SE stop doing the "norm"

[Soukyuu]

Akihiko Matsui: "skillful play"

Battle Reform Blueprint

Hmm, good point. I forgot about that one, they should be highlighting this more, not burying it in some subforum IMHO.
Well, as I said, we haven't seen anything from that so far, every battle content they shown was just spamming skills.

Balancing is a very important factor. A MMORPG to be successful needs to be accessible, so the level of challenge needs to stay within some rather precise parameters. Most MMORPG, for better or for worse, offer pretty much the same level of challenge.

I'm not saying it's not important, but you're making it sound like balancing an action game to be on the same difficulty level as target based games is impossible, which isn't the case.

There are things that are simply fact. If someone disagrees with fact, that's pretty irrelevant.

Last time I checked, facts required a citation of a trustworthy source (article, book, etc). So far your "fact" is only your opinion.

Server farms also don't run on physically impossible bandwidths, and need to be able to serve very high numbers of players at the same time. Bluehole and Bloodlust did part through optimization and part through streamlining mob behavior by quite a lot, especially boss encounters-wise = less tactics involved.

I'll be able to judge that later, but from what I've seen so far, it's not any less tactical than FFXIV, which seems to be what you're implying.

is it? According to who?

According to the success rate of your average MMO copying most from the predecessors.

Besides some of the best graphics in the industry and way oversexualized visuals (which sells, a lot), it had plenty to go for it, but the combat lost its novelty for many quite fast.

Exactly. Which didn't happen with B&S so far.

Saying that people that disagree with you do so just because they "settle" for something is a tad of a copout.

No, what I said was that if we at least had a comparable distribution between target-based and action-based MMOs, then the results might have been different. If you have 2 games of one genre and over 10 of the other, which genre has the higher chance to be chosen?

And this thread is based on a false assumption. If SE was settling for the norm, there would be no ARR, and this game would be a F2P throwaway by now.

Actually, it goes like this: people get bored -> quit waves -> no new people to fill the hole -> f2p.
It has nothing to do with a game being the norm or not, else TERA wouldn't fail, having the out-of-the-norm action combat.

There's plenty way for a MMORPG to distinguish itself without reinventing the wheel. A square wheel may be original, but it simply doesn't roll as well.

How about a wheel that is bigger or can change it's pressure depending on which terrain it's rolling over? Why settle for the same features over and over again? Where is the progress in that? Or fun?

[Abriael]

I'm not saying it's not important, but you're making it sound like balancing an action game to be on the same difficulty level as target based games is impossible, which isn't the case.

No, I'm saying that to retain the same difficulty the player needs to be able to pay attention to the same number of factors. Is the factors involved in combat increase, other factors need to decrease in order for the game to remain accessible to the same crowd.

Last time I checked, facts required a citation of a trustworthy source (article, book, etc). So far your "fact" is only your opinion.

I checked the definition of "fact", and that's not included.

I'll be able to judge that later, but from what I've seen so far, it's not any less tactical than FFXIV, which seems to be what you're implying.

if you said you didn't want to spoil the story for yourself, I seriously doubt you managed to see any advanced encounter.

According to the success rate of your average MMO copying most from the predecessors.

You mean like wow? Yeah, definitely unsuccessful.

Exactly. Which didn't happen with B&S so far.

Actually the korean servers are already declining.

No, what I said was that if we at least had a comparable distribution between target-based and action-based MMOs, then the results might have been different. If you have 2 games of one genre and over 10 of the other, which genre has the higher chance to be chosen?

They're not different genres. There are a crapton of defining factors in MMORPGs other than targeting.

Actually, it goes like this: people get bored -> quit waves -> no new people to fill the hole -> f2p.
It has nothing to do with a game being the norm or not, else TERA wouldn't fail, having the out-of-the-norm action combat.

The "norm" in handling a MMO, when it's not successful, is to fire almost everyone, reduce the team to barebones, and go f2p until it dies. That's definitely not what SE did.

How about a wheel that is bigger or can change it's pressure depending on which terrain it's rolling over? Why settle for the same features over and over again? Where is the progress in that? Or fun?

The fact that a game has some of the same features doesn't mean it has them all. Progress doesn't mean to be revolutionary to be progressive. Originality for its own sake has no value in game development.

[Soukyuu]

No, I'm saying that to retain the same difficulty the player needs to be able to pay attention to the same number of factors. Is the factors involved in combat increase, other factors need to decrease in order for the game to remain accessible to the same crowd.

Basically, you are saying they have to dumb the game down so it isn't too hard. They might have to adjust the difficulty of each factor, but it doesn't mean action games have to become less complex because of that. If you have 3 factors@1/3 each and add a fourth, setting each@1/4, you still get the 1.0

The point where we disagree is that you are saying there are no tactics involved in action combat, which is frankly pretty silly. You can't just stand there and spam punches in a well implemented system. If you can, then the system is flawed and needs adjustment.

I checked the definition of "fact", and that's not included.

Let's see.

fact: (Noun)

• A thing that is indisputably the case.
• Information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article

The sun rising in the east is a fact. Some guy on the net claiming something is impossible is an opinion. For some reason you seem to be thinking your opinion is a fact. I'm sorry, you are mistaken.

You mean like wow? Yeah, definitely unsuccessful.

Obviously, WoW, being The Holy Grail of MMOs, is successful. Or so people say. It doesn't change the fact nearly every game that tried the same system didn't last long.

Actually the korean servers are already declining.

Initial hype wearing off, normal phenomenon. The question is, how far this is going to continue? Will the servers become empty? How many will have to close? When? Only time will tell.

They're not different genres. There are a crapton of defining factors in MMORPGs other than targeting.

I didn't say targeting is the only factor defining a MMO. It's one of major defining ones though. If you don't want to see them as genres, see them as sub-genres, as they're both MMOs, just with different battle systems. You're starting to nitpick at this point though.

The "norm" in handling a MMO, when it's not successful, is to fire almost everyone, reduce the team to barebones, and go f2p until it dies. That's definitely not what SE did.

You missed the point of the thread then. The "norm" the thread is referring to is not the norm in handling an unsuccessful MMO, but the norm of features in a MMO. Basically, the OP wants the SE to do something original again. Whether it's a good idea or not, considering what their last attempt at originality brought us, is another thing altogether.

The fact that a game has some of the same features doesn't mean it has them all. Progress doesn't mean to be revolutionary to be progressive. Originality for its own sake has no value in game development.

There has to be some progress for it to be called progress, originality and new ideas are part of it when done right. Yes, being original for it's own sake is a bad idea, that doesn't mean everyone should just hold unto safe ideas and recycle them over and over again.

[Abriael]

Basically, you are saying they have to dumb the game down so it isn't too hard. They might have to adjust the difficulty of each factor, but it doesn't mean action games have to become less complex because of that. If you have 3 factors@1/3 each and add a fourth, setting each@1/4, you still get the 1.0

It means exactly that. and your equation demonstrates it. If you have to lower 1/3 to 1/4, that factor is indeed lowered.

The point where we disagree is that you are saying there are no tactics involved in action combat, which is frankly pretty silly. You can't just stand there and spam punches in a well implemented system. If you can, then the system is flawed and needs adjustment.

Sorry, but clear cut strawman arguments don't really help your case. No one here said that there are no tactics involved in action combat. Fact is that action combat-based MMORPGs have to be less tactics/group synergies-based, to avoid overwhelming players making them less accessible and to avoid overwhelming the servers.

Big difference in the bolded parts.

The sun rising in the east is a fact. Some guy on the net claiming something is impossible is an opinion. For some reason you seem to be thinking your opinion is a fact. I'm sorry, you are mistaken.

Some guy talks with MMO developers between a weekly and a daily base, when he doesn't inverview them. TERA's devs included. He's quite aware of the compromises they had to do in order to make the server structure what it is.

I'm quite sure they know what they're saying for a fact.

What is your opinion based on again?

Obviously, WoW, being The Holy Grail of MMOs, is successful. Or so people say. It doesn't change the fact nearly every game that tried the same system didn't last long.

Like Final Fantasy XI? Or like every long lasting MMORPG we have on the market?

Initial hype wearing off, normal phenomenon. The question is, how far this is going to continue? Will the servers become empty? How many will have to close? When? Only time will tell.

One thing is for sure. It's no revolution, and it won't generate any massive audience looking at the results we had so far.

To be completely honest most of its appeal on its current userbase is based on the art style, not on its combat.

I didn't say targeting is the only factor defining a MMO. It's one of major defining ones though.

But it's really not. The difference is in a single keypress, and considering that hitboxes in action-based mmorpg are overly large, there really isn't much difference besides a mere functional one that influences the fun factor very relatively.

If you don't want to see them as genres, see them as sub-genres, as they're both MMOs, just with different battle systems. You're starting to nitpick at this point though.

Just pointing out just how weak and incredibly subjective your arguments are.

You missed the point of the thread then. The "norm" the thread is referring to is not the norm in handling an unsuccessful MMO, but the norm of features in a MMO. Basically, the OP wants the SE to do something original again. Whether it's a good idea or not, considering what their last attempt at originality brought us, is another thing altogether.

Fact is that the definition the OP uses of "the norm" is fallacious to begin with, and shows that he has no idea of what he's talking about, but his contribution to the whole thread pretty much demonstrates that in itself.

His idea of "the norm" is limited to very few factors he cares about (he basically uses "the norm" as a derogatory definition to paint what he doesn't like in a negative light, regardless of it being the norm or not), while there are a crapton of factors that define and distingush a MMORPG from "The norm", including ARR.

You could actually easily define action-based MMOs as "the norm", for instance, as action games are a lot more widespread nowadays than games that require more reasoning and have a slower pace.

There has to be some progress for it to be called progress, originality and new ideas are part of it when done right. Yes, being original for it's own sake is a bad idea, that doesn't mean everyone should just hold unto safe ideas and recycle them over and over again.

There are plenty areas where smaller innovations can bring a much larger contribution to the fun factor than radical innovations that attempt to fix what isn't wrong. A good example are TSW's investigative quests.

Often going back to past standards pushed away by "innovation" is actually a much better choice than innovating.

Good game design isn't based on time, past, future, innovation or regression, but simply on what is fun and what isn't.

An argument based on not doing "The norm" because someone thinks that an absolutely flawed statistical pool (the commenters on a forum) represents in any way what MMORPG players want is ridiculous. If "the norm" is fun, welcome to "the norm".

[Jynx]

If "the norm" is fun, welcome to "the norm".

The only real issue is that games that have tried to use the normal formula for a hit MMORPG these days (Mainly WoWs base) have yet to recapture the lightning in a bottle that WoW was.

Hell as WoW bleeds subscribers it's hard to say that Blizzard can even recreate it. They got lucky and everyone else developement wise is trying to do the same. If anything recent MMOs that have come out strong and languished shortly after release give a bold statement that the WoW type MMO is on it's way out.

Hell it may be impossible for MMOs to ever reach the same numbers as WoW did, in the MMO space it really is a statistically anomally of the market. You need to find your playerbase and focus on it, trying too hard to please everyone leads to dissapointment on all ends of the market. When/If a MMO tries to use WoWs base and manages to hit a large subscriber base for a long time then it's a different story.

But after WoW, we just haven't seen the numbers in more recent MMOs to suggest it's a repeatable formula.

Also fun is highly subjective to alot of demographics you can't just say "If it's fun it's the norm" Like I said with the WoW style base, it's unproven to actually be "Fun" outside of WoW itself as many games have failed to capitalize on it. You could say it's like anything popular, you can't just do it again and expect the same results.

The market for all products not just games, look at movies and books Vampires and Zombies are "In" but how often does the Vampire or Zombie "Hook" actually translate into the rehashed products being as good or better than the thing they are trying to imitate?

Eventually the novelty wears off seeing something you like outside of the thing you actually enjoyed it for.

Fun is highly subjective and can't be contained to a single factor or style.

Oh I almost forgot.

If you want me too...
Group content

BATTLE!

But seriously much of that content was either able to be done Solo as well, aside from the synergy crafts of course.

Again it was all condensed under (Battle) as you felt needed for my list to be condensed. It's content for sure but it didn't make up 97% of the game. I'd say it was a 70/30 split to be honest it was a highly group based game but as per my original arugment it wasn't the only thing to do.

If you couldn't find something to do by yourself you were just being lazy.

[Soukyuu]

Sorry, but clear cut strawman arguments don't really help your case. No one here said that there are no tactics involved in action combat. Fact is that action combat-based MMORPGs have to be less tactics/group synergies-based, to avoid overwhelming players making them less accessible and to avoid overwhelming the servers.

Quoting you here:

Action based mmos rely on correct positioning/tactics/synergy a LOT less than other MMOS, for a physical matter of netcode and for a simple reason of balancing.

Changing that from "a LOT less" to simply "less" makes a world of difference, since "a LOT" implies there is next to none left.

Some guy talks with MMO developers between a weekly and a daily base, when he doesn't inverview them. TERA's devs included. He's quite aware of the compromises they had to do in order to make the server structure what it is.

Or so some guy says...

What is your opinion based on again?

We're making progress, you admit what you posted is your opinion. My opinion is based on my opinion. I'm not claiming it to be universally correct, unlike you.

Like Final Fantasy XI? Or like every long lasting MMORPG we have on the market?

What do those have to do with failed copycats again?

But it's really not. The difference is in a single keypress, and considering that hitboxes in action-based mmorpg are overly large, there really isn't much difference besides a mere functional one that influences the fun factor very relatively.

I'd like to see you dodge, block and chain combos with only one keypress.

Just pointing out just how weak and incredibly subjective your arguments are.

Says someone claiming the difference between action and non-action based combat is one keypress.