I'm going to keep this brief and then open it up for your consideratoin and commentary.
Back in EQ, if you were in a group - if someone intentionally pulled/attacked prior to knowing everyone was ready, that was considered bad gameplay. If the group wiped (and it would) it would be considered the fault of whomever did that. In today's games, tanks run into content as fast as they can, never paying attention to whether or not the group is keeping up or ready. If the group wipes because someone didn't, it is considered the fault of the person who lagged behind, not the person who rushed ahead.
It is my belief that the difference comes down not to the players, but to game design decsions that enable and set expectations. If the content is designed to permit moving fast, you move fast... period.
NOTE: This isn't a post about the pace of combat. The combat pace example was just used to illustrate the issue.
It is a post about how much attention the devs should pay to the impact that design deicions will have on how players treat other players. This can quickly become a slippery slope. Mechanics like leashing content, not being able to get trained, etc... were a direct attempt to try to prevent players from doing "bad things" to each other.
For me, the distinction is perhaps not so subtle: In EQ, mechanics encuraged you to care, but allowed you to do bad things. In later games, mechanics prevented you from doing bad things, but enabled you not to care.
Where is the line? What are your thoughts?
Wandidar said:Back in EQ, if you were in a group - if someone intentionally pulled/attacked prior to knowing everyone was ready, that was considered bad gameplay. If the group wiped (and it would) it would be considered the fault of whomever did that. In today's games, tanks run into content as fast as they can, never paying attention to whether or not the group is keeping up or ready. If the group wipes because someone didn't, it is considered the fault of the person who lagged behind, not the person who rushed ahead.
My thoughts are that this paragraph that you wrote is absolutely 100% on point, and if you think about it, covers much of what is bad about current games.
I think this is more of a factor of how modern game are designed for the race. In WoW currently, the fastest way to level is to run dungeons, combine that with the dungeon queue system, cross server grouping (chances are you will never see them again, so who cares what they think mentality), lack or consiquences from dieing, ease of combat(everyone who pays attention is almost God mode) and the players quickly figure out that steam rolling content is path of least resistance.
Its human nature to follow the path of least resistance and the only time we don't is when we have other motivating factors and thats where meaning full game play, community and a living game world comes in. From my experience in EQ, people in general were not jerks or rude to one another, it happened but was not the norm. There was good reason for that, community. It took forever to level your character and along the way build a name for yourself. Build a negative name and you could find that character you spent years on, basically worthless because he/she has been blacklisted.
WoW did not start as a breeding ground for rudeness, but the addition of many of the machanics of the game sure turned it into that. Not only did these decisions destroy community, they are killing the game as a whole. Sure they will still remain disgustingly profitable, but I don't see the level of nostolgia happening with that game as you see with game like EQ, UO and DAoC.
Got a little side tracked....back to the OP, I think this is where Brad has really spoken to me personally as a gamer when he says that he does not want to just make a game for the masses, after the lion share of the MMO populous, but rather, create a great gaming experience.
I totally agree, and have been complaining about this to my friends that play for years. As long as the game doesn't make it easy for people to get away with bad play, or being bad in general, then there is no reason to fix problems arrising from it.
My main example of letting people get away with it is allowing name change services or server transfers. Where someone can be a jerk, can rip people off, KS, etc. and just change their name and nobody knows they did that stuff any longer.
So mainly, a mechanic that allows bad play doesn't need to be fixed. Allowing players to do it and not have repurcussions is what needs to be fixed.
Wandidar said:In eq if in the early levels if you took on a blue con it was an even fight and you usually won. Try a yellow con and mos times you had your head in your lap. A red and you may as well take on Venril sather alone. The new games if you try a red you have a chance of winning with potions etc. If Pantheon is at all like the newer games it will burn out fast . If it is like eq (and I am wishing it is ) It will be a blast to play and IMHO will last as long as eq has.I'm going to keep this brief and then open it up for your consideratoin and commentary.
Back in EQ, if you were in a group - if someone intentionally pulled/attacked prior to knowing everyone was ready, that was considered bad gameplay. If the group wiped (and it would) it would be considered the fault of whomever did that. In today's games, tanks run into content as fast as they can, never paying attention to whether or not the group is keeping up or ready. If the group wipes because someone didn't, it is considered the fault of the person who lagged behind, not the person who rushed ahead.
It is my belief that the difference comes down not to the players, but to game design decsions that enable and set expectations. If the content is designed to permit moving fast, you move fast... period.
NOTE: This isn't a post about the pace of combat. The combat pace example was just used to illustrate the issue.
It is a post about how much attention the devs should pay to the impact that design deicions will have on how players treat other players. This can quickly become a slippery slope. Mechanics like leashing content, not being able to get trained, etc... were a direct attempt to try to prevent players from doing "bad things" to each other.
For me, the distinction is perhaps not so subtle: In EQ, mechanics encuraged you to care, but allowed you to do bad things. In later games, mechanics prevented you from doing bad things, but enabled you not to care.
Where is the line? What are your thoughts?
Wandidar said:For me, the distinction is perhaps not so subtle: In EQ, mechanics encuraged you to care, but allowed you to do bad things. In later games, mechanics prevented you from doing bad things, but enabled you not to care.
This is a very good point to bring up, and one of the many contributing factors to the decline of community in these games. I'm all for the former - mechanics that encourage you to care, but allow you to do bad things. I would like the game to have open-ended systems that encourage community building, including systems that allow for bad behaviour; let the community sort it out :)
