Profile: Arataki
Send PM  Forum Posts  Forum Topics 

Recent Forum Posts [more...]

• • Does this game use instancing?

  • Ah, I thought I was alluding to it but I can be more specific. Sandboxes. Instead of using instances to make sure that one lvl 40 - 50 isn't over run, why can't there be 10+ dungeons for that level? What we have now seems to be an industry standard of having four or five dungeons for a level when it could be much more, which would reduce that bottle neck problem.

    Does every class available have to travel into these dungeons? If we take pre-NGE SWG, many didn't.  What about over world content so if they don't want to, they don't have to? And etc. If there are a lot of players, it wouldn't eliminate all bottlenecks, but chances are (hopefully) you'll have enough revenue to continue expanding outwards and up. I currently am working on an MMO design document that will encorporate this, with any luck perhaps it could be developed.

    Perhaps, what I'm advocating is too much like an actual virtual world than a game but this is just my opinion.

     

  • Posted: 11/16/08 3:04 PM
    Aion
• • Does this game use instancing?

  • Originally posted by Sharajat
    

    Originally posted by Arataki 

    I have no idea what they're budgets were and I did not mention them (and I don't think we know what the budget for something like Aion vs Warhammer is anyway). I know very well that MMO's are not static, as worlds they do adapt, evolve as well as degenerate and decay. This one needs no education on what MMO's are XD but it is a good point. The thing is, the MMO "successes" are rather far and few in between and the ratios will vary depending on what someone thinks to be a "failed" game. My criteria might be different, but in my mind there are a lot of "failed" games that have and have not shut their doors yet.

    I define an MMO success as one that has a healthy population, stable community, and remains vibrant and active.  There are a few border line cases (LOTRO was deemed a failure by many, but has actually been the dark horse success story of 2007) but for example it doesn't take a genius to figure out Tabula Rasa is never making back what they sunk in.  

    You say developers usually project their income and budget accordingly, but as long as they are focused all is good? If it isn't the gist of that section, disregard this but if it is, many "niche" and focused games failed as well. I'm thinking Fury, Hellgate: London, Tabula Rasa, etc. Were they unfocused? No, but what happened there? (I don't know, so I'm asking.)

    They failed.  I'm not interested in failed games here.  Frankly, instancing did not make any of those games fail.  Lack of instancing would not have made them succeed.  Their flaws were too deep, too dark, too painful. 

    Neither of our logics is bad, I think we are actually agreeing in some weird way as I didn't say that developers *couldn't* use subscriber money to add content, it's just that if extra content is *needed* because numbers aren't holding up then good luck. You are arguing as if I said that, but since I didn't and don't think it, it makes a weird situation.

    Extra content MUST be added to keep the MMO alive, IMHO.  Every MMO maker has realized this.  

    I do not think Warhammer had the same budget as WoW. Did not imply it, and as stated before, did not mention it. What it is doing there in your post, I don't know. I have never played either.

     I was also not arguing for or against instancing but since I am now: Instancing is bad. Great when technology couldn't go beyond it, now a days it needs to go PROVIDED that they had the budget to do so. I wouldn't expect Joe-who-the-hell-are-you to get rid of instancing, but SOE, Blizzard, NCSoft, etc should.

    But why?  How does technology solve any of the problems I listed?  What technology could possibly stop all of that?  Instances are a good solution to a real problem.  And yes, I am fine with saying "if you do not like them, do not go inside them" without feeling you are deprived of content.  If you only roll five classes in Warhammer, did Mythic deprive you of content by making all those other classes?  If you never play on a PvP server, did Blizzard deprive you of content by making PvP servers?  And if you never set foot in an instance, does NCSoft deprive you of content by making instances?  

    EDIT: English is not my best language, be warned some things might not make sense XD

    Understood
     

     

    
     

    You do know, that I never implied that instancing caused any games to fail or otherwise. There was only one point that I was "arguing" against, nothing else, so please don't try to rebutt by using red herrings. I did not say instances deprived me of anything, as for the other examples, don't know what you are trying to get at. I hope you aren't confusing me with someone else.

    As for technology, we have the ability to make zones and content much faster and more diverse than before. As someone said, if there is enough content so people don't *have* to create bottlenecks then the problem that instances fix won't be there. I'm not completely against having some instances where it makes sense, but relying on them is bad, imo.

  • Posted: 11/13/08 2:16 PM
    Aion
• • Open Beta First Impressions

  • Originally posted by Wizardry
    

    Originally posted by ssnautilus
    

    So the basic summary is = WoW-like??
    

    What unique features did you come across? What sets it apart from all other MMOs besides the purty gfx and some stylized skill animations?

    You can fly,that was VERY obvious to me in there latest video.The WHOLE video was about flying,they are trying to use a superficial niche idea to garner players.Vendors? lol again nothing new and expected from an asian game.So.... so far we got boring same old quests and vendor stalls...nothing here from this post.

    Smooth game play?I hear a lot of talk about that lately,not just this game.I would rather have a buggy combat system if it meant being unique or full of ideas and skill.Bugs can and will always be worked out of every game,a poor design and system won't be,you are stuck with it.The truth of the matter is that,a game with fewer bugs is probably that way for a reason,there is little content there to mess up,complex formulas and several sub programs will likely cause more problems.

    Personally the OP,did nothing for me ,because i really can't believe word of mouth from anyone that went through an effort to get on a Korean beta?That tells me it's a fan boy that is willing to look blind at a game.

    I want to hear from a player who couldn't care less about this game,and will give me an unbiased report,better yet i want to test it for myself.

    You know, I think we get it. You don't like the idea that Aion has a decent sized following, you can stop spewing the negative all over the forums. Honestly, I believe you have already been told multiple times that Aion is NOT about "innovation" or bringing something entirely new to the market so stop using that  as a justification for unnecessary remarks against it. Fewer bugs can mean simple, but it can also mean careful developers.

    You want something new. Aion is obviously not going to stand up to your criteria. Move on and wait a few more decades for your ideal game.

  • Posted: 11/13/08 2:10 PM
    Aion
• • Does this game use instancing?

  • Originally posted by Sharajat
    

    Originally posted by Arataki

    Actually, your math is the one that ends up looking inaccurate. Before a game can have subscribers it has to be DEVELOPED. And development has limit of time, resources and money. You can only do so much and if you haven't grabbed that extra 200,000 at launch because the feature they like doesn't exist, good luck using the 300's money to create that content AND more for the existing players so they are satisfied and don't leave. MMO's don't start out getting profits, they run into debt first and then hopefully break even after launch. There is a reason why games will somtimes die before even being released.

    If you would like, I'll quote you "You are using lousy math to justify your opinion." Don't become acidic unless the person deserves it, please.

    If I become acidic, you'll know it. 

    And once again, you are using bad logic.  We can develop a decent picture of what gamers like through various surveys.  That lets developers paint a good picture of what the game will cater to, and budget accordingly.  Warhammer, for instance, was developed with a single objective, and a more limited budget than something like Aion, which seems to be aiming for elements of PvP and PvE as well as questing, group, and solo content.  Did they project less subscribers and therefore less revenue and budget accordingly?  

    I would say yes.  Most developers do this.  Yes, we've had a number of high-profile failures where the devs were totally defocused, but we're not talking about modeling failures.  We're talking about modeling successes. 

    By the way, MMOs are an evolving world.  If they gain good content of certain sorts, people will join.  Battlegrounds were added to WoW - they subsequently became popular and WoW gained a following with some PvP players.  EVE has added a lot of features over the years, growing in popularity all the way.  

    I think that sometimes people view MMOs as static because of the number of high profile disasters people have inflicted - destroying content by attacking the core gameplay.  They forget that new content can be added and a new audience gained.  Good MMOs have all been significantly larger two years after launch than they were one year after. 

    Instance development is not robbing the world of questing development.  The devs will project their income and budget accordingly.  Yes, by becoming hyper focused some developers are hoping to beat the trend of failure against the monolith, but they're deliberately scaling down your budgets.  Do you really think Warhammer had the same budget as WoW?   

    I have no idea what they're budgets were and I did not mention them (and I don't think we know what the budget for something like Aion vs Warhammer is anyway). I know very well that MMO's are not static, as worlds they do adapt, evolve as well as degenerate and decay. This one needs no education on what MMO's are XD but it is a good point. The thing is, the MMO "successes" are rather far and few in between and the ratios will vary depending on what someone thinks to be a "failed" game. My criteria might be different, but in my mind there are a lot of "failed" games that have and have not shut their doors yet.

    You say developers usually project their income and budget accordingly, but as long as they are focused all is good? If it isn't the gist of that section, disregard this but if it is, many "niche" and focused games failed as well. I'm thinking Fury, Hellgate: London, Tabula Rasa, etc. Were they unfocused? No, but what happened there? (I don't know, so I'm asking.)

    Neither of our logics is bad, I think we are actually agreeing in some weird way as I didn't say that developers *couldn't* use subscriber money to add content, it's just that if extra content is *needed* because numbers aren't holding up then good luck. You are arguing as if I said that, but since I didn't and don't think it, it makes a weird situation.

    I do not think Warhammer had the same budget as WoW. Did not imply it, and as stated before, did not mention it. What it is doing there in your post, I don't know. I have never played either.

     I was also not arguing for or against instancing but since I am now: Instancing is bad. Great when technology couldn't go beyond it, now a days it needs to go PROVIDED that they had the budget to do so. I wouldn't expect Joe-who-the-hell-are-you to get rid of instancing, but SOE, Blizzard, NCSoft, etc should.

    EDIT: English is not my best language, be warned some things might not make sense XD
     

  • Posted: 11/12/08 1:30 PM
    Aion
• • Does this game use instancing?

  • Originally posted by Sharajat
    

    Originally posted by SoSilencer
    

    Originally posted by Sharajat

    What I think people don't see is the vast amounts of advantages instances can give.  LotRO really took them somewhere different, turning them into a semi-cinematic adventure that you have to overcome.  WoW, despite the hatred, created some very tuned, interesting, difficult encounters (and despite the whining from people so anti-social they couldn't find 4 others who could stomach them, nevermind 24 or 39, they were difficult).  Would Asheron's Call been a worse game if it had those TOO?  

    Replacing content with instances isn't something I agree with, but if both types of content are there, what's the big deal?

     

    The problem is that you can't have everything. Games are developed in the real world using real time and real money. Every feature or bit of content that you do add means that you are not going to add some other feature or bit of content due to a lack of resources. This leads us to the situation we are in today...

    You can make an MMO that uses a lot of instances and tries to focus a lot on storyline, quests and specific game content or you can make an MMO that is more open and free and is more of a sandbox environment.

    Seriously, repeat this until it sinks in - Economics is not a zero sum game.  Neither are MMOs.  If you attract 300,000 subscribers by having one set of features, and 200,000 subscribers with another set of features, you have income from 500,000 subscribers.  You can then spend that on developing content for the 300,000 and the 200,000.  The 200 aren't stealing the 300's money, that money WOULD NOT BE THERE if they weren't there.  Period.   The 300 would get no more content, and would actually LOSE FEATURES if it wasn't for the other features that they "Don't care about much" being added to the game. 

    You are using lousy math to justify your opinion.  

    Recently a lot of MMO games have been trying the first option and recently a lot of MMO games have been failing because of it. People are quickly blowing through the carefully crafted storyline quests and then realizing that their is either no end-game content or that the end-game content doesn't work because the developers chose to take the easy route of using instances instead of putting resources into making a game world and rule set that "works" in different situations and with the randomness of other players.

    Other MMO games, such as Asherons Call 1 or Eve Online go for the sandbox approach. They use an open and free world where they focus on a game world and rule set that (for the most part) works for everyone in all situations. The storyline and quests usually aren't as good because the content is more generalized but because the world "works" the players become much more involved in the game and stay for years and years. In the case of Asherons Call 1 they even had monthly updates to progress the storyline and maintain the interest of everyone and it worked very well.

    In the end, instances are something of a short cut. It is the cheap and easy route for developers. It can make a great game but the game ends up not having the same long-lasting appeal that a non-instanced sandbox style game has.

    
     

    Actually, your math is the one that ends up looking inaccurate. Before a game can have subscribers it has to be DEVELOPED. And development has limit of time, resources and money. You can only do so much and if you haven't grabbed that extra 200,000 at launch because the feature they like doesn't exist, good luck using the 300's money to create that content AND more for the existing players so they are satisfied and don't leave. MMO's don't start out getting profits, they run into debt first and then hopefully break even after launch. There is a reason why games will somtimes die before even being released.

    If you would like, I'll quote you "You are using lousy math to justify your opinion." Don't become acidic unless the person deserves it, please.

  • Posted: 11/11/08 2:35 PM
    Aion