are, which is what the ranks -- in
> his
> > > opinion -- SHOULD indicate.
> >
> > Well, they don't.
>
> And that's his complaint.
>
> See how easy that is?
I think men should be able to move in Go. If they can in Chess, why
can't Go implement it?
> And he has a point in that the PvP ranks don't
> indicate skill in any way.
They indicate the nuber of enemies killed. Skill AND commitment!
> > > > Not enough high-level solo content? Well, start a new character when
> > > > who hit some point at which it gets boring.
> > >
> > > WoW does not have enough classes/races that make a difference in
> gameplay to
> > > make that feasible. That's the reason I won't play it and didn't play
> it
> > > after the 14 day trial I got, and will play DAoC and CoH.
> >
> > How can you tell if you haven't played it? Certainly there is enough
> > variety for much more than a couple of weeks.
>
> I actually ended up playing for a day, and then got sick of it.
>
> I tried playing a warlock on the Horde side, got tired of it, and switched
> to a Paladin. Basically, at low levels I was doing the same thing in almost
> the same way. And this would have happened with any classes.
Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. I really don't think you have
grounds for judging. I found hunters, warriors and shamans played
quite differently, but it's all a matter of degree. The play content
of all these games is largely about killing stuff to get stuff.
> Just compare
> the number of classes (what is it, 7 at best?) that play differently to
> games like CoH and DAoC, where there are much more classes that play
> differently, including differences between the realms in DAoC. All
> controllers in CoH play differently, not to mention the 5 different
> archetypes. Simply put, if you get bored playing one class in WoW you will
> not long be able to replace it with a new character in a new or interesting
> class. I have trouble keeping my CoH and DAoC alts down to TEN! You
> couldn't even make 10 interesting alts in WoW.
Each to their own, as I say. I haven't played the games to which you
refer, so I can't speak with the knowledge and experience that your
single day of playing WoW has imparted to you.
- Gerry Quinn
Allan C Cybulskie
I've tried WoW on a Saturday afternoon, and CoV at 9am on Saturday, and beg
to differ. I suppose it depends on what you mean by "dead of night", since
I've been on at 1 am EST, and for people on the west coast that would be
prime time, not dead of night.
Allan C Cybulskie
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 19:01:27 -0500, "Allan C Cybulskie"
> <allan.c....@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> >Oh, I agree that if you are completely useless, you PROBABLY won't get
very
> >far, but if you are even average you'll manage to outperform someone who
is
> >a great player if you can run the instances/raids and he can't.
>
> Considering that you haven't even played past the 14 day trial, I'll
> just say that you're quite wrong. This isn't even true of warriors,
> who are probably the simplest and most item-dependant class in the
> game.
I do, however, read all the boards and know just how much equipment matters
for PvP from what everyone admits. Perhaps in PvE it doesn't matter, but if
you don't have the right equipment for PvP someone with the best equipment
will basically outperform you regardless of whether they are great or
average.
>
> >And another reason is this: supposedly, these guys create a fun world to
> >play in. Why do you not think that even guys who aren't particularly
social
> >might want to play in it?
>
> Because MMORPGs simply don't provide anything more than a reasonably
> amusing arena in which players can interact with other players. I
> don't think they even CAN provide anything more, because of the
> limitations inherent in the medium. If you allow someone to slay the
> evil dragon and bring peace to the world - well, that's kind of a
> problem when you have 5,000,000 other players who want to keep
> playing.
You miss the point. Who says that those solo players are looking for that
sort of game, where they can bring peace to the world? The worlds in
MMORPGs are interesting ones; they have interesting areas to explore, and
interesting creatures to fight. They often have interesting events. They
change over time. Who says that someone who generally prefers to solo
doesn't want to participate in that sort of world?
>
> The simple reality of the medium is that the players can never be
> allowed to win. The only thing players can ever accomplish is finding
> a sword that does 2 more damage, or some other nearly meaningless
> gewgaw. All you can really do is make players jump through ever more
> elaborate hoops to find the fancy sword that's marginally better (and
> then you wind up with people whining that its not fair that everyone
> doesn't have the fancy sword that does 2 more damage - witness this
> thread.)
The issue is not that the fancy sword does an insignificant extra amount of
damage and is just a trophy. The issue is that the "fancy sword", which
cannot be gotten any other way, actually significantly increases the
abilities OF THE CHARACTER. This causes all sorts of balance issues for
someone who doesn't want to jump through those hoops. As I said elsewhere,
I have no problem if the reward is as good as anything you could get/buy
elsewhere but could be used as a trophy, but that isn't the case in WoW.
Frank E
<allan.c....@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>"drocket" <dro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:16s7021sagme2qgec...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 19:01:27 -0500, "Allan C Cybulskie"
>> <allan.c....@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >Oh, I agree that if you are completely useless, you PROBABLY won't get
>very
>> >far, but if you are even average you'll manage to outperform someone who
>is
>> >a great player if you can run the instances/raids and he can't.
>>
>> Considering that you haven't even played past the 14 day trial, I'll
>> just say that you're quite wrong. This isn't even true of warriors,
>> who are probably the simplest and most item-dependant class in the
>> game.
>
>I do, however, read all the boards and know just how much equipment matters
>for PvP from what everyone admits. Perhaps in PvE it doesn't matter, but if
>you don't have the right equipment for PvP someone with the best equipment
>will basically outperform you regardless of whether they are great or
>average.
Especially for a warrior, the difference is pretty drastic. You're
looking at maybe a 60% difference in damage between a fresh lvl 60
warrior (50DPS weapon) and a high end raider (80+ DPS weapon). Then
you have to figure in the differences from the other gear. It's
probably a safe bet to say that a high end raiding warrior is twice as
powerful in PvP as a newly minted lvl 60. ... and unless that new lvl
60 joins a raiding guild, he won't make up anywhere close to the
difference. It really does become world of raidcraft once you hit 60.
>>
>> >And another reason is this: supposedly, these guys create a fun world to
>> >play in. Why do you not think that even guys who aren't particularly
>social
>> >might want to play in it?
>>
>> Because MMORPGs simply don't provide anything more than a reasonably
>> amusing arena in which players can interact with other players. I
>> don't think they even CAN provide anything more, because of the
>> limitations inherent in the medium. If you allow someone to slay the
>> evil dragon and bring peace to the world - well, that's kind of a
>> problem when you have 5,000,000 other players who want to keep
>> playing.
>
>You miss the point. Who says that those solo players are looking for that
>sort of game, where they can bring peace to the world? The worlds in
>MMORPGs are interesting ones; they have interesting areas to explore, and
>interesting creatures to fight. They often have interesting events. They
>change over time. Who says that someone who generally prefers to solo
>doesn't want to participate in that sort of world?
>
It is, I think, the one serious problem with WoW. For all it's flaws,
even EQ got it better once you hit max level. In EQ you could always
find something to do, didn't matter if you had 1-5 people or a full
group, you could find a spot that was challenging for your group. Wow
just isn't set up that way, sadly. ... and given some of the
interviews I've read, they don't plan to change it.
I guess some enjoy it but for someone that doesn't like raiding, it's
a game breaker. There are only so many times you can get a character
up to level 60 before it gets boring.
Rgds, Frank
chainbreaker
> The issue is not that the fancy sword does an insignificant extra
> amount of damage and is just a trophy. The issue is that the "fancy
> sword", which cannot be gotten any other way, actually significantly
> increases the abilities OF THE CHARACTER. This causes all sorts of
> balance issues for someone who doesn't want to jump through those
> hoops. As I said elsewhere, I have no problem if the reward is as
> good as anything you could get/buy elsewhere but could be used as a
> trophy, but that isn't the case in WoW.
Heh, you've given a pretty good account of things, but there's a bit more in
some cases.
For instance, I don't particularly care if someone has a sword that does +2,
+4, or even +6 more damage than mine. I just want them to take their +6
sword somewhere else and not fuck with me while I'm trying to get me one
that does +1. :-)
But I'm just not an MMOG person anyway, for the most part. If I could get
in a good MMORPG and have Xocyll, k37, Nostromo, Ross Ridge, mc, you, or
really just about anybody who's a regular poster here in the game to play
with, too--all the time--then it would be great. If you could have that,
then it would almost be possible to deal with all the rest of the shits
inhabiting the game world at a given time.
But that's not going to happen. Nostromo's on the other side of the world,
as are several others, and everybody else has their own schedules, so it
just not going to happen.
And besides, most days I just don't feel much like a fucking hamster,
anyway.
--
chainbreaker-who DIDN'T say "feel much like fucking a hamster, anyway", so
let's keep that part straight
littlemute
How many people in Chinese/Korean/Singaporean internet cafes will die
because of this structure?
CoinSpin
"Mean_Chlorine" <mike_no...@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:r6ktv1ti4khe9l0ms...@4ax.com...>>>There's still only one _person_ playing so it is a legit comparison,
>>>since most (I'm assuming) soloers are playing that way because they
>>>don't want to deal with other people (at that moment or ever) and/or
>>>can't play for very long at a sitting.
>>
>>I disagree. Try it alone (no henchies) & see how far you get. As you've
>>said
>>yourself many times here, the henchies are actually better & _more_
>>intelligent than humans, so they are of definite value, but I think people
>>need to understand that GW is not a "solo" game per se, because you have
>>to
>>take henchies along to fill out a party & manage them. And pet classes in
>>CoH/WoW really aren't the same thing at all.
>
> No, they're not better than humans. They're better than total moron
> human players, but semi-decent humans are far better, and good humans
> are in a totally different league.
>
> Also, if playing with partially computer-controlled teammates isn't
> soloing, does that mean that Planescape: Torment and KOTOR were
> multiplayer games?
>
> Or are you just making a distinction between 'soloing' and
> 'single-player'? If so I can agree, as the computer npc's have most of
> the characteristics of players (except they're single-classed & less
> smart), and while you can finish the PvE campaign with henches, I
> doubt it is possible to do so completely alone.
>
> --
> O
> -|- <--- Caricature of Muhammed.
> / \
As someone who just started playing GW (got burned out on CoH, decided to
try it out) there is one point to this henchmen vs player dynamic that is
being overlooked: so far in GW, I have yet to figure out how to get more
than one of the same type of henchmen in a group... So you can't have a
henchteam (my new made up word of the day) with 2 healers and 2 warriors,
for example. You can have 2 of a single type if you are yourself playing
that type, but that's it.
I've done my share of grouping in CoH with multiple controllers, defenders,
melee, etc. Each combination brings with it a different mission experience,
which you rather lack when you are on a solo henchteam (I just love my new
word).
On the other hand... You don't have to socialize with your henchies, so if
you are the loner serial killer type, GW might just be for you... heh.
Guess that's all I've got to say about that... Back to your regularly
scheduled lives.
CoinSpin
Xocyll
the entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the
signs say:
>Thusly Lazy Jones <lazy...@atari.org> Spake Unto All:
>
>>> about how people are competing with people that play 10 hours a day or
>>> more. Is that an exaggeration? Is he serious?
>>
>>Absolutely serious.
>
>Well, they've got me beat. And seldom has my signature been more apt,
>I think.
I've topped that some days, but then I don't watch Television, so the
couch potato time is spent on the computer instead.
Ahh that signature; I was thinking it was maybe going to be a
Caricatures of Muhammed MMORPG.
Finally saw those cartoons following a link for something else, can't
see why they're so pissed about them.
It's not like the same thing (and worse) has been done in regards to
western religions.
IE http://www.thepaincomics.com/weekly010124.htm
Not like you're going to find a Muhammed butt plug for instance, but you
can find a baby jesus one (google divine interventions if you don't
believe me.)
Ahh the strange and twisted things following links at random will
sometimes turn up.
Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr