AutoPlay Button

[stormlord]

Originally Posted by SVentura [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It may not be an mmo, but there are games out there that cater to this kind of mentality.

Buy a PS3 and pick up a copy of Demon's/Dark Souls. Play through those a couple times, and then pvp in them a couple of times. These games will give you what you're looking for in terms of combat.

~O~

I commented about this game in another thread.

Here're some links about it:

A youtube video review by gamespot:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ach_m3-cKVg&noredirect=1

A written review:
http://www.azcentral.com/business/co...s-preview.html

I like how players have to be aware of their environment AND their opponent. It's not just a game of "I have a better weapon and armor and satisfactory level: so I win." This caught my eye about the game and even though I haven't played it, I think I would probably like it, for these stated reasons.

A lot of games remove the danger in their rush to fix complaints, not realizing that it's the dullness of the gameplay that's to blame, not the dangers themselves. This is one of my primary points that I, unabashedly, will restate over and over.

[stormlord]

Originally Posted by Kika Maslyaka [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is why EQ2 and even WoW has superior combat mechanics compared to EQ1.

Auto-attack means shit in terms of DPS, if you not aggressively using your activateable abilities. There is no double attack in eq2 and wow for example, so you don't produce double dps by just hitting A and having mob targeted.

EQ2 combo strikes are especially cool

There's some thigns I don't like about where Sony is taking its games. But I won't go there since I think anybody here that's reading these posts probably has a good idea what I'd say about it.

Other than that, I would actually agree. For example, the AA abilities on live can be very appropriate and fill in that hole that's present here on p1999. For example, sometimes you get outdone and the DPS AA abilities on live can save your group. They can be used every 15 min, 30 min, every hour, or something similar. This also applies to the disciplines, like the ranger weapon shield disc or the paladin's holyforge. It makes you feel resourceful and isn't overpowering. It's kind of like the monk mend ability or the paladin lay on hands, which we have on p1999.

I like these kind of reactive, circumstantial abilities. They're not something you do repetitiously every 15 second interval. In fact, my ranger on live would rarely use his full range of abilities and instead saved them for those situations where the group (or I) was in peril. Having them be only available every 15 min or 30 or 60 encourages you to use them well and not waste them on trivial situations. It hones you into becoming a smart player.

I think this type of gameplay isn't just about exploiting weaknesses, as I already stated in a different post, it's about having an answer for most everything. In EQ, there're a lot of times when there's no answer. If you fail to prevent the circumstance then you simply die honorably or die angry. If you fail to spot the red thing then it swats you like a fly. If you fail to see the add then you're toast. If you fail to see the cliff, then your coffin is a pancake.

The key problem isn't that there's a red thing or that there're too many adds. Too often people see it that way, so the developers remove red things and adds. This fixes the problem, doesn't it? No, because it oversimplifies the game. That's not what should be done. the problem is that, too often, there's no answer to these problems AFTER they happen. This isn't how it should be. When I die, I should be able to blame myself and not the game. It shouldn't just be about preventing mortal affliction, it should also be about the choices you make in between affliction and total loss. There should be a string of choices between "There's a red thing on us!" and Loading, Please Wait...

I've been frowned on for thinking it would be cool to combine every class in the game into one. What would it be like to be EVERY class at once? For one, you'd have an answer for most everything. YOu would have abundant tools at your disposal. You could pause the game by feign deathing. You could rez your corpse. There's a lot. You'd be a very busy player keeping on top of it all. It would be a lot more challenging that it seems from the outside. Juggling all of these abilities is not easy. Power of this magnitude means nothing if you don't know how to use it. Imagine having to know how to be a warrior, a cleric, a ranger, a bard, a chanter, a druid and all the other classes: all at once? A challenge! The key thing here is that you can't just rush into things. You have to know what you're doing. But instead of just having to know one or two things, you have to know how to do lots and lots of things. You have an answer for almost everything.

And that's hte problem. In EQ, there's not enough answers. Too often, the answer is to have a rogue in your group (or a cleric, or a...). Or the answer is to have 2000 ac instead of 1500. But that's not how it should be. Answers should be less based on numbers and more based on circumstance. And less based on hard restrictions, like player population. That doesn't mean you throw out numbers and restrictions. It means that you simply up the meaningfulness of choices. That's all. Weapons SHOULD have stats. There should be numbers. There should be people that specialize and are better than others. I'm not denying any of that. Just don't make HARD walls, but fluid, changing walls that still retain their character. For example, if I'm in a dungeon and a door is locked, my first thought is to grab a rogue friend to lock pick it. But I should also have the option to break the door down. Maybe if I hit it long enough it will. A rogue would certainly make it easier.

Am I saying EQ should be easier? No. I'm saying it should have more choices in it. Staring blankly ahead because you cannot find a rogue to pick the lock, is not a choice: it's the lack thereof. This is just one example.

I don't want a dumbed down game. I don't want things handed to me. I hate with a fury passion when I walk up to a supposed violent creature in a game and it sits there until I hit it. I hate when I jump off a cliff in a game and receive no damage when I hit the ground. I hate when I can swim forever without needing air. I hate when creatures don't help each other to thwart my efforts. I hate when a game is too simple and painless. I hate when developers fix the wrong thing. Give me all of it! Give me cliffs that can kill me. Give me creatures that help each other because they want to kill me. Give me water that I can't breath in forever. Give me a world that will kill me when I fail to make the right choices. But don't give me a world where I cannot overcome those things. Don't give me a world where I feel like it's the game, not the creatures, that I'm fighting. Try to have an answer for everything that doesn't have hard restrictions.

Restrictions should be permeable. Kind of like how a weapon wears thin with repeated use.

Hard restrictions = linear. And that's what I hate most. We need non-linear gameplay.

[Vondra]

EQ's simplistic gameplay and lack of rotations are what make the game, imo.

In most other modern MMOs, you've got some sort of rotation with plenty of buttons to click. More engaging, it's true, but also unsocial gameplay. In EQ you can stand up and cast a spell, sit and med, then talk with your group some without sacrificing any efficiency.

Considering that any of the new MMO's I take a look at have that WoW style rotation going, I'm glad there's this to come back to. In fact in what little has been released regarding EQNext, they comment on how they'd like to get back to being able to socialize in groups...due to lack of buttonspamming.

[pickled_heretic]

Originally Posted by Vondra [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

EQ's simplistic gameplay and lack of rotations are what make the game, imo.

In most other modern MMOs, you've got some sort of rotation with plenty of buttons to click. More engaging, it's true, but also unsocial gameplay. In EQ you can stand up and cast a spell, sit and med, then talk with your group some without sacrificing any efficiency.

Considering that any of the new MMO's I take a look at have that WoW style rotation going, I'm glad there's this to come back to. In fact in what little has been released regarding EQNext, they comment on how they'd like to get back to being able to socialize in groups...due to lack of buttonspamming.

rotations are no better or worse than autoattack or 6 second kicks unless there's some kind of decision-making process behind the rotation.

let's face it, everquest is pretty mindless for 90% of the scenarios out there, and the gameplay is crap compared to many games out there today, especially for some classes. the only satisfaction i have is nostalgia and doing some of the things i didn't get a chance to do the first time i played it.

[snorri]

Originally Posted by stormlord [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Autoattack in EQ is nice, I suppose. Gives you time to think about aggro management and pathers and buffs and various other issues.

And, more importantly, communicating with your group. Voice chat was rare, as were high speed internet connections. You need those six seconds between kicks in order to type.

One of the wow-style mmo's I played, there was no time in between mashing hotkeys. The amount of time between pressing "1" and then pressing "2" was at most a second. And you had at least 12 different things to press in the right order. And you often needed to move around at the same time. The game was almost entirely silent. See a PC, click join, wordlessly kill 8 giant rats, disband, go turn in quest.

Even Vanguard was keeping my fingers busy enough that if my group wasn't in the same room as I was, I wouldn't be able to say anything at all.

[stormlord]

Originally Posted by snorri [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And, more importantly, communicating with your group. Voice chat was rare, as were high speed internet connections. You need those six seconds between kicks in order to type.

One of the wow-style mmo's I played, there was no time in between mashing hotkeys. The amount of time between pressing "1" and then pressing "2" was at most a second. And you had at least 12 different things to press in the right order. And you often needed to move around at the same time. The game was almost entirely silent. See a PC, click join, wordlessly kill 8 giant rats, disband, go turn in quest.

Even Vanguard was keeping my fingers busy enough that if my group wasn't in the same room as I was, I wouldn't be able to say anything at all.

You make an excellent point here. Well said.

[Tappin]

You might be interested in GW2. Who knows if the game will flop or not. I have pretty high expectations for the game but I have for other games in the past, just to be sorely disappointed, and not always only to the MMORPG genre. There obviously is a massive hole in the gaming market out there these days, or at least the online gaming market. I've been MMOing since EQlive back in 2000, when I was 12. I've played most every major MMO title since then and none of them are good enough to keep me from wanting to play a game that is over 10 years old?

I'm a PvP junkie for the most part, except for in EQ, because, really... ? GW2 is supposed to try to do a lot of what you are asking for, more involved combat with active dodging, no auto attacks, aiming skills, or being positioned for those skills at least. But again, its silly to get hyped for games these days... like was already mentioned, the publishers want your initial game purchase and for the most part they are happy with that and don't care if you like their game or not. I hope GW2 isn't this way, and they can't really afford to do this since they have no monthly sub and rely on their game quality to convince you to buy their expansion packs.

[stormlord]

Originally Posted by Tappin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You might be interested in GW2. Who knows if the game will flop or not. I have pretty high expectations for the game but I have for other games in the past, just to be sorely disappointed, and not always only to the MMORPG genre. There obviously is a massive hole in the gaming market out there these days, or at least the online gaming market. I've been MMOing since EQlive back in 2000, when I was 12. I've played most every major MMO title since then and none of them are good enough to keep me from wanting to play a game that is over 10 years old?

I'm a PvP junkie for the most part, except for in EQ, because, really... ? GW2 is supposed to try to do a lot of what you are asking for, more involved combat with active dodging, no auto attacks, aiming skills, or being positioned for those skills at least. But again, its silly to get hyped for games these days... like was already mentioned, the publishers want your initial game purchase and for the most part they are happy with that and don't care if you like their game or not. I hope GW2 isn't this way, and they can't really afford to do this since they have no monthly sub and rely on their game quality to convince you to buy their expansion packs.

Thing is, is the environment as interesting as the combat will be? In EQ, we have to watch spawn placement and pathing because non-players will attack us and add as well. We have to be careful where we walk or we could fall and even die. In a lot of games, these things don't happen. We need lots of CC abilities because we have to control for adds that might come and for potential wanderers that get in on the action. I've said a couple times that maybe basic combat needs to be simple so that we can keep our minds on all of these other things. But it's not a done deal. I'm not convinced that we're exhausted and cannot have a more involved combat system. But anyway, I'm not saying EQ isn't an involved game, I'm merely assessing its combat system, and explaining that it's not very involved or fun, in my view. KEEPING IN MIND, the basic combat system is just the fundamentals: it does not include cc or spawn awareness or other concerns.

Basic combat is when you walk up to a creature and target it and /autoattack. You trade blows automatically. If you're a melee, there's not much more to it than just clicking kick every 6 seconds. I know and you know, that combat is more complicated with everything else included. But I'm trying to avoid over complicating this.

I would like to see more conditions so that there're more unique situations. For example, if blunt weapons stunned non-players automatically then players might save a blunt weapon for the last 20% when a creature attempts to escape. Or they'd use for casting opponents. If slashing weapons created bleeding on the opponent then you might use them at the start of the encounter to 'dot' it. If more players attacking a opponent decreased its defense then having your group members on one creature would be a good strategy, but you'd have to weigh this with all of your other concerns, like adds (hey, we have off tanks for a reason). If we could aim our weapons to target an opponent's legs or whatever it uses to move then this might allow us to 'snare' it. Then we'd switch to more critical body parts. If everyone could 'backstab' because hitting a creature from behind increases your dps then this would at least make the fighting seem more believable. Flanking would get a bonus too. I'm not sure how that would markedly CHANGE the strategy, though. (I mean, most players in EQ are on an opponent's back anyway because they're trying to avoid ripostes and don't like to get mixed up with the tank.) Maybe if a creature tries to run away and changes direction then you have to make sure you stay on its back. The game should reward players AT THEIR KEYBOARD. But other than that, it's more about the believability. Remember how in battles we flank the enemy? We do this because they have exposed a weakness. It doesn't make sense for a creature to not expose itself when it focuses its attention on one player or turns its back to you. It doesn't make sense that a creature has the same defense no matter how many foes it has actively attacking it. Believability is not as important, though, as encouraging strategic, choice-oriented gameplay. But it's still important.

More abilities, like hte AA abilities on live, would be welcomed by me. In fact, the rest of the game could probably use more things like this as well, not just basic combat or combat-related activities. For example, a 1 hour recast-time Sprint ability that gives you a 30% boost to runspeed for 1 minute would be a great way to outrun a non-player if things go bad. This would have the effect of allowing you to avoid certain death, but it comes with its share of responsibilities: you must use it wisely, and know WHEN to use it. Even the placement of guards in a zone is somewhat similar to this mechanic. Instead of outrunning your enemy, you're running to a guard for self-defence. You have to know where the guard is, and you have to gauge your chances of getting there in time. Sadly, a lot of games don't use guards effectively or even at all. But a good balanced use of guards both improves the believability of the world and also gives you a CHOICE when things go bad. Too often, games just remove bad things so that they never happen. But in the process of doing that, they remove choice and danger from the game. Not only that, it feels a lot less believable; aka. candyland.

The other day I was thinking a nice ability to have would be "Concentrate". Basically, it would allow me to cast on a non-player much higher level than me. If I was trying to escape from something, I could use it and then snare the bad guy so that I can escape. This is just another way to do the same thing: control bad things, rather than removing them.

[Galacticus]

Originally Posted by stormlord [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Lets say that tomorrow Sony released a new feature for their EQ1 and EQ2 games and they call it Autoattack 2.0. This feature set makes your player a bot and it plays at 95% of the efficiency of an actual player. So if you decided to play yourself then you would gain a 5% total improvement in your game. The improvement is a result of clicking kick every 5 second interval. They improved the game because they received too many complaints from people who like to watch football, make dinner, clean the diapers, take out the garbage AND play EQ all at the same time.

Autoattack 2.0 is the latest example of the recent streamlining enhancements being applied to Sony's flagship games. A second installment of streamlining enhancements are expected in the coming months. Additionally, Sony expects significant other complimentary features to come into the game over the next year to make your game even better.

Helpful advice: Remember, don't do more than you can handle. Clicking the kick button requires lots of concentration and skill. Playing manually is only recommended for experienced players only. GM's are available for help.

Sorry about this. I know EQ isn't this bad. But with all the potential out there, why do games recycle the same sh** over and over? Why don't they improve on the mechanics to make it more involved and responsive?

Autoattack in EQ is nice, I suppose. Gives you time to think about aggro management and pathers and buffs and various other issues. Perhaps it needs to be simple, for these reasons. But combat, when you remove everything except the essentials, can be overly simplistic. I really do not like clicking kick over and over, for example. Aside from /autoattack, combat amounts to clicking the same buttons most of the time, except when intangibles happen; like you get an add.

What about those 'other' things? They would tend to be circumstantial. When I stand behind a mob, I don't notice a increase in my DPS (as I probably should). Rogue backstabs make sense for their class, but I've always thought that every class should see criticals or backstabs when they're behind an opponent. And the more players there're on a mob, the more vulnerable it should probably be. Shooting a mob with a bow from a distance makes sense and is nice to have, but I'd be lying if I didn't admit that I wish there was more skill in aiming. What about when a mob flees on low health? You stand behind and hit it. But it doesn't make sense to miss. The mob is weak and panicing - it should get hit HARD. There's not nearly as much circumstantial choices as I think there should be. I like to make choices, so sue me? I look forward to the day when reading your opponent to anticipate your next move is more important.

There needs to be more unique situations, not less, to yield this result. The predictable outcome is noobs will not know what to do. Even a veteran could get confused easily on a new opponent. But if games are never going to get better than they're today then WTF is wrong with us? Are we mindless rodents on a hamster wheel? Are we forsaken?

You see, I think most gamers want a responsive game that requires some skill. But developers, by and large, never meet expectations. They keep pumping out simplistic games over and over. There's an amount of mediocrity or incompetence. So when people get sick of this sh**, developers mistake it for meaning that they want overly simplistic games. The mistake is that developers assumed the game was too complicated to begin with. And tha'ts just not true. Most games are too simple, not too complicated. It's an error to make them even simpler. But, I guess, if you really are watching football, cleaning house, cooking dinner, doing bills, disciplining the kids AND playing EQ, maybe you want it simple.

Good try bro. The problem is that people buy what they want. Its not that games are more simple, its that you are simple and don't understand the complexity behind the button you are pushing.

Try being more descriptive with solutions instead of acting like there is a better way to do things that you figured out.

If you were criticizing cars you would say: I dream of the day when one day my car just knows where I want to go. Putting in directions? I guess thats ok. But I want my car to read my thought patterns and take me there. I cant believe people actually ride these stupid cars we got, you gotta turn the wheel and push the gas and break. You would think they would be smart enough then to just have TWO pedals to control the speed. You have to physically move the wheel in the direction you want to go? Realistically I could want to go up or down or backwards, this wheel is the same recycled shit since cars were made. To top it all off, can you believe you have to actually check your cars fluids and put gas in it? What do car companies make billions of dollars for?

Yea, you sound that dumb.

[Kika Maslyaka]

Originally Posted by Galacticus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Good try bro. The problem is that people buy what they want. Its not that games are more simple, its that you are simple and don't understand the complexity behind the button you are pushing.

Try being more descriptive with solutions instead of acting like there is a better way to do things that you figured out.

If you were criticizing cars you would say: I dream of the day when one day my car just knows where I want to go. Putting in directions? I guess thats ok. But I want my car to read my thought patterns and take me there. I cant believe people actually ride these stupid cars we got, you gotta turn the wheel and push the gas and break. You would think they would be smart enough then to just have TWO pedals to control the speed. You have to physically move the wheel in the direction you want to go? Realistically I could want to go up or down or backwards, this wheel is the same recycled shit since cars were made. To top it all off, can you believe you have to actually check your cars fluids and put gas in it? What do car companies make billions of dollars for?

Yea, you sound that dumb.

Just because he talks about LOGICAL game shortcoming, and wants a BETTER gameplay in general, doesn't make him in anyway dumb.
yes, we all know, that corporations ONLY care for CASH. The world however is not without altruists [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

BTW, I drive stick-shift, and the only upgrade for me would be teleport [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]