Community Debate - "Accessibility" and "QoL" (Quality of Life) get thrown around a lot in MMORPG communities but what do they actually mean to you? Do they matter, and where do they cross the line into being spoon-fed or too much hand-holding? Please explain your answers in detail #MMORPG #CommunityMatters
QoL, To me is adding things that stop monotonous activities, such as sell all junk Vs doing it individually, auto pick up loot ect or things that lower frustration, such as Maps, skyrim like compass or even glow trails since figuring out how to get from one place to another is literally a challenge for me, it’s not a challenge I enjoy having, and it not a rewarding feeling when completed, but relief the torture maze is over.
Tricky one, @Kilsin, as you know! There is no line to cross between QoL and spoon-feeding, it's a wide and indistinct grey area!
Some examples: -
Mapping: We happily 'control' an adventurer and the avatar does the spell casting and sword play for us, because, you know, we can't! But somehow that adventurer avatar doesn't make a map and it is up to us, as players to have an adventurer's sense of direction and work out where we are from often very unrealistic and samey computer graphics? And/or to have cartography skills? To me that seems nuts, but, then again, having a minimap that autofills and shows us our global position is also over-the-top and unrealistic. How much mapping would be QoL and realistic and fun but still challenging? There's a whole other forum thread on that!
Auction Houses: Our avatar lives in a world where there are cities, but no organised trading? People just stand around and scream out their wares? Ridiculous! But, equally, having world-wide, searchable, filterable knowledge of all products for sale and being able to 'mail' them instantly? Equally ridiculous. Or is it? Magic can teleport us across the world, but not pass along sale items? Hmm. Who knows? There's a whole other forum thread on that!
Instancing: So, we are happy that The Dragon King, even if it is killed, appears again a few hours later and that there are hundreds of adventurers that have killed The Dragon King and weild it's Dragon King Claw Sword, but we're not happy that one particular group of adventurers shouldn't have to squabble with another group of adventurers to get to one particular spawn of The Dragon King? Ridiculous! Or is it? There's a whole other forum thread on that!
Quest Helpers: So question marks hovering over heads of NPCs to indicate they have a task for you is ridiculous and hand-holdy, but wandering through a city talking to 100,000 occupants individually and at length until we find something to do is fine? Something in between? Only have NPCs of interest? So, a city 'occupied' by 20 people? How many 'useless' people do we need to interrogate in order for it to feel 'realistic' but not be tedious? Hmm. Maybe 'quest' people should shout out to you? How is that different from an exclamation mark, though? Hmm. There's a whole thread on that!
Third party helpers, damage meters, encumbrance systems, tab-targetting, etc, etc, etc.
I could continue, but if you've read this far, you probably get the point. There is no QoL that can't be taken to hand-holding and there is no tedium that doesn't need a little QoL improvement. The grey area is for us to argue over and VR to decide upon, the poor guys! Everything in game is an analog; a window into the 'real' world of Terminus. Keep it feeling 'real' but don't include too much tedium. Keep it immersive, but don't avoid necessary UI elements. Encourage interaction and synergy, but don't add unnecessary complexity and reliance.
Good luck, VR!
Jobeson said: The other is a second idea to keep in mind saying no you can't carry 5 cubic meters of feathers in a backpack.
When your backpack can contain 5000 liters (of Water @ 4°C), it should also be possible to have 5 cubic meters of feathers in it :P
I agree with disposalist, QoL is a very individual thing. Some wants to gather the loot automatically, other wants to select on their own. You can't do it right for all players, but you can make it configurable, let people decide on their own.
I play Wild Terra 2 at the moment. For me, the (world) map was a big advance (it was not available at the beginning but added later with an update). I don't need a minimap, but to know where you are compared to where you want to go makes life much easier.
QoL I think is the biggest one that is abused. Some people think QoL means make the game easier, which it doesn't. QoL doesn't mean go from allowing 20 items per stack to 100 items per stack. It doesn't mean making coins not have weight. It doesn't mean giving players a floating path to follow from quest npc to quest npc. It doesn't mean add a dungeon finder. And so on.
What QoL means is going to vary based on the framework of the game and what that game is trying to accomplish. Giving players a GUI window to manage friends list rather than just through cmd is QoL. Giving players the ability to compare items to what is equipped is QoL. You know, things that make playing the game less tedious while not removing the challenge or sense of accomplishment from the core gameplay loop.
Both can be divided into two categories: 1. system based 2.player based.
1. system based I associate with the old "accessibility" options that you eventually get around to when navigating your first windows interface- like Font size or magnification. This system based accessibility is Driven by the developer I think, and I see it as - if the game can run on a potato or a low spec graphics/rig set up (Rimworld!). If the game interface is easily navigable by those with keybpoard and mouse. NOT the "lesser than" controllers or consoles, this is a PC game, sophisticated stuff for sophisticated and smart people. If it is accessible by various internet providers or system interfaces and what anti-virus codes have been programmed to overlook to accommodate game play.
2 Player based is something that can only come from players through time- and I am sure some have come form Pre-alpha. An example of which I think is the spell bar and I agree with Joppa's stance on this as I also do NOT want something that will take away from the screen view with clutter of more and more spell bars. I think the concession to the additional small bar on top was a huge deal and understandable when considering those things that came from what we all saw in the streams and gameplay.
2a. The other player based things can only come from gameplay and when one observer takes the time to notice all or most players grousing about the same thing. <- this is not an easy thing to do because you have to seperate desire from actual common experiences. This is where Trolls can creep in if left unchecked as they will claim a commonality or QoL that needs to be fixed, when it really doesn't. Historical examples of this are "droods" or- dare I say- spell bars. SQL/PQL? whatever that debate was. good one, limited or unlimited. QoL is subjective and commonalities do exist, they are just hard to find and ONLY determinable by an objective source, like a Dev or someone not playing the game. And even then some decisions that create efficiensies? are not noticed by the player base.
TL;dr on 2a. You have a system that causes an error on one client, you tell IT and they fix it for that one client, if you happen to be the same person doing the same thing and you see it again, you mention to management and IT and say perhaps IT should look at the whole system- IT wont do it, they will only fix for the one particular client and say- if you see something like this again, tell us which client. Then if someone else sees the same issue but is not aware of the commonality- they say nothing and nothing gets done. Only if the same person doing the same thing, sees the same issue occuring for multiple clients affecting the system in the same way, only then will IT - RELUCTANTLY- Overhaul and review the entire system and make the necessary changes to fix and make the whole process more efficient so the issue does not happen again. But will they do it the first time? no and then its 7 years later and you don't get promoted or recognized.
Then IT expects you to tell them what the problem is, but you dont work in IT. You know how its expected to work and when it doesn't, thats why you go to IT. I go to a doctor with a headache, I don't tell him I need my head cut off, he tells me if its a brain tumor or I just need rest and asprin because THATS WHY HE WENT TO SCHOOL.
crazysyd102 said:When your backpack can contain 5000 liters (of Water @ 4°C), it should also be possible to have 5 cubic meters of feathers in it :P
If your magic backpack can hold 5 cubic meters then lets hope you have a weight reduction on there as well for your 11,000+ lbs of water. :D I was more going for the fact you would need like 60 stuffed full backpacks to carry that many feathers which would be unreasonable even if they are light enough to be carried. QoL makes volume a simple number/bar to fill just like carry weight.
I agree it is going to be unique to the personal preferences for what people want, but QoL need to be based around the systems we want in the game. An autolooter while in combat where you could become encumbered mid fight would be bad. An autolooter in a game where you never become encumbered has no downside. VR needs to focus on QoL changes that will not have a downside.
IMO:
To me, QoL features are those that let you get to playing the game or participating in the world quicker, rather than enduring something tedious.
As has been mentioned, things like "your inventory is full" or "you get to manually stack things in your bag" or "you get to click on every item you want to loot" or "you're always lost" or "the screen is 99.94% black pixels" or "you're starving to death" or "you're dying of thirst" or "you're punished for ignorance" or the "just use a website" games/mechanics/meta's are just tedious annoyances.
Why? Because good multi-player games have been made since 1995 that don't have some of that, and are still fun and challenging, to this day.
It's like having to endure 100 pages of description, dialogue, flashbacks, backstory, history, and poetry in a novel before you get one paragraph of plot advancement or character development. (and paying for the privilege)
To me, the lack of QoL, or the concious or unconcious implemention of tedious mechanics simply highlights the lack of "a world" or, historically, a lack of "content" for the player, character, or customer to consume or participate in.
A great example of how this is overdone is the "Don't Starve Together" game. Multi-player. Cross-platform. ~Unique art style, procedural world generation, unique characters/roles. And yet, the demand for food is so high, without cheating, exploiting, or dedicating an entire players worth of time to feeding everyone, you can't get past the basic mechanics of the game. It's a barrier that is so high, players cheat to get past it, and THEN get to enjoy the game and have fun. For hundreds of hours, or more. So, once you get past the "intended" punitive lack of QoL, the game is fun? Well, that's just silly, to me. :)
I love a wide breadth of mechanics, but when faced with a decision to punish the player, designers should learn from history. Fallout76 is a great recent example of how this was done, eventually.
Game was out in 2018, and until November 2020, a lack of food/drink was lethal. You could die, eventually, from a lack of both (and/or were severely harmed/debuffed). This was changed in November 2020, to: " We’ve removed all negative effects from Hunger and Thirst. Instead, you’ll receive buffs that increase based on how well fed and hydrated you are. "
So much better! There's a QoL improvement that removed the tedious, and was made more fun & rewarding. Don't have it? You don't get the benefits. It's the difference between being punished if you forget to opt-out, versus being rewarded for opting-in.
vjek said:I love a wide breadth of mechanics, but when faced with a decision to punish the player, designers should learn from history. Fallout76 is a great recent example of how this was done, eventually.
Game was out in 2018, and until November 2020, a lack of food/drink was lethal. You could die, eventually, from a lack of both (and/or were severely harmed/debuffed). This was changed in November 2020, to: " We’ve removed all negative effects from Hunger and Thirst. Instead, you’ll receive buffs that increase based on how well fed and hydrated you are. "So much better! There's a QoL improvement that removed the tedious, and was made more fun & rewarding. Don't have it? You don't get the benefits. It's the difference between being punished if you forget to opt-out, versus being rewarded for opting-in.
Although that's not a QoL improvement. It's a complete Design/Game Mechanic Overhaul of the system because it wasn't fun at all.
A QoL would have been something along the line of:
"The player has to open the inventory and click on the Food/Drink to consume it every 10 minutes".
And change that to:
"Your character automatically consumes Food and Drinks from the inventory when needed"
The Mechanic of the food system remains the same, it's just the way the player has to interact with it is less tedious. He only has to have enough supplies in its inventory.
disposalist said:I could continue, but if you've read this far, you probably get the point. There is no QoL that can't be taken to hand-holding and there is no tedium that doesn't need a little QoL improvement. The grey area is for us to argue over and VR to decide upon, the poor guys! Everything in game is an analog; a window into the 'real' world of Terminus. Keep it feeling 'real' but don't include too much tedium. Keep it immersive, but don't avoid necessary UI elements. Encourage interaction and synergy, but don't add unnecessary complexity and reliance.
Good luck, VR!
I actually disagree saying that QoL is automatically a degree hand-holding.
Sometimes QoL is the automatisation of boring/unecessary processes. That's different from hand holding.
So, to talk about QoL and Accessibility you have to know what your game is and what are the challenges you want the player to face.
If you talk about an FPS, then you can have quest markers as a QoL because in your design, you don't care about the player exploring, you want to challenge his accuracy and reflexes in combat. However a tab targetting system would be an accessibility feature, because you remove the core challenge of the game (Accuracy). Maybe keep that for easy mode.
If you talk about an exploration RPG, it's the other way around. The tab targetting doesn't affect the core challenge so it's a QoL because you want the focus on exploration and management of your combat skills not pinpoint accuracy with your mouse. However, quest markers would trivialize the exploration part so, here, they become accessibility/handholding.
An example of QoL for most games would be: Adding a button to sell all junk items at once. - You don't make the game easier. The core challenges of the game remain the same but instead of spending 5 minutes selling junk items one by one, you sell them at once with a button.
When the lines blur however, is when you add QoL changes that impact the mechanics of the game that are part of the main challenges the players have to face such as:
- Do you add a visible aggro bar or do you keep it hidden. Does not knowing the aggro make the challenge more fun for the players?
- Do you add portals to get in front of the dungeon? Or is the challenge also is about reaching that place?
----
Long story short, to me:
- Accessibility is lowering the challenges or modifying certain aspects presented to the player to make it more engaging for most of your target audience.
- QoL is any change not impacting core gameplay challenges for a less tedious experience.
I define accessibility as the required specs to run the game, the ability to get your hands on the game, the cost of the game both upfront and any subscription fees, and the to ability easily learn and interact with the basic starting mechanics in a game. I also classify implementations like colorblind mode and controller support as accessibility features.
I define QoL as things that make the game less tedious to interact with but don't compromise the core gameplay aspects of a game.
Examples of things that I would consider QoL in Pantheon:
I think that QoL goes too far when it starts playing the game for players. Things like quest markers, instance matchmaking, and overuse of teleportation/flight mechanics are all QoL features that go too far, imho, and end up doing more damage than good in the long run.
This will be a highly subjective question/response which I'm assuming is why they are seeking our opinion. To me this comes down to game immersion more than "realism". We are playing a fantasy game, so I don't see the need for things to be realistic. I want experiences, questing, crafting, encounters, loot, etc to be meaningful and not always convenient or easy.
Inventory Management - It's fine to have six backpacks and carry more items than any normal creature could, but I prefer not to have auto loot of items, an almost endless inventory, and an autosell junk feature in the game. To me these break immersion because I no longer have to question whether I should pick something up and items are no longer unique. At this point the game should arguably just drop coins instead of the junk items, because the loot is no longer meaningful. I prefer more significant, but rarer drops and necessary choices to be made on what my goals are for this session. If I have leveled up a crafting ability that allows me to break down junk items into stackable usable components, then that's even better and is rewarding that crafting choice I made while still making the items significant. If I have increased faction enough that I can use a vendor I wouldn't normally have access to then that's adding immersion and meaningful difficulty for me. I doubt an autosort inventory option will be necessary because I don't think we will be carrying 150 different items that need to be sorted at a time, but would be fine with a pure sorting ability. I'm fine with weight and encumberance being in the game, but should only be meaningful in certain situations. I prefer inventory slots to be more of a determining factor than weight when I am out on a purely harvesting session with the possible exception of mining where the weight/scarcity of the object could be offset with the quantity needed to progress a skill. The same situation would apply to ordinary loot where I'm fine being penalized as a gnome carrying around a ton of steel swords and armor, but an Ogre should be able to carry the same load without as much difficulty.
Navigation - I'm also fine without in game maps, but I would be fine with a cartography skill later on that lets you create simple maps. To me exploration doesn't simply mean removing the fog of war effect from your map. I don't like the mini map or gps features we commonly see today as they break immersion for me. I spend more time running around with my map up than I do paying attention to my surroundings. I could probably still navigate Neriak today without much issue, but would have a difficult time navigating common zones in the MMO i'm currently playing because of the map/gps feature. Compass, /loc system, possible cartography skill for static maps, and noticeable landmarks are all fine with me.
Crafting - This discussion would center more around how tedious the system is and if I felt like I was developing carpal after a long crafting session. I would prefer the quality of life feature here to be centered more on a quality rather than quantity focus where you don't have to create a couple thousand of the same items dragging each of the 5-10 ingredients one at a time into a combine container to show any level progress. Risk of failure is also something I think is fine, but if I have spent two weeks or more gathering resources for the next prayer shawl quest, then I want some option in the game to reduce that risk of failure to potentially zero.
Questing - I don't like the standard MMO fill up your quest journal with 20-50 quests from all of the exclamation marks, run around killing things and then turn them all in and progress to the next zone. This is a system where I probably don't even know the name of quests much less the storyline. I do want some type of in game journal that takes notes of the quest I'm on as well as perception notifications I receive. I don't want a shiny path telling me where to go, but I do like the dialogue options that don't require you to find the exact words to use to progress the next quest. The perception system would be as close to yellow exclamation mark that I would want to see and would allow that sense of immersion that I'm looking for.
Endgame/Raiding - I also think about endgame content when accessibility or QoL are mentioned as both will be important factors. I love the idea of openworld, but I've also experienced games where the same couple of guilds completely dominate content and keep other guilds from experiencing it. This is not desirable to me and I've heard options mentioned like gating content by closing additional people from joining an encounter area after it's triggered and potentially requiring items to cause something to spawn. To me this is another area where you are increasing accessibility to areas of the game and reducing potential elitism that I don't enjoy.
Accessibility just lets more people enjoy the game that otherwise wouldn't be able to, such adjusted colors for people who are colorblind or alternate controls for people with some problems/inability to use both their arms well for example. They should of course be implemented wherever possible, they don't usually lend any sort of advantage to the average player, just let more people get in on the fun!
QoL to me is getting rid of tedium doing things that you would otherwise have to do anyways but are not fun. Auto sort options for the inventory for example. I COULD sit there for 20 minutes organizing my mess, or I could hit the 'Sort by Type" option and go do something actually fun.
It only gets hand holdy if you're doing things to explain/lead player around or make quests/combat easier in some way IMO. I liked that EQ just threw you into the game for you to figure things out, but I wouldn't be opposed to have the very basics (how to fight, how to tell if something is aggressive, how to memorize a spell, that kind of thing) explained to new players with the option to skip if you already know and are just making an alt. I do NOT want the game telling me how to get places or what different things do throughout the world 10 levels later. I want to be able to explore and figure it out for myself, or perhaps make use of the perception system depending what it is I'm looking at.
Counterfleche said:Inventory management that's time consuming (like needing to manually stack items) or is constantly filling up or hard to manage. If I want to have fun managing shapes, I'd play Tetris
...
Quest Journals help us remember something our characters would remember or have written down
It's interesting you split these two out and the first is negative but the second positive.
I agree with the second. Everything in the interface is an analog to our adventurer. An heroic adventurer would surely take mental note of quest information. It's all they do - they don't go do a job and have a family in a different world for 20 hours of the day. They would remember and, it's also not very heroic or fun to forget important quest info. Why would the game do the sword-fighting and the magic spells for the player, but have the player need to remember quest details? (Same for mapping and many other adventuring practices)
Inventory management, though? Is that not an analog for your avatar struggling with a backpack full of various junk? IRL, pack a backpack for a weekend away and then try and pull out one particular pair of socks as quick as a few mouse clicks. Even the most basic backpack UI is probably way easier and convenient than the reality.
But, is it 'fun' or 'heroic'? Does it serve an in-game balancing mechanic to struggle a little with your inventory?
The point I'm trying to make is what is QoL and what is meaningful realism or a useful game mechanic is very subjective and can differ greatly person-to-person.
I don't envy VR having to decide what is 'good' QoL and what it 'bad' QoL and even what is or isn't QoL to be considered for inclusion at all.
To me, the place to draw the line is between features that help you interface with the game world more effectively and features that let you actually perform better within the game world. I think QoL and accessibility features belong in the realm of the former, not the latter. Examples of enhancements that help the player interface more efficiently with the game world by reducing unnecessary tedium and clutter (i.e. good QoL features) would include preloads for ability and armor sets and customizable chat windows to keep track of conversations. Examples of enhancements that reduce challenge and foster hand-holding by actually helping the player play the game better (i.e. bad QoL features) include mini-maps, limitless fast-travel, and flashing quest objectives.
In short, I say make it easier to play the game, but not easier to win at it.
Kilsin said:Community Debate - "Accessibility" and "QoL" (Quality of Life) get thrown around a lot in MMORPG communities but what do they actually mean to you? Do they matter, and where do they cross the line into being spoon-fed or too much hand-holding? Please explain your answers in detail #MMORPG #CommunityMatters
Accessibility, for me, relates to the game being adjustable enough such that those who are differently-abled can still play. Can the games colors be adjusted for colorblindness or for those that need high-contrast? Can fonts be increased in size for those with limited vision? Can every single keyboard input be remapped? Can the UI be adjusted/moved/altered to fit the needs of the player?
Quality of Life, then, is minimizing, reducing or outright eliminating those things which are not a value-add. Say you want to buy 20 of something but the game forces you to buy them 1 at a time. What value-add is there in being forced to buy one at a time? Same goes for wanting to craft 10 of the same thing. What is the value-add in not being able to queue those? Some might think a corpse run has no value add so should be eliminated. VR already thinks this is partially correct with how they have adjusted the corpse run.
The key thing here is to identify what processes actually, and truly, add value to the player experience, add value to the economy, to the overall game.
disposalist said:Inventory management, though? Is that not an analog for your avatar struggling with a backpack full of various junk? IRL, pack a backpack for a weekend away and then try and pull out one particular pair of socks as quick as a few mouse clicks. Even the most basic backpack UI is probably way easier and convenient than the reality.
But, is it 'fun' or 'heroic'? Does it serve an in-game balancing mechanic to struggle a little with your inventory?
The point I'm trying to make is what is QoL and what is meaningful realism or a useful game mechanic is very subjective and can differ greatly person-to-person.
Inventory management, unless designed specificially to matter and be meaningful, is just a chore. And it's usually exacerbated by P2W games that drop tons of items and give you limited space in the hope that you will buy extra inventory. I hate this. It's not fun, it doesn't add to the game, and it doesn't offer me interesting strategic choices--all it does manage to do is take up some of my play time.
When it comes to MMOs, I'm acutely aware of up-time vs down-time. Up-time is when I'm playing, socializing, or otherwise doing what I want in game an having fun. Down-time is all uninteresting and forced requirements, whether it is inventory management, tedious farming to unlock gated content, or extensively researching builds / stat allocation. When time spend in down-time approaches time spend in up-time, I really start to lose interest.
This issue is especially important for me because of my ADHD. My brain is hard-wired to not reward me with dopamine for accomplishing mundane tasks the way a neuro-typical brain does. So boring things that most people don't like but are still able to get through are much harder for me. Thus I want to minimize the boring, tedious, unneccessary tasks. This can be done by automating them (QoL) or by making the task interesting, strategic, tactical, or creative.
Counterfleche said:disposalist said:Inventory management, though? Is that not an analog for your avatar struggling with a backpack full of various junk? IRL, pack a backpack for a weekend away and then try and pull out one particular pair of socks as quick as a few mouse clicks. Even the most basic backpack UI is probably way easier and convenient than the reality.
But, is it 'fun' or 'heroic'? Does it serve an in-game balancing mechanic to struggle a little with your inventory?
The point I'm trying to make is what is QoL and what is meaningful realism or a useful game mechanic is very subjective and can differ greatly person-to-person.
Inventory management, unless designed specificially to matter and be meaningful, is just a chore. And it's usually exacerbated by P2W games that drop tons of items and give you limited space in the hope that you will buy extra inventory. I hate this. It's not fun, it doesn't add to the game, and it doesn't offer me interesting strategic choices--all it does manage to do is take up some of my play time.
When it comes to MMOs, I'm acutely aware of up-time vs down-time. Up-time is when I'm playing, socializing, or otherwise doing what I want in game an having fun. Down-time is all uninteresting and forced requirements, whether it is inventory management, tedious farming to unlock gated content, or extensively researching builds / stat allocation. When time spend in down-time approaches time spend in up-time, I really start to lose interest.
This issue is especially important for me because of my ADHD. My brain is hard-wired to not reward me with dopamine for accomplishing mundane tasks the way a neuro-typical brain does. So boring things that most people don't like but are still able to get through are much harder for me. Thus I want to minimize the boring, tedious, unneccessary tasks. This can be done by automating them (QoL) or by making the task interesting, strategic, tactical, or creative.
I agree with your points about unnecessary items and buying (huge) inventory space.
I have to say, though, no insult intended, but you can perhaps appreciate that you might be unusual in what you find mundane if you have ADHD?
I have a friend that *constantly* fiddles with his inventory. Keeping it tidy and neat, but trying to bring as much along as possible. He loves it. He's unusual too, in that regard, and I wouldn't suggest inventory management be enhanced and enphasised in ways he might like!
Again, no insult or slight intended, but I'm amazed that, with ADHD, you can stand MMORPGs at all. The average neuro-typical gamer tends to find them 'boring'.
There must be a ton of thoughtful, tactical, meaningful activities that seem boring, tedious and unnecessary to someone with ADHD?
It's unfortunate, maybe, for you that VR is making Pantheon 'old school' in many ways, as, I believe, that needs a return to a generally slower pace, with activities that *are* meaningful, but *do* take time. I think that's a big part of what makes old school, well, old school.
My apologies if I'm not understanding correctly or sound uncaring, but hopefully you get my point.
My inventory example was just one of several though and I absolutely understand some people don't like inventory management, but it *does* serve a meaningful game mechanic purpose. Characters being limited in what they can carry is 'needed' for several reasons. The ways that is limited is through weight/encumbrance/space restriction. Some would have us with volume and shape management and that would actually make sense, but, you're right, there needs to be a balance somewhere between what is a useful and meaningful mechanic and what is mundane usually due to lazy coding.
Since I think it is necessary, I wonder how we could make inventory management more interesting?
HemlockReaper: such as sell all junk Vs doing it individually...
I would argue, why have the junk in the first place? What does it add to the game? Nothing except some copper. If trash must be in the game then allow it to be breakable for crafters as well as providing a small amount of coin, otherwise, leave it out.
HemlockReaper: ...even glow trails since figuring out how to get from one place to another...
Please no trails, or feathers above heads or flashing icons on maps. Quest trails and their ilk are not QoL, they are at best trivialisation. The only time I think a trail should be in game is when a character is tracking something. In this one case it is acceptable; the trail should not be an obvious glowing path and it should be easy to lose sight of unless you are paying attention.
Accessibility:
To me accessibility is how you can configure your system, so each player is happy with their UI. Able bodied, colour blind, or specific hardware control requirements all have to be catered for. These should be in depth and complete but should not trivialise any aspects of the game itself. So it is fine to assign keys and short cuts but no macros or scripting.
Quality of life:
QoL is about making the game less of a chore and this (as can be seen from the other entries in this thread) is very personal to the player. For example, one player who likes to know exactly where they should go next in a quest is at an apposing juxtaposition to one who doesnt want any form of hinting in the game. Both views are QoL specific but ultimately the game cannot appease both styles without giving an advantage to one or the other.
I think QoL should have a further distinction which specifies whether it is trivialising or enhancing the game; this is the hard part. I think the easiest way to separate these is to identify whether the QoL directly helps the player or the character and player. If using the tool helps the character and player, then it should not be included, if it only helps the player it should be included. An inventory sorting tool directly helps the player and not the character and so should be included. Quest trails directly help the character and the player, and thus should not be included. A compass only helps the player and so should be included, an auto face an enemy directly aids the character and the player and so should not be included. So, imho:
Player QoL (include):
Compass, points of interest map, auto stack of inventory items and general inventory management, multiple item purchases, journal, self-entered noting system
Maps: A basic orientation map should be in game (not a mini map). It should not show you exactly where you are, rather it should show you the major known points of interest, that is all. You can then deduce where you are in relation to those points by observing the game world. If you also have a compass (quested, bought or made), then that should be enough to allow you to get to where you want to go. This doesnt trivialise travel in the game but does allow for easier navigation.
Player and character QoL (do not include):
Quest indicators and trails, spell and equipment macros, quest and crafting node positions on maps, mini maps
When questing, it should be enough to be told to "speak to bob the tailor in the south side of the merchant district of Thronefast". I dont think you need a glowing trail or a quest feather/book to know you need to speak to someone or where to go. If the journal gives you an indication of where to go, that is enough.
chenzeme said:HemlockReaper: such as sell all junk Vs doing it individually...
I would argue, why have the junk in the first place? What does it add to the game? Nothing except some copper. If trash must be in the game then allow it to be breakable for crafters as well as providing a small amount of coin, otherwise, leave it out.
The interesting thing there, though, is there are implications even of that seemingly simple idea.
For example, in Everquest, there were a load of 'junk' drops... Or were there? Actually most drops were for *something*, you just didn't know what. It might be those purposes were of no interest to you, but they might be great for someone else (and, thus, still valuable/saleable).
Should the game tell you what the purpose is? Quest? Task? Crafting? Whatever? Or shouldn't that be a mystery for you to discover?
If there should be 'mystery' to items, then surely you need to throw in some genuine 'junk' with no purpose? Wouldn't it be 'weird' for everything you come across to be 'significant' to the world?
And if, then, you can sell 'junk' automatically, the game is telling you what is 'junk' and what is 'special' automatically and spoiling part of the discovery.
One thing about junk is realism. It means you can't go adventuring and stripping your victims of valuables for days on end without a backpack the size of a wagon. Sure, realism isn't always a great thing for games, but I think in htis instance, it serves (in combination with backpacks and/or weight/encumbrance) a useful limiting factor encouraging you to return to civlisation (and a vendor) every now and again. It makes travelling and adventuring 'trips' more meaningful.
Anyway, I'm banging on about junk, but I think it's a good example of what some people think is a needless mundanity prime for QoL elimination but it's serving an in-game function, like many other things people would like to eradicate in the name of QoL.
disposalist said:chenzeme said:HemlockReaper: such as sell all junk Vs doing it individually...
I would argue, why have the junk in the first place? What does it add to the game? Nothing except some copper. If trash must be in the game then allow it to be breakable for crafters as well as providing a small amount of coin, otherwise, leave it out.
The interesting thing there, though, is there are implications even of that seemingly simple idea.
For example, in Everquest, there were a load of 'junk' drops... Or were there? Actually most drops were for *something*, you just didn't know what. It might be those purposes were of no interest to you, but they might be great for someone else (and, thus, still valuable/saleable).
Should the game tell you what the purpose is? Quest? Task? Crafting? Whatever? Or shouldn't that be a mystery for you to discover?
If there should be 'mystery' to items, then surely you need to throw in some genuine 'junk' with no purpose? Wouldn't it be 'weird' for everything you come across to be 'significant' to the world?
And if, then, you can sell 'junk' automatically, the game is telling you what is 'junk' and what is 'special' automatically and spoiling part of the discovery.
One thing about junk is realism. It means you can't go adventuring and stripping your victims of valuables for days on end without a backpack the size of a wagon. Sure, realism isn't always a great thing for games, but I think in htis instance, it serves (in combination with backpacks and/or weight/encumbrance) a useful limiting factor encouraging you to return to civlisation (and a vendor) every now and again. It makes travelling and adventuring 'trips' more meaningful.
Anyway, I'm banging on about junk, but I think it's a good example of what some people think is a needless mundanity prime for QoL elimination but it's serving an in-game function, like many other things people would like to eradicate in the name of QoL.
Vender trash, by its very definition is loot that has no purpose except to be sold to venders. Why bother? If the purpose is to provide a little cash or weight, just have coin drop in its place. If it is to take up bag space, have smaller bags or useable items drop that cannot be stacked. My point was that you do not need trash and it does not serve a greater cause.
I did not intend anyone to take seriously think I was saying vender trash is a QoL issue or getting rid of it would be a QoL plus. It was a throw away remark that has no direct bearing on the QoL discussion here and I am really surprised that it was viewed as such; a consideration, no more, and does not have any intended QoL meaning.
Go figure! Like many things in these threads, people attached meanings where none was intended.
The answer's going to be different no matter who you ask but...
As a rule, what I think is good vs bad:
GOOD: Things that help people do things they're going to do anyway, but don't do it for them.
BAD: Things that either do things players weren't going to do anyway (generally this then causes players to feel they HAVE to do them) and/or things that do the work for the player.
For example, in my thead talking about LFG tools, I noted that Vanilla/BC WoW had a tool where you could use it to form groups where it would list your class, roles you had marked you were up for doing, and the dungeons you wanted to run...and that's it. People used the tool to send /tells, /invite people, and then they all went to the dungeon entrance. This is a QOL thing because it made it where you didn't have to be in the same zone/capital forming your group, so players could be out and doing productive/useful things while also forming their gropu.
Contrast with the modern WoW (and other game) LFG tool, where you que up, and the game automatically finds you other group members, automatically places everyone into a group, automatically teleports/zones you into the dungeon, and then automatically returns you to where you were in the world when you're done - oh, and also slaps you into groups with people not on your server that you'd never have encountered otherwise and will never likely see again.
The first is acceptable QOL since it eases what the players are doing, but still requires the players to do it. The second does all the work for the players, removing player agency and participation in the process. The first was an active thing - you sign up, you /tell and talk to groups and/or find people in the tool to /tell and ask if they'll join your group; the latter is passive, you que and then just wait for the game to do the work for you and all you do then is hit the accept button when the que pops.
.
A second position I generally hold is "something for everyone to do". This DOES NOT MEAN the SAME thing for everyone.
For example, even though EQ was a gropu focused game, people could genuinely solo on some classes like Bard. A lot of games have some things that players can work on their own - usually very grind heavy - in case they don't have a group or to do when their friends aren't online (e.g. Relic Weapons in FFXIV). Flipside, some people love PvE, some love PvP, some love gathering, some crafting, some like hutning for lots of secrets or trying to get achievements, some people want to race for world first, some people want to collect every mount and minion in the game, etc etc.
Basically, just have lots of things for people to do, and allow people to work on their character along these different paths. These do not have to be - and should not be - the SAME path. That is, you shouldn't be able to solo grind 500,000 mobs and get a raid weapon. It can be a different weapon, with different stats, that is its own thing and its own progression, but it shouldn't be the SAME thing. Same with PvP gear. I liked WoW back when you could get gear that was useful in PvE or PvP (before they introduced Tenacity, in other words) by doing PvP, since that's their chosen playstyle. The gear was different, and unique, and carried different clout. In FFXIV, people that manage to get Relic weapons used to be seen as largely soloers, but were respected for the dedication and time/skill/hard headed committment they had to have to complete them. Likewise, people have long looked at raiders in full gear with awe. Some games allow crafters to actually make...you know, USEFUL/good gear, so a person that has actually done the work to be a master blacksmith, for example, and managed to gather the parts in order to make such legendary pieces also would carry a lot of clout.
Parallel paths of progression.
This is the good kind of accessibility.
The bad kind is when you just throw epics at people for hitting a button in a que and then rolling their face on a keyboard for 20 minutes.
.
There are many roads to Rome.