Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 Next »
This Forum is Read Only

Stop Hating on WoWFollow

#102 Jul 11 2009 at 6:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
**
777 posts
Allegory wrote:
You're assuming there is some finite amount of resources that can be pumped into quests.

That's because there is a finite amount of resources. Even for a developer with as much money as Blizzard.

You can't take 9 pregnant women, put them in a room together, and get a baby in one month.

No matter how much money you throw at something, it always takes time, and there is a real limit. In fact, a strange trait of development is that if you throw too many programmers/developers/money at a project, it can actually start to lower the quality, purely due to the conflict of too many people working on the same thing.
____________________________
KUMQUATS
#103Allegory, Posted: Jul 11 2009 at 7:42 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) For the project, not for specifically questing.
#104 Jul 11 2009 at 9:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
**
777 posts
Allegory wrote:
Karelyn wrote:
Allegory wrote:
You're assuming there is some finite amount of resources that can be pumped into quests.

That's because there is a finite amount of resources. Even for a developer with as much money as Blizzard.

For the project, not for specifically questing.

The project as a whole has a finite budget, from that they can choose how how much money to allocate to each quest, but they can also choose how much money to allocate to questing as a whole. That is what both you and KarlHungis are neglecting.

When I said project, I meant a specific part of development.

Whether that is class balance, quest design, mob art, spell art, zone design, whatever it is.

The old saying is very apt. 9 pregnant women won't make a baby in one month.

You can't throw money at developers, add more developers, and have it magically produce higher quality content in less time. There is a real limit where the effects of money stop benefiting development.

Development isn't an algebraic equation, where P*M=Q, where P=Programmers, M=Money, and Q=QuantityandQuality.

Quote:
Do you see that a developer can still create many quests that are all really good if the developer decides to make questing a priority?

No, I don't see that. Because you are fundamentally wrong, and do not understand how budgeting development works.

Your entire argument is based upon a false idea that more money = better quality and quantity.

Edited, Jul 11th 2009 1:06pm by Karelyn
____________________________
KUMQUATS
#105 Jul 11 2009 at 9:57 AM Rating: Excellent
***
1,218 posts
Allegory wrote:


You're assuming there is some finite and constant amount of resources that can be pumped into quests.


Yes, because that's how reality works. Businesses who make MMOs have finite resources. They have a budget, and that budget has to cover everything. Spend more on one thing, and you spend less on another. Have your quest developers spend 10 hours on one quest, and they are unable to spend those 10 hours making two lower quality quests instead. For you to argue against this is quite ignorant of the reality of how the industry works.

Quote:

Here is you're mistake. There are as many resources for a particular aspect of the game the as the developer is willing to spend on a particular aspect of the game.

The amount of money for a given project might be fixed, but the amount of money allocated to varying parts of that project are not.


The developer decides to hire X number of people who can do a certain job well. Those people only have a certain amount of time to spend, and that time is budgeted.

Quote:
There are two developers. One decides that quests don't matter very much and focuses all of their time on graphics, they create two quests. The other decides to blow their entire budget on questing and ignores graphics, they decide to have 100 quests. Each of those of those 100 quests can easily be better than the 2 quests from the first developer.



First of all, it doesn't matter what any other developers are doing. The one developer who is making FFXIV has made/will make a decision about how much time they want to dedicate to making quests. Maybe they'll allocate 50 million dollars to quests alone, or maybe they'll allocate 2 million or 5 million.

However big that pie is, they now have a decision about how to cut it up. Do they cut it into smaller pieces (lower quality, less immersive quests) in order to create more "bulk" to the content, or do they make it into fewer, larger pieces (higher quality quests with more bells and whistles, but lower quantity)?

It's not a complicated concept to understand.

Yes, one developer can allocate more resources to quests than another, for any number of reasons, but however many resources there are, they are still finite and they still need to be divided up in some way. The way in which they are divided up is part of the structural design of the game.

Furthermore, you can't simply wave away the significance of allocating more resources towards quest design, as if that has no consequences elsewhere. Graphics are important. Game systems and combat are important. Keeping tabs on the economy and RMT is important. Customer service is important. THe more resources you allocate to one thing, the less you have for another. Especially when you consider the diminishing returns of adding more people/hours/money with the expectation of getting more production.

It's true that one developer can choose to emphasize questing more than another, but not at no cost to the rest of the game. So when discussing what kinds of quests you'd like to see, it's more rational and scientific to assume all other things are equal, and that you're not going to simply inflate the quest design budget in place of making any actual design decisions.


Edited, Jul 11th 2009 2:01pm by KarlHungis
#106 Jul 11 2009 at 10:03 AM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,830 posts
This is really frustrating.
Karelyn wrote:
You can't throw money at developers, add more developers, and have it magically produce higher quality content in less time. There is a real limit where the effects of money stop benefiting development.

Money was a stand in for how much the developer prioritized a certain part of he game; I thought you had known that. Whether it be cash, talent, time, effort, or creativity, developers can prioritize certain aspects of a game and devote more resources to it, thus they get better. Surely you agree with that, because it is a fundamental requirement for your argument as well....
Karelyn wrote:
Development isn't an algebraic equation, where P*M=Q, where P=Programmers, M=Money, and Q=QuantityandQuality.

I didn't say it was... you're really just missing the point... maybe a chart will help? I don't think so, but making it helped relive some of my stress.

Yes, as you create more quests you use up resources and so the quests tend to not be as good. PEople run out of ideas, they get overworked, run out of time to think of good ideas, run out of time to refine those quest ideas, whatever. But in addition to that there is the total amount of resources being devoted to that aspect of the project. It is finite, but it is not fixed. A game that spends more resources on the questing part of the game can produce both more and better quests than a game that prioritizes it less.

Do you see how a team of 20 of the best talent in the industry given 6 months could create more quests that are each better than the 1 quest created by a single hobo in three days?
Karelyn wrote:
Your entire argument is based upon a false idea that more money = better quality and quantity.

Sigh, not money, resources. That could be spending more time working on and refining a part of the game, more effort applied to it, hiring better talent to work on that aspect of the game, etc. Money is just an easily quantifiable way to demonstrate the concept, because I though you might understand the idea if I showed it mathematically.
#107 Jul 11 2009 at 10:09 AM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,830 posts
KarlHungis wrote:
Yes, because that's how reality works. Businesses who make MMOs have finite resources. They have a budget, and that budget has to cover everything.

Yes, they have a budget, which they can allocate how they choose.... so each aspect of the MMORPG has a finite but not constant or fixed "minibudget."
KarlHungis wrote:
Spend more on one thing, and you spend less on another.

Yes, but why do you only understand this half the time? An MMORPG developer can choose to spend less on pvp and more on quests if they want to make a game that is quest oriented and not pvp oriented. They allocate the budget differently to increase the spending in a particular area of the game.
KarlHungis wrote:
Have your quest developers spend 10 hours on one quest, and they are unable to spend those 10 hours making two lower quality quests instead. For you to argue against this is quite ignorant of the reality of how the industry works.

I'm not arguing against that. That is exactly my point. You don't seem to understand what logically flows from that assertion.

If a developer choose to cut their spending on sound in half, does the money, talent, and time magically disappear? Or can they choose to spend that money, talent, and time on making more/better quests? See? See?

The budget for the entire MMORPG is finite and fixed. The budget for each aspect of the MMORPG is finite but not fixed.
KarlHungis wrote:
The developer decides to hire X number of people who can do a certain job well. Those people only have a certain amount of time to spend, and that time is budgeted.

Yes, and they can shift around what they want those people to focus on... you understood this idea before, why did you suddenly forget it?
KarlHungis wrote:
Yes, one developer can allocate more resources to quests than another, for any number of reasons, but however many resources there are, they are still finite and they still need to be divided up in some way. The way in which they are divided up is part of the structural design of the game.

Yes, but why don't you understand what this means? Why don't you understand it is both possible to have more quests that are better in quality if you choose to sacrifice other areas of the game?


KarlHungis you're not wrong at all in any of your points, but you don't seem to understand what those points also imply and what I am saying.

Edited, Jul 11th 2009 1:18pm by Allegory
#108 Jul 11 2009 at 10:26 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
777 posts
Allegory wrote:
Sigh, not money, resources. That could be spending more time working on and refining a part of the game, more effort applied to it, hiring better talent to work on that aspect of the game, etc. Money is just an easily quantifiable way to demonstrate the concept, because I though you might understand the idea if I showed it mathematically.

There is a distinct diminished returns on the benefit of devoting more resources to programming and development.

In fact, after a certain point, it starts having a rapid effect in the opposite direction. Assign too many developers and programmers to a project, and the quality starts decreasing incredibly rapidly with every new person you add.

This is due to communication and conflict between co-workers.

Humans aren't numbers. Reality is, you CANNOT simply add more resources to something without taking those resources from somewhere else. AND you cannot double the resources assigned to a project (such as quests) and expect the quantity/quality to double. It won't.
____________________________
KUMQUATS
#109 Jul 11 2009 at 10:37 AM Rating: Excellent
***
1,218 posts
Allegory, you're treating the concept as if it's a simple single variable axis.

More money = more quests = more high quality and more low quality quests.

However, that isn't the only variable. Quality is itself a variable that a developer can choose to highlight or ignore to varying degrees. The more you focus on quality, the less total content that you'll have.

Most developers are going to choose a mixture. They need content to keep players busy, but they also want to have those "WOW!" moments. But even if a developer can do 20 high quality quests and 100 mediocre quests, that's still a choice that prevents them from doing maybe 50 quality quests and no mediocre quests, or no quality quests, and 200 mediocre quests. There's a whole range of possibilities that exists for any particular level of resources.

I'm saying quite simply that FFXIV is going to have, more or less, a fixed budget for quests. Maybe this budget will be 80% of the total budget. Maybe it will be 5%. Maybe it will start at 5% and they'll bump it up to 80%. It doesn't matter, because whatever level it winds up as, they still have to make choices about how in depth they want quests to be, and there's going to be a trade off in quality vs quantity.

I personally would rather have a game where there are fewer quests, but they are all of high quality, even that means that sometimes I need to just mindlessly kill mobs in order to advance. I don't say "I want a game with a ton of quests that are all of the highest quality" because I think that goes without saying. On the other hand, I think it should also go without saying that such a game would require an unrealistically huge budget, or would have have to make major sacrifices in other areas.
#110 Jul 11 2009 at 10:39 AM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,830 posts
Karelyn wrote:
There is a distinct diminished returns on the benefit of devoting more resources to programming and development.

Yes, diminished returns, not negative returns. So you agree with me then? If you pour more resources in quests you can increase both the number and quality of the quests, even if the last ounce of effort doesn't give you as much return as the first ounce?
Karelyn wrote:
Reality is, you CANNOT simply add more resources to something without taking those resources from somewhere else. AND you cannot double the resources assigned to a project (such as quests) and expect the quantity/quality to double. It won't.

I never asserted either of those two points. I always said--from the very beginning--that to increase both the quantity and quality of quests the developer would have to prioritize questing, which necessarily means not prioritizing something else---though apparently that took us a full page to sort out.

I also never stated, explicitly or implicitly, that you get a 1 to 1 return for resources applied to questing, only that an increase in the resources applied translates to an icnrease in what teh devs can produce as far as questing goes--which also took us a full page to sort out.

Edited, Jul 11th 2009 1:45pm by Allegory
#111 Jul 11 2009 at 10:42 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
777 posts
KarlHungis wrote:
I personally would rather have a game where there are fewer quests, but they are all of high quality, even that means that sometimes I need to just mindlessly kill mobs in order to advance.

I'm glad someone agrees with me on that.
____________________________
KUMQUATS
#112 Jul 11 2009 at 9:32 PM Rating: Good
**
424 posts
I agree with you too. Entirely.

Quote:
This is really frustrating.


I am sure it is Allegory. The reason being that we understand your argument, and just don't agree with it. A pie chart isn't going to change my mind.

A real pie might though... mmmm pie.

Edited, Jul 12th 2009 1:48am by Shazaamemt
____________________________
Administrator Kaolian:
"Quote it correctly or don't quote it. That's called "how people get banned"..."

Actually it's called "Libel"... and only if it is fabricated, but hey, you are the admin.

AureliusSir the Irrelevant:
"They're on a tangent, but they aren't off topic."
#113 Jul 11 2009 at 10:04 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Don't worry Allegory, you're right. I'm not going to get caught up in the argument, just quickly throwing my hat in your ring. I'll just sit back and observe the mental gymnastics required to argue against your point.

Personally though, I prefer a game with emphasis on the story/missions.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#114 Jul 11 2009 at 11:01 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
349 posts
Quote:
I personally would rather have a game where there are fewer quests, but they are all of high quality, even that means that sometimes I need to just mindlessly kill mobs in order to advance. I don't say "I want a game with a ton of quests that are all of the highest quality" because I think that goes without saying. On the other hand, I think it should also go without saying that such a game would require an unrealistically huge budget, or would have have to make major sacrifices in other areas.


I'd like to see fewer quality quests as well. Anything other then your "kill 10 x and bring back guts" style quest. But I dont think that having high quality quests means you'll need to grind mobs to advance. First off leveling as we know it is going to be different. theres no xp or levels *****. What Id like to see are fewer longer and more meaningful quests. Maybe a quest that starts at the very begining of the game but carries through all the way to end game. Or quests that actually carry you through to multiple parts of the world rather then see kill ten wolf quests in every zone you go to. They wouldn't need alot of quests if the quests they put in where epic in scope and brought you to places all around the world and carried you through the various skill levels or whatever progress system they intend to use.
____________________________
That was no hemroid doctor. That was an alien hoobajoob
#115 Jul 11 2009 at 11:54 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,416 posts
Would be nice if the quests were lengthy but not numerous.. and had some waypoints etc. So if you had to go to the other side of the world for example, you wouldn't just get the reward at the end of the journey but as you progress you'd get the rewards little by little, and something more significant at the end. One quest would be as long as like 10 'normal' quests you see in other MMO's (FFXI as well, sometimes), and the quality of quests would be much better as well (with decent cutscenes and maybe some battlefield encounters).

With missions added in for the more 'epic' storylines, those 2 ways of story progression might bring a lot of immersion to the world imo, as well as make the journey to level cap much more interesting (since story would actually be a part of the progression this time, and not just a sidetrack).
____________________________
SE:
Quote:
We really want to compete against World of Warcraft and for example the new Star Wars MMO.

#116 Jul 12 2009 at 12:28 AM Rating: Good
Sage
Avatar
*****
10,815 posts
Kharmageddon wrote:
So how about we use this forum for it's purpose -- wild speculation on bits of information about FFXIV as we get it, and use WoW as a reference where appropriate.


Edited, Jul 7th 2009 10:58am by Kharmageddon


nah, this forum is about how "princess BRDs" are mean and allakhazam has some mysterious rate up/down clique that runs everything.
____________________________
pahn
retired monk

i wish to be the red comet.
#117Dreyviin, Posted: Jul 17 2009 at 8:07 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) i hate wow because of the people who play it
#118insanekangaroo, Posted: Jul 18 2009 at 1:44 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) why are you discussing WOW on a FF forum?
#119 Jul 18 2009 at 1:58 AM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,830 posts
insanekangaroo wrote:
why are you discussing WOW on a FF forum?

It might have something to do with this not being an FF forum.
#120Kaluuki, Posted: Jul 18 2009 at 10:23 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Shut up.
#121 Jul 18 2009 at 4:53 PM Rating: Good
*
177 posts
The topic name makes me think of that "Leave Brittany alone!!!" video.

I don't wanna bash the OP though. I read his post, and I agree with a lot of what he said. Many people just see the word "WoW" and flip out, without even really thinking about why or what its being referenced for. I doubt most of the people posting in this topic actually read what he posted. SE themselves have said they've learned from observing games like WoW/WAR/AoC. "ZOMG! SE said WoW!? They're copycat WoW fanboys!!!" It's, what I thought, was common sense. You know, learning from the mistakes and successes of others.
____________________________
People don't accept the truth if it's typed in a tone unsympathetic to them. It doesn't make something any less true if someone you don't like is the one to enlighten you.
#122 Jul 18 2009 at 4:57 PM Rating: Default
***
1,218 posts
Allegory wrote:
insanekangaroo wrote:
why are you discussing WOW on a FF forum?

It might have something to do with this not being an FF forum.


Well (looks at forum title) technically it is.
#123 Jul 18 2009 at 5:04 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,830 posts
KarlHungis wrote:
Well (looks at forum title) technically it is.

No, technically isn't. It technically is a FFXIV forum. It is not about any other game in the FF series, so WoW or Lotro or CoH has just as much a place here as FFXI.

Edited, Jul 18th 2009 8:05pm by Allegory
#124 Jul 18 2009 at 5:09 PM Rating: Good
*
177 posts
People are bringing up games like WoW because they're MMORPGs... and FF14 is an MMORPG. The reason FF11 and FF14 even exist is because they looked at non-FF games like Everquest and thought some of those elements would work well if implemented in a new Final Fantasy.
____________________________
People don't accept the truth if it's typed in a tone unsympathetic to them. It doesn't make something any less true if someone you don't like is the one to enlighten you.
#125 Jul 18 2009 at 8:43 PM Rating: Excellent
**
305 posts
Quote:
The bosses no longer have incredibly powerful abilities, they have weird aggro patterns and require a raid to focus on manipulating hate, or else the boss just wipes you out. Also, the bosses can only last so long, or else they ‘enrage’ and wipe you out. It doesn’t leave much room for innovation or adaptability – you figure out the fight and then you read your queues.


Personally, I would say that any mmo game is summed up by that really. Figure out the fight, and read your queues. Only, wow gives you an addon that prints out your queues instead of the usual boss animation queue.

Same thing, just less visual demand, which for some classes (tanks who are stuck staring at the ankles of a 200 ft tall boss, or healers who are playing whack a mole with their raid ui) is rather convient.

Quote:

2) Bosses can’t be structured around invisible metrics (such as hate). They need to be structured around normal fantasy-based behaviors. E.g. you want to dodge a dragons breath, not make sure you’re not at the top of it’s hate chart.


Hate is not invisible, it is visible by default ui in wow.

I think that the addon option is part of the reason wow has done so well. The ability to customize the game (within limits) to however you wish adds a much greaters sense of enjoyment to the game.

Automation is the only problem in addons. But that should be banned by all devs.

Quote:
The other big mistake I’m sure Blizzard realized is the homogenization of the 9 classes in the game.


This is one of their best moves of this expansion. Why should players be forced to play something that they do not like because it is viable in events compared to the class that they like to play but is only useful in a few situations?

It makes class selection not a matter of "i want to play the class that does the most dps" but rather " i want to play a dps class, and that <x> class has mechanics to it that interest me". Or likewise any other question which ultimately boils down to " i want to play a class that lets me participate in <event> (often endgame)"

____________________________

[ffxivsig]1626858[/ffxivsig]
#126Akkio, Posted: Jul 19 2009 at 4:37 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) wow is ****. stfu already.
#127AnimeSucks, Posted: Jul 19 2009 at 9:43 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I'll hate on WoW if I want to, facist.
#128 Jul 19 2009 at 8:35 PM Rating: Decent
**
424 posts
Quote:
KarlHungis wrote:
Well (looks at forum title) technically it is.

No, technically isn't. It technically is a FFXIV forum. It is not about any other game in the FF series, so WoW or Lotro or CoH has just as much a place here as FFXI.


So it's not a FF forum because it is about FFXIV? /facepalm

If it was called WoW2 you better believe I would be talking about the storylines in the second RTS Warcraft game.

If it was called Starcraft Online, I would expect to have a Zerg vs Protoss discussion.

If it was called Maple Story 2: The Revenge of the Canadian Flag... I would expect us all to be posting on socks.
____________________________
Administrator Kaolian:
"Quote it correctly or don't quote it. That's called "how people get banned"..."

Actually it's called "Libel"... and only if it is fabricated, but hey, you are the admin.

AureliusSir the Irrelevant:
"They're on a tangent, but they aren't off topic."
#129 Jul 19 2009 at 10:32 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
nah, this forum is about how "princess BRDs" are mean and allakhazam has some mysterious rate up/down clique that runs everything.


...

I think milich is trolling me!
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#130 Jul 22 2009 at 1:20 AM Rating: Default
7 posts
What happened with WoW is that Blizzard stopped thinking like a Video Game Developer and started thinking like a Corporation.
#131 Jul 22 2009 at 1:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
20,830 posts
Deim wrote:
What happened with WoW is that Blizzard stopped thinking like a Video Game Developer and started thinking like a Corporation.

I realize what you're trying to say, but for the life of me I can't think of any way it could possibly apply to WoW. Even people horribly biased against WoW probably aren't sure what connection you're trying to make.
#132 Jul 22 2009 at 3:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
***
1,523 posts
Quote:
What happened with WoW is that Blizzard stopped thinking like a Video Game Developer and started thinking like a Corporation.


Right now the same thing counts for FFXI.
____________________________
____(>°°)D_->__(O°°)>-_<(;,,;)>_C-(°°Q)__O~~_t(°°<)_(;o0)___<(;,,;)>_<(;,,;)>_<(;,,;)>_<(;,,;)>_<(;,,;)>_____
[ffxivsig]499417[/ffxivsig]
#133 Jul 22 2009 at 10:14 AM Rating: Default
lolwow ...
1 2 3 Next »
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 1 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (1)