I'm really trying to figure out how you could get MORE details wrong, but... it's just not coming to me. Perhaps if you started blaming Ken Kutaragi for the G4 Cube or something...
> However, I would also argue that there is a case for not stating something is fact beyond all doubt, and teaching people to come to their own conclusions....and the way science it taught, students are shown precisely that. It's part and parcel of teaching the scientific method.
It's a predictive response that inevitably proves to be true. The creationist latches onto this kind of stuff every time. Therefore... pre-mock the creationists.;-)
This shouldn't mean "mock religion," of course... Just them literal creationists who are continually hunting Evolution and the sciences now.
I wasn't comparing games (and I don't actually know what EQ's is like now in later zones), I was just saying things similar to what he was "programming" already existed in even early games.;) Just not to over-the-top foolish degrees. (Like "target nothing else until healer dies")
Also, by stances I don't mean "positional attacks" or "switch from a mode that activates different abilities and shifts some OFF/DEF values around," but rather in more fundamental ways, where you stand between your foes and your protective targets, where your OFF/DEF values have much broader swings and adjusts things like your casting rate, foot speed, etc; where it gives you better ability to counterattck and punish foe vulnerabilities if they try to flip past your line.
Most stances (and even a game like Vanguard has many) aren't really used tactically, but are left on whatever your aim your playstyle towards, or if you're soloing/duoing/grouping and want to alter yourself to do, etc. They're not intrinsic to all characters and classes, either, but rather given to those classes "without as much to do" most of the time.
Things like EQ2's "Heroic Opportunities" and other games where you can chain combos in groups is a nice bonus FOR groups, but doesn't lead very much down the path of group tactics.
Essentially, I'd like to see MMO's in many ways go down the path of those well-designed hack and slash games, where you can get away with button-mashing if you want, but when you learn the combos and the timings and the right weapons to use against the right foes... combat becomes in-depth and tactical.
This is "beyond" most of the player base, I know, but so long as they can still play their own game... Grasping a true tactical system should just let you hunt faster and more efficiently and with less attrition or fatigue (yes, I'm in favor of weaving in elements like that and long-term wounding), but not be a requirement to hunt in general.
AI needs to be more intelligent, but there also needs to be more reward FOR intelligence. "Meta-gaming" should not only involve "knowing what gear to collect."
Well then they seriously changed things, or else you're just talking about whatever "maximum rate" you can get if you already KNOW what you're doing. (People can level to 70 in Warcraft in a few days' time, too, but that's not entirely representative.;-) ) I played DAoC for about a year after it launched, and by and large the PvE grind was the same as EQ's (with people swearing it wasn't) and more obnoxiously dull. I picked up the 5th Anniversary package shortly after it came out to tool around again for a bit, and while it was certainly faster, it didn't seem to be "get to 50th in a week" faster, on a casual schedule. The new classes appeared to be rather snapped-with-goodness, tho.;-) If I'd kept up the same levelling rate as I did in my 0's and 10's it could certainly be done, but it was always the 30's and 40's where everything slowed to a crawl. If they toned that down severely...
Sadly, I think the removal of the grind--to whatever level it affects the casual playerdom--is too little too late. Well after other games stole the limelight, and without much ability to draw people back. (So it seems to be more convenience to creating an alternate, instead.)
DAoC stood out by having a solid, team PvP structure whereas it was always an afterthought in games previous (and most games after), and it took a while to develop. WAY longer to balance. Even LONGER to give more purpose. And after THAT, I suppose... less grinding. (While PvP was fun, it was still a grind to get what you NEEEEEDED to not get completely hosed by your weak points.)
It sounds like refinements that came along in "year 4+" which is sadly too long for anyone to remember. Nice to get a recommendation and maybe pick things up now with some assistance, but there are too many other shineys at this point to go back without a real connection to the game, IMHO. Which is sad, as everything I and my friends remember form it (even the one who kept it up for 3+ years) remember is grind: the monumental PvE grind; grinding Realm Abilities (because tho you could have fun in PvP, you had to "do things differently" to get RP's faster); grinding cash to get people to make JUUUST the right weapon customizations...
*shrugs* So at least you know where I'm coming from.
I think it's more LucasArts that stuck the fork in them, though certainly the wild imbalance issues and constant bug-fixing and "breadth-but-without-depth" that was at the core of most of their mechanics and worlds was all on their head. (Also JTL. MAN could JTL have been cool if there was more put into the missions and modes!)
Only so far it could go, however, before it had to do SOMETHING. Braddie-boy lost Microsoft sponsorship, had no real other prospects, and could basically only mind his SOE relationship so far. It was "release as is or die."
Personally, I'm glad it DID release, as I've enjoyed a lot of it. There was definitely not the level of promise being made with it as it developed, though, and they had a mess of bugs and performance issues to work through, but it still has a lot more going for it than many other games.
I'd LIKE it if they could continue on in their original direction, but it seems the new release buzz and fallout-afterwards got as many new players as it can, and at this point is more of a "we need to appeal to the players we already have in other games" state. *grumble*
AI is a constant challenge, but your example has existed even in games like EQ (healer/caster presence and proximity accumulated hate a LOT faster than others, and had a higher "automatic hatred" level once combat started. They even registered vulnerabilities, because if my tank was fighting something and I sat down to meditate, a mob would come over an whack me once or twice since it did much more damage,) and is still especially stupid. In your case, you've just created a situation where you need two as-protected-as-possible/heal-as-much-as-possible healers, no need for a tank or aggro holder, and everyone else can be DPS-to-an-asinine-degree-with-no-thought-for-conse quences-because-there-are-none.
AI is tremendously complex, and tends to be pretty stupid in MMO's to be sure, but there's no reason to replace one brand of stupid with even MORE stupid...;-)
Personally, I'd just like to see them function more like real creatures, where "animals" would mostly run away, "unintelligent" monsters would be more "pattern-y," and "intelligent" prey would be the situationally cool ones, running off to get help when they can, fighting dirty of possible, going after the one target they think they can take down, or cluster together for mutual support and take work to separate rather than "everyone beat on this one guy" or "everyone split up each individually fight our own guy who is not only better than each of us, but has a healer backup..."
I think even if just "stance" and "positioning" were added to group combat AI (for both mobs and players) it would go a long way towards adding coolness. Why do you not charge the healer or mage immediately? Well, they've got a protective line between you and them, and charging through it would get you completely nailed. Work to create a hole in the line? By all means charge in while vulnerable!
AO isn't an "FPS version of an MMO" in any way, shape, or form. Futuristic? Sure. Many more ranged abilities? Perhaps (but even if, not by much). FPS? Not at all. An "FPS version of an MMO" looks more like Planetside or The Agency. I'm not sure yet how much Tabula Rasa will resemble it; so far, it doesn't appear much like it. "Action-y" in more City of Heroes fashion, perhaps, but not an FPS.
EVE you technically don't since you get character development offline, but you're kinda cracked-out if you don't think that the time spent acquiring ISK and practicing your fighting and TALKING to people to fight a lot to get tactical advice won't make you tremendously better than the casual player.
And DAoC...? o_O Seriously. The level grind is much the same, and then you have to fight forever to grind through your necessary Realm Abilities...
The only games that seriously break out are ones that are far less "RPG" and far more "something else," like Planetside. You get better by playing in the same way that you get better playing Battlefield games, and your "experience" just gives you more roles you can fill without reassigning points.
EVE is a departure from MMO standards in MANY ways, but "not having to spend time to do well" is most certainly not one of them. And DAoC is hardly a departure at all.
The more I read about Warhammer Online, the more I get PISSED OFF that they built this around Warhammer Fantasy, instead of putting the effort into a 40K-centered universe, where they could pull in elements from Epic, Necromunda, Gothic, Space Hulk, Inquisitor, and whatever-the-frick-else they want, instead of sticking us in the genre 95% of MMO's already do.
...considering anyone could charge on a purchased stand-alone adaptor? ...and they could likely just flash the iPod and start over from the beginning?
I suppose it could be a secuity OPTION, where you could choose to make it only charge from your computer, but again... isn't the purpose of flashing your machine to manufacturer's defaults to be able to undo any of those changes you regret making, to give it a complete rebirth?
I mean, COME ON! EDGE network?! That has to be the slowest data network available. AT&T's 3G is much faster but they sure are being slow about implementing it.
They've actually boosted the speed to a reasonable level at this point (one wonders if latency has improved, tho), and meanwhile 3G is a notable power drain, and the way the networks switch between them causes even MORE drain to phones not even in use. (My phone has gone from full charge to 75% over the course of a work day, despite being opened only once to check the time.) AT&T's spotty coverage with their 3G would probably exacerbate it, and I'm not sure if Apple could have designed the phone to handle AT&T's 3G the way they do WiFi (only scanning when it would be specifically used); there may be AT&T "must do" engineering behind that for phone providers. Meanwhile, the iPhone HAS WiFi, which most phones do not, which makes 3G look pretty paltry in comparison, AND is smaller and less power-consuming.
Personally, I think it's a good tradeoff while 3G (and AT&T's network in particular) matures. Considering most people have WiFi at home and and work and will be spending most of their time in that range, and probably will NOT be looking to constantly surf, download YouTube files, or what have you on the road... EDGE is perfectly fine for email, and seems to be quite fine for, say, Google Maps, so I don't think people will be wanting to claw their eyes out.
Obviously the iPhone will eventually be going down that path, but for now it wouldn't come without a battery drain and probably physical size compromise, so I don't think there's too much to really rail on here. It's ALWAYS about compromise, and in this case it's not simply "price."
Yeah, but while they're busy patenting the phone, they're not in a position to create and patent the battery.;-)
I guess they could protect their power-saving methodology, but I think it arises more from a careful choice of hardware components, rather than dizzying feats of coding.
No, it's not rampant. Dells, HPs, and even Gateways now use standard ATX, or, in some cases, SFX power supplies.
Power supplies, yes. (THANKfully!) But I work on these buggers all day, and they're still apt to use proprietary drive mounts, motherboard trays, motherboard ports (for any case-mounted extenders, no matter how universal they are like USB headers), CPU cooler mounts...
Things have gotten better in the "a little bit better" way. They're not particularly good for any major OEM. Laptops, neither.
The point still stands about how this can be a valid angle of criticism of Apple in particular, since the practice has been widespread with basically everyone for ages. (Dell's been the biggest abuser of it, I've found.) Macs have been in their own little stratosphere for other, more obvious reasons.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm really trying to figure out how you could get MORE details wrong, but... it's just not coming to me. Perhaps if you started blaming Ken Kutaragi for the G4 Cube or something...
> However, I would also argue that there is a case for not stating something is fact beyond all doubt, and teaching people to come to their own conclusions. ...and the way science it taught, students are shown precisely that. It's part and parcel of teaching the scientific method.
It's a predictive response that inevitably proves to be true. The creationist latches onto this kind of stuff every time. Therefore... pre-mock the creationists. ;-)
This shouldn't mean "mock religion," of course... Just them literal creationists who are continually hunting Evolution and the sciences now.
Them dirty evolutionistors were wrong again!
Dude, you might as well have said: "Evolutionism is the tinfoil hat atheists wear to keep God out of their brainwaves."
I'd also generalize HER polylogarithm!
I wasn't comparing games (and I don't actually know what EQ's is like now in later zones), I was just saying things similar to what he was "programming" already existed in even early games. ;) Just not to over-the-top foolish degrees. (Like "target nothing else until healer dies")
Also, by stances I don't mean "positional attacks" or "switch from a mode that activates different abilities and shifts some OFF/DEF values around," but rather in more fundamental ways, where you stand between your foes and your protective targets, where your OFF/DEF values have much broader swings and adjusts things like your casting rate, foot speed, etc; where it gives you better ability to counterattck and punish foe vulnerabilities if they try to flip past your line.
Most stances (and even a game like Vanguard has many) aren't really used tactically, but are left on whatever your aim your playstyle towards, or if you're soloing/duoing/grouping and want to alter yourself to do, etc. They're not intrinsic to all characters and classes, either, but rather given to those classes "without as much to do" most of the time.
Things like EQ2's "Heroic Opportunities" and other games where you can chain combos in groups is a nice bonus FOR groups, but doesn't lead very much down the path of group tactics.
Essentially, I'd like to see MMO's in many ways go down the path of those well-designed hack and slash games, where you can get away with button-mashing if you want, but when you learn the combos and the timings and the right weapons to use against the right foes... combat becomes in-depth and tactical.
This is "beyond" most of the player base, I know, but so long as they can still play their own game... Grasping a true tactical system should just let you hunt faster and more efficiently and with less attrition or fatigue (yes, I'm in favor of weaving in elements like that and long-term wounding), but not be a requirement to hunt in general.
AI needs to be more intelligent, but there also needs to be more reward FOR intelligence. "Meta-gaming" should not only involve "knowing what gear to collect."
Well then they seriously changed things, or else you're just talking about whatever "maximum rate" you can get if you already KNOW what you're doing. (People can level to 70 in Warcraft in a few days' time, too, but that's not entirely representative. ;-) ) I played DAoC for about a year after it launched, and by and large the PvE grind was the same as EQ's (with people swearing it wasn't) and more obnoxiously dull. I picked up the 5th Anniversary package shortly after it came out to tool around again for a bit, and while it was certainly faster, it didn't seem to be "get to 50th in a week" faster, on a casual schedule. The new classes appeared to be rather snapped-with-goodness, tho. ;-) If I'd kept up the same levelling rate as I did in my 0's and 10's it could certainly be done, but it was always the 30's and 40's where everything slowed to a crawl. If they toned that down severely...
Sadly, I think the removal of the grind--to whatever level it affects the casual playerdom--is too little too late. Well after other games stole the limelight, and without much ability to draw people back. (So it seems to be more convenience to creating an alternate, instead.)
DAoC stood out by having a solid, team PvP structure whereas it was always an afterthought in games previous (and most games after), and it took a while to develop. WAY longer to balance. Even LONGER to give more purpose. And after THAT, I suppose... less grinding. (While PvP was fun, it was still a grind to get what you NEEEEEDED to not get completely hosed by your weak points.)
It sounds like refinements that came along in "year 4+" which is sadly too long for anyone to remember. Nice to get a recommendation and maybe pick things up now with some assistance, but there are too many other shineys at this point to go back without a real connection to the game, IMHO. Which is sad, as everything I and my friends remember form it (even the one who kept it up for 3+ years) remember is grind: the monumental PvE grind; grinding Realm Abilities (because tho you could have fun in PvP, you had to "do things differently" to get RP's faster); grinding cash to get people to make JUUUST the right weapon customizations...
*shrugs* So at least you know where I'm coming from.
I think it's more LucasArts that stuck the fork in them, though certainly the wild imbalance issues and constant bug-fixing and "breadth-but-without-depth" that was at the core of most of their mechanics and worlds was all on their head. (Also JTL. MAN could JTL have been cool if there was more put into the missions and modes!)
Only so far it could go, however, before it had to do SOMETHING. Braddie-boy lost Microsoft sponsorship, had no real other prospects, and could basically only mind his SOE relationship so far. It was "release as is or die."
Personally, I'm glad it DID release, as I've enjoyed a lot of it. There was definitely not the level of promise being made with it as it developed, though, and they had a mess of bugs and performance issues to work through, but it still has a lot more going for it than many other games.
I'd LIKE it if they could continue on in their original direction, but it seems the new release buzz and fallout-afterwards got as many new players as it can, and at this point is more of a "we need to appeal to the players we already have in other games" state. *grumble*
The only mmo I know that attempted anything like this, failed very quickly(I can barely remember the name, but it had crafting and a lot of caves).
*blinks* Uh...
*BRAINDAMAGES*
AI is a constant challenge, but your example has existed even in games like EQ (healer/caster presence and proximity accumulated hate a LOT faster than others, and had a higher "automatic hatred" level once combat started. They even registered vulnerabilities, because if my tank was fighting something and I sat down to meditate, a mob would come over an whack me once or twice since it did much more damage,) and is still especially stupid. In your case, you've just created a situation where you need two as-protected-as-possible/heal-as-much-as-possible healers, no need for a tank or aggro holder, and everyone else can be DPS-to-an-asinine-degree-with-no-thought-for-conse quences-because-there-are-none.
;-)
AI is tremendously complex, and tends to be pretty stupid in MMO's to be sure, but there's no reason to replace one brand of stupid with even MORE stupid...
Personally, I'd just like to see them function more like real creatures, where "animals" would mostly run away, "unintelligent" monsters would be more "pattern-y," and "intelligent" prey would be the situationally cool ones, running off to get help when they can, fighting dirty of possible, going after the one target they think they can take down, or cluster together for mutual support and take work to separate rather than "everyone beat on this one guy" or "everyone split up each individually fight our own guy who is not only better than each of us, but has a healer backup..."
I think even if just "stance" and "positioning" were added to group combat AI (for both mobs and players) it would go a long way towards adding coolness. Why do you not charge the healer or mage immediately? Well, they've got a protective line between you and them, and charging through it would get you completely nailed. Work to create a hole in the line? By all means charge in while vulnerable!
*sigh* So much work to be done...
AO isn't an "FPS version of an MMO" in any way, shape, or form. Futuristic? Sure. Many more ranged abilities? Perhaps (but even if, not by much). FPS? Not at all. An "FPS version of an MMO" looks more like Planetside or The Agency. I'm not sure yet how much Tabula Rasa will resemble it; so far, it doesn't appear much like it. "Action-y" in more City of Heroes fashion, perhaps, but not an FPS.
EVE you technically don't since you get character development offline, but you're kinda cracked-out if you don't think that the time spent acquiring ISK and practicing your fighting and TALKING to people to fight a lot to get tactical advice won't make you tremendously better than the casual player.
And DAoC...? o_O Seriously. The level grind is much the same, and then you have to fight forever to grind through your necessary Realm Abilities...
The only games that seriously break out are ones that are far less "RPG" and far more "something else," like Planetside. You get better by playing in the same way that you get better playing Battlefield games, and your "experience" just gives you more roles you can fill without reassigning points.
EVE is a departure from MMO standards in MANY ways, but "not having to spend time to do well" is most certainly not one of them. And DAoC is hardly a departure at all.
The more I read about Warhammer Online, the more I get PISSED OFF that they built this around Warhammer Fantasy, instead of putting the effort into a 40K-centered universe, where they could pull in elements from Epic, Necromunda, Gothic, Space Hulk, Inquisitor, and whatever-the-frick-else they want, instead of sticking us in the genre 95% of MMO's already do.
*sigh*
But he put GRAPHICS on it...!
Oh, wait, Meridian 59... I mean, The Realm Online. I mean, Neverwinter Nights...
I think it's due to the amount of rocking that we associate with LBP, and so absorb every iota of fresh news with greedy glee. ;-)
...considering anyone could charge on a purchased stand-alone adaptor?
...and they could likely just flash the iPod and start over from the beginning?
I suppose it could be a secuity OPTION, where you could choose to make it only charge from your computer, but again... isn't the purpose of flashing your machine to manufacturer's defaults to be able to undo any of those changes you regret making, to give it a complete rebirth?
It seems this game will rock in an almost unbelievable amount of ways.
...and people on eBay are idiots!
I checked eBay... Nothing!
I mean, COME ON! EDGE network?! That has to be the slowest data network available. AT&T's 3G is much faster but they sure are being slow about implementing it.
They've actually boosted the speed to a reasonable level at this point (one wonders if latency has improved, tho), and meanwhile 3G is a notable power drain, and the way the networks switch between them causes even MORE drain to phones not even in use. (My phone has gone from full charge to 75% over the course of a work day, despite being opened only once to check the time.) AT&T's spotty coverage with their 3G would probably exacerbate it, and I'm not sure if Apple could have designed the phone to handle AT&T's 3G the way they do WiFi (only scanning when it would be specifically used); there may be AT&T "must do" engineering behind that for phone providers. Meanwhile, the iPhone HAS WiFi, which most phones do not, which makes 3G look pretty paltry in comparison, AND is smaller and less power-consuming.
Personally, I think it's a good tradeoff while 3G (and AT&T's network in particular) matures. Considering most people have WiFi at home and and work and will be spending most of their time in that range, and probably will NOT be looking to constantly surf, download YouTube files, or what have you on the road... EDGE is perfectly fine for email, and seems to be quite fine for, say, Google Maps, so I don't think people will be wanting to claw their eyes out.
Obviously the iPhone will eventually be going down that path, but for now it wouldn't come without a battery drain and probably physical size compromise, so I don't think there's too much to really rail on here. It's ALWAYS about compromise, and in this case it's not simply "price."
Yeah, but while they're busy patenting the phone, they're not in a position to create and patent the battery. ;-)
I guess they could protect their power-saving methodology, but I think it arises more from a careful choice of hardware components, rather than dizzying feats of coding.
No, it's not rampant. Dells, HPs, and even Gateways now use standard ATX, or, in some cases, SFX power supplies.
Power supplies, yes. (THANKfully!) But I work on these buggers all day, and they're still apt to use proprietary drive mounts, motherboard trays, motherboard ports (for any case-mounted extenders, no matter how universal they are like USB headers), CPU cooler mounts...
Things have gotten better in the "a little bit better" way. They're not particularly good for any major OEM. Laptops, neither.
The point still stands about how this can be a valid angle of criticism of Apple in particular, since the practice has been widespread with basically everyone for ages. (Dell's been the biggest abuser of it, I've found.) Macs have been in their own little stratosphere for other, more obvious reasons.
My laptop is a "mobile device" and I can actually browse flash websites with it.
;-)
Well, you don't really want to open the "laptop battery price" can of worms, do you?