Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
This Forum is Read Only

Why is it so difficult for SE to balance/fix SPFollow

#1 Mar 25 2011 at 6:21 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
494 posts
I posted this on ffxiv core but im going to ask here too.

I've never completely understood why it has taken SE so long to fix the exp problems in the game. Coblyns are still really the best mobs to grind on, second best is to camp at an atheryte and just do behest every hour, and parties still seem useless.

I read a lot of responses in the past saying that its a complex system and takes a long time to fix. So my question to the techies and programmers out there is why didn't they originally just do something like this, and if they did, why take months to fix it?:


Note: <<! >> is a comment. ex <<! roar >>, and im not using any specific programming language.

So to start: Have a database with every mob and a set amount of exp they would give to someone of equal level. For example. Copper Coblyn = 60.
Now if you are level 10 and kill a level 10 copper coblyn you get 60sp.
If you are level 20 and kill a level 20 copper coblyn you get 60 sp.
etc.

Then use code similar to the following:


<<! declare variables >>

Var EXPbase.integer <<! will represent the exp the mob gives if your equal level to it>>
Var EXPnorm.real <<!exp you would get from killing a mob before bonuses>>
Var EXPfinal.real <<!exp after bonuses are added>>
Var bonus.real <<!whatever the players current bonus is in % form. so they might have .10 (10%) bonus from an exp ring, or 1.0 (so you'd get double exp) bonus from behest>>
Var LVLdiff.integer <<!the difference between the level of the mob and your level>>
Var LVLmultiplier.real <<!used to alter EXPnorm based on level difference>>
Var PlayerLevel.integer <<!players level>>
Var MobLevel.integer <<!mobs level>>

LVLdiff = (MobLevel - Playerlevel)<<!get a positive # if mob is higher level, and vice versa)
LVLmultiplier = (LVLdiff*.20) <<!basically you take 20% of the level difference. So if your 5 levels lower you will end up having a level multiplier of -1, which will then ensure you get 0 exp>>
EXPbase = (read: set-exp from database) <<! so you're setting EXPbase to be the exp you would get from the mob you just killed if its equal level to you>>
bonus = foodbonus + equipbonus + eventbonus + whateverbonus <<! basically add up all the exp bonuses from various places. i just made up some examples, but you'd have set variables for every source>>


If Party=1 then
{
EXPnorm = EXPbase + [(LVLmultiplier)*(EXPbase)]
<<! so basically saying you add the exp base to 20% of the level diff. so if your 5 levels under you end up with -EXPbase so 0exp and any more levels lower you have negative EXPnorm>>
{
if EXPnorm < 0
EXPnorm = 0
elseif EXPnorm > 300
<<! sets a max EXPnorm>>
EXPnorm = 300
}

EXPfinal = EXPnorm + (EXPnorm*bonus)
<<!So you add the normal exp to whatever % bonus you have times the normal exp. So if you had 20% bonus, you would do normal exp + 20% of normal exp. This gets you the final exp >>
}

Elseif party=2 then same as above with party modifiers.

etc.


So the point im trying to make is if they used a formula system like this and had a database of set mob exp's they should be able to fix exp issues in hours and balance out the game for partying. But a lot of people argued it takes weeks to balance things and to fix these formulas. And my question is why can't it be as simple as this?
#2 Mar 25 2011 at 6:23 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
176 posts
Because SE likes complicated formulas.
____________________________

TERA looks tasty...
#3 Mar 25 2011 at 6:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
**
523 posts
Because half the population wants to be able to solo and the other half wants to be forced into groups.

Making both situations the same SP per hour is the hard part.
#4 Mar 25 2011 at 6:34 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,416 posts
Quote:
Why is it so difficult for SE to balance/fix SP


You know what, let me tell you.

It's because the developers don't have the sufficient means to control our progression. They have set-up the game, implemented guildleves and normal monsters, and left it out for the players to figure out what to do. That is, they gave us freedom to decide what to do with the game.

Same way as in XI, although in XI party set-ups were more strictly controlled by the developers (6 players, required roles). They filled the world with monsters and let us do what we wanted.

Due to this freedom, they can not control what we are doing and how. They can only try to guess how the players interpret the systems in place and act accordingly. It is never going to end, if the developers won't start dictating how we progress. Freedom is in direct conflict of control, so if they and we want them to make more sense of the progression system, they need to strip away that freedom for the sake of being able to balance SP gain and expand on the concepts they have chosen.

Of course players wouldn't like it. It's like the current situation in some of the U.S states, where people like their job benefits and don't want to give them up, yet they don't want to pay taxes for them either. There is no "middleground". If S-E wants to fix the SP progression system, they need to be able to control it. And that means less freedom for us to choose.

Look at XI pre-ToAU and post-ToAU. We went to EXP in places where it was most efficient to EXP on mobs that were easiest to kill. The developers can't predict what we end up doing, so they couldn't have done much about the situation without controlling us.

And that's what they started doing post-ToAU. Camps were easy to spot, monsters were clearly designed to be EXP'd on (or not) and S-E could control our way of progression much better.

That's the reality of the situation, unfortunately.

Edited, Mar 25th 2011 12:37pm by Hyanmen
____________________________
SE:
Quote:
We really want to compete against World of Warcraft and for example the new Star Wars MMO.

#5 Mar 25 2011 at 6:35 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
812 posts
DoctorMog wrote:
Because half the population wants to be able to solo and the other half wants to be forced into groups.

Making both situations the same SP per hour is the hard part.

This.


I'm not sure adjusting sp is the hard part, the hard part is adjusting sp and achieving the desired result across all ranks.

Edited, Mar 25th 2011 8:36am by Jefro420
____________________________
Abaddon Active Player Roster
- All your Fabul Sever are belong to us! -


#6 Mar 25 2011 at 6:45 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
494 posts
Hyanmen wrote:
Quote:
Why is it so difficult for SE to balance/fix SP


You know what, let me tell you.

It's because the developers don't have the sufficient means to control our progression. They have set-up the game, implemented guildleves and normal monsters, and left it out for the players to figure out what to do. That is, they gave us freedom to decide what to do with the game.

Same way as in XI, although in XI party set-ups were more strictly controlled by the developers (6 players, required roles). They filled the world with monsters and let us do what we wanted.

Due to this freedom, they can not control what we are doing and how. They can only try to guess how the players interpret the systems in place and act accordingly. It is never going to end, if the developers won't start dictating how we progress. Freedom is in direct conflict of control, so if they and we want them to make more sense of the progression system, they need to strip away that freedom for the sake of being able to balance SP gain and expand on the concepts they have chosen.

Of course players wouldn't like it. It's like the current situation in some of the U.S states, where people like their job benefits and don't want to give them up, yet they don't want to pay taxes for them either. There is no "middleground". If S-E wants to fix the SP progression system, they need to be able to control it. And that means less freedom for us to choose.

Look at XI pre-ToAU and post-ToAU. We went to EXP in places where it was most efficient to EXP on mobs that were easiest to kill. The developers can't predict what we end up doing, so they couldn't have done much about the situation without controlling us.

And that's what they started doing post-ToAU. Camps were easy to spot, monsters were clearly designed to be EXP'd on (or not) and S-E could control our way of progression much better.

That's the reality of the situation, unfortunately.

Edited, Mar 25th 2011 12:37pm by Hyanmen


but the game is set up so currently solo = grinding on only one mob and partying doesnt really happen. If my method was used they could just time how long it kills to take a mob and then define the set-sp as that.
Ex. if your lvl 10 and kill a lvl 10 coblyn that takes 30 seconds you get 100 sp
if your lvl 10 and kill a lvl 10 dodo that takes 60 seconds you get 200 sp

Balancing it perfectly would be difficult but even half-assed balancing would beat what is there now. And the thing is, the system -was- pretty balanced at release. Its when they revamped in in november? where things got messed up. Im looking for a -technical- reason as to why what i wrote wouldn't work properly. like in math terms. im pretty sure what is there now was not intended at release. Becuase prior to the fix you could exp pretty equally off like 10 diff mobs, and then exp even faster in a party. Then it changed to coblyn grinding and its been like that for 4-5 months.
#7 Mar 25 2011 at 6:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
***
1,707 posts
SE has always been mortally afraid of knocking things out of balance. They have stated this time and time again during development of FFXI. This is why they would rarely ever update jobs like Beastmaster and is the same reason there are no pet jobs implemented into FFXIV yet.

Personally, I think they should not be so afraid to experiment. They can always change it back if it ain't working. It's better than having to wait two years for testing before they implement the pet jobs - or whatever else it might be.

As for solo versus group play, why is this so hard? It worked ok in FFXI. The fundamental truth about soloers is that they arewilling to accept less exp/hr in exchange for the flexibility or soloing. So build the game such that soloers can gain about half the sp/hr that groups can gain. If that isn'tworking then bump it up to 60% and see what happens. If still no one is soloing bump it to 70% and see what happens. If all of a sudden everyone is soloing, then knock it back down some.

Instead they spend all this time "testing" every change to death, then when they release it we all ***** about it and they change it again and re-stat the testing phase again.

Let the player do more of your testing SE. I don't know why you consider this such a bad thing.
#8 Mar 25 2011 at 6:52 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,416 posts
Quote:
but the game is set up so currently solo = grinding on only one mob and partying doesnt really happen. If my method was used they could just time how long it kills to take a mob and then define the set-sp as that.


Sounds pretty bad, to be honest. The monsters are not equal in this game in more ways than just their HP. Players can delay the death of the monsters and gain more SP that way.

The fact is that there are too many variables involved. They need to set us a path(s) that we follow and then determine our progression based on those paths. They need to get rid of the alternatives that are in direct competition with the methods they have deemed favorable. Either Guildleve system or the monster grinding system has to go. The fact is, that with Guildleves they can control us and thus better the system much more efficiently than with the mob grinding method. Neither is ruled out at this point though, but nothing will get fixed before they start controlling the variables and we start doing what they intend us to do (by the devs forcing us, directly or indirectly).

Different monster families are not equal by default, so if there is nothing to balance them out S-E won't succeed in this. We'll end up killing crabs and crawlers because the developers can't control what we kill efficiently.

Edited, Mar 25th 2011 12:53pm by Hyanmen
____________________________
SE:
Quote:
We really want to compete against World of Warcraft and for example the new Star Wars MMO.

#9 Mar 25 2011 at 7:12 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
*****
12,707 posts
MMORPGs aren't easy to balance, especially when you have one side clamoring to solo and the other wanting to party which both requires slaughter of the same mobs in the world.

It's not that they take so long it's that they have bigger things (that take longer to accomplish) to deal with if you check out the in development section of XIV. You can tool around with SP/exp rates as much as you want but it will be guaranteed you'll have soloer or party players ****** off by a change because MMOs in general can't be balanced perfectly.

Even MUDs were unbalanced in nature.
____________________________

#10 Mar 25 2011 at 8:30 AM Rating: Excellent
**
429 posts
Because it's really hard to balance SP gains in a game where you can only level up by grinding and you have no clear defined path to the max level.
#11 Mar 25 2011 at 8:36 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
*****
12,707 posts
Wolfums wrote:
Because it's really hard to balance SP gains in a game where you can only level up by grinding and you have no clear defined path to the max level.


Defined path = you know how to level.

Which in XIV you know you have to grind therefore there is a defined path to the max level. It's even harder to balance a game where you level through questing which is why MMOs that allow it the non quest grinding leveling is an unbalanced mess.
____________________________

#12 Mar 25 2011 at 8:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
**
351 posts
DoctorMog wrote:
Because half the population wants to be able to solo and the other half wants to be forced into groups.

Making both situations the same SP per hour is the hard part.


Actually, if you get just as much SP/hour soloing as partying, then parties are meaningless. Soloing is the path of least resistance in this scenario.

The trick is to make soloing provide a decent SP/hour rate but not so far behind partying that it's pointless to even try going out alone and not so close to the party rate that you never want to bother doing anything but solo.
#13 Mar 25 2011 at 8:53 AM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
**
812 posts
ForceOfMeh wrote:
DoctorMog wrote:
Because half the population wants to be able to solo and the other half wants to be forced into groups.

Making both situations the same SP per hour is the hard part.


Actually, if you get just as much SP/hour soloing as partying, then parties are meaningless. Soloing is the path of least resistance in this scenario.

The trick is to make soloing provide a decent SP/hour rate but not so far behind partying that it's pointless to even try going out alone and not so close to the party rate that you never want to bother doing anything but solo.

This, I wouldn't play an mmo if experience from soloing was the same as in a party. That defeats the entire purpose of playing an MMO in my opinion, which is the social aspect. if that's the case I'd rather play a solo game.
____________________________
Abaddon Active Player Roster
- All your Fabul Sever are belong to us! -


#14 Mar 25 2011 at 10:21 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,416 posts
Quote:
Because it's really hard to balance SP gains in a game where you can only level up by grinding and you have no clear defined path to the max level.


Exactly. I don't know if you were trying to be sarcastic here or not, but it is hard when you can't dictate how the players play the game. You hit the nail on the head.

"Grinding" can also be done in various ways (solo, duo, 5 man, 7 man, on puks, on coblyns, on dodos, camping, roaming, guildleves, with 3 dds and a healer or 2 nukers and a tank or 6 tanks and 4 dds etc.). These factors is what makes balancing so hard. Balancing XI was easier because the developers only let the players dictate what mobs to kill and where (and unsurprisingly the devs had the most trouble trying to balance this part of the game). The correct party size was 6, and the correct set-up was tank, 2 dds, refresher/buffer/debuffer, healer, nuker. It's easy to balance and build your gameplay around this set-up, rather than "anything goes". However, due to this the players rarely had the freedom to "choose" how to play, and it was quite a restricting system in the end indeed.



Edited, Mar 25th 2011 4:26pm by Hyanmen
____________________________
SE:
Quote:
We really want to compete against World of Warcraft and for example the new Star Wars MMO.

#15 Mar 25 2011 at 10:46 AM Rating: Decent
*
176 posts
I think one of the reasons S-E insists on making their systems so complex in FFXI and FFXIV is to deter private servers. If you look at FFXI, when Project FFXI was in full swing, they were still missing large chunks of code because of the complexity of some of S-E's algorithms (like for crafting.) Because they're kept server side, anyone wanting to run their own server would have to reverse engineer the code to figure out exactly how to get something to perform as it does on real servers on their own servers. If it was a simple tiered decimal based system as OP suggests, it wouldn't take very much work at all for people to implement their own mob tables that behave exactly as they do in game.

Just a thought.
____________________________


#16 Mar 25 2011 at 12:41 PM Rating: Good
***
1,636 posts
DoctorMog wrote:
Because half the population wants to be able to solo and the other half wants to be forced into groups.

Making both situations the same SP per hour is the hard part.


Probably completely aside the point, but didnt the last poll show it was like 70-30 in favor of soloing?

Either way, you're right. Can't balance it to be fair to both groups without going for "elite" or group intented mobs.
____________________________


#17 Mar 25 2011 at 1:18 PM Rating: Decent
**
429 posts
Mistress Theonehio wrote:
Defined path = you know how to level.

Which in XIV you know you have to grind therefore there is a defined path to the max level. It's even harder to balance a game where you level through questing which is why MMOs that allow it the non quest grinding leveling is an unbalanced mess.


Is it kind of ironic that you say that grinding is a mess in quest-based-leveling MMOs, but questing is not even an option in grind-based-leveling FFXIV and FFXI?

And no, grinding is not easier to tune. With quests, there's a very clearly defined progression through zones and through quest chains. For grinding, not so much; people kept consistently finding new grind spots throughout FFXI's life span, old ones died, new ones sprung up with each expansion, and it was a general mess. WOW's leveling progression stayed more or less the same up until Blizzard forced it to change in Cataclysm. And only a few crazies complained about leveling being "unbalanced" or whatever.

Hyanmen wrote:
Quote:
Because it's really hard to balance SP gains in a game where you can only level up by grinding and you have no clear defined path to the max level.


Exactly. I don't know if you were trying to be sarcastic here or not, but it is hard when you can't dictate how the players play the game. You hit the nail on the head.

"Grinding" can also be done in various ways (solo, duo, 5 man, 7 man, on puks, on coblyns, on dodos, camping, roaming, guildleves, with 3 dds and a healer or 2 nukers and a tank or 6 tanks and 4 dds etc.). These factors is what makes balancing so hard. Balancing XI was easier because the developers only let the players dictate what mobs to kill and where (and unsurprisingly the devs had the most trouble trying to balance this part of the game). The correct party size was 6, and the correct set-up was tank, 2 dds, refresher/buffer/debuffer, healer, nuker. It's easy to balance and build your gameplay around this set-up, rather than "anything goes". However, due to this the players rarely had the freedom to "choose" how to play, and it was quite a restricting system in the end indeed.



Edited, Mar 25th 2011 4:26pm by Hyanmen


I wasn't being sarcastic. Grinding is just hard as **** to balance properly because people will always go grind on the mobs with the highest respawn rate, lowest HP, easiest abilities, biggest rewards, etc. And when it's the ONLY way to level in an MMO, it's going to be even harder to balance it properly.

Almost every western MMO that's popular right now offers more than one method of leveling; most offer 3+. PVP, grinding, questing, dungeons, etc. And then you can further break these down into solo and group. When you give players a wide variety of options, you can afford to have one method not be as efficient as the others, as long as it's still viable.
#18 Mar 25 2011 at 1:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
Avatar
***
1,235 posts
In XI SE could monitor the general poulation. The difference being the players had more tools available to set parties up, and scout locations. We very quickly fell into an efficient system.
In XIV we can't search an area we know works good for party grinding to see if anyone is there already. Being that these kind of camps/areas are very limited, knowing if eft/raptors/etc are already being grinded on is very important, as teleporting there for no reason costs us a days worth of anima.
We can't player search in a way that makes any **** sense, so putting an SP party together is restricted to LS mates, or random /sh.
In short, searching out new ways to SP in a party is just too much work. Run or teleport all over the world, as mobs are so spread out and intermingled level-wise, finding a good spot is a major chore in running, or a major drain on anima. And you need a party to con and test the fight duration correctly. Good luck finding a group to do all that, when we all kinda know instictively already - we're not gonna find it at the present.

SE can't do an SP balance till we start actually getting SP!. I'm not talking about 7 camps worldwide, leves, or solo coblyn grinding. They have no point of reference atm, because we have the dumbest, amateur, most unintuitive search options in any MMO I've seen. So making parties and searching areas for people/jobs etc is not happening. So party grinding isn't happening. We have no real mobs that are tailored for grinding. It's either 10 second kills, or mobs that'll 2 shot a tank.
They can't tweak SP, because they never had an outline or any idea as to how we were going to get it in the first place.
Until they put some serious thought into that, it'll be fail leves or slow painful grinding post 30.
____________________________


"Don't take it personally man, white knights would eat a can of **** if the label said SE on it. If anyone dared mention that it was not a good product, they'd just argue if someone can't appreciate the subtle nuances in the ****, they should just go back to eating lolrealfood, cuz the devs prolly know more about canning food than they do."
#19 Mar 25 2011 at 3:26 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
For all the essays, the answer is reducible to one word: incompetence.

That aside, SP balance between solo/party that tries to promote party play misses the point entirely. If people are soloing because it's the best xp/sp:hour, or the same rate but easier, then your problem is likely that you haven't made grouping up fun enough. In general, when your players are playing the game with the goal in mind to play it as little as possible (by getting to the endpoint with as little effort as possible), rather than just having fun with the game, you have failed.
____________________________
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.
#20 Mar 25 2011 at 4:07 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
626 posts
Kachi wrote:
For all the essays, the answer is reducible to one word: incompetence.

That aside, SP balance between solo/party that tries to promote party play misses the point entirely. If people are soloing because it's the best xp/sp:hour, or the same rate but easier, then your problem is likely that you haven't made grouping up fun enough. In general, when your players are playing the game with the goal in mind to play it as little as possible (by getting to the endpoint with as little effort as possible), rather than just having fun with the game, you have failed.

awesome response, i totally see and agree with this
____________________________

#21 Mar 27 2011 at 3:07 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
***
2,045 posts
Square were trying to keep everyone happy to get as many players as possible, it can be done but not by an amateur MMO company like Square. They got lucky with FFXI cause they just directly copied Everquest and only had to worry about the party system, they are trying to do something after the fact that is beyond them atm.

They basically messed up the design stage so trying to redesign things now is a horrible mess, I don't envy their jobs working on FFXIV atm.
____________________________
BANNED
#22 Mar 27 2011 at 7:31 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,041 posts
preludes wrote:
Square were trying to keep everyone happy to get as many players as possible, it can be done


Are humans playing MMORPGs? If so then no it can't be done because human nature prevents there being 100% happiness in everything -- Just play a few MMOs, when people get what they want they'll still be unsatisfied and unhappy that it wasn't better than they hoped for.

You can't make everyone happy because everyone isn't the same.

preludes wrote:
They got lucky with FFXI cause they just directly copied Everquest and only had to worry about the party system, they are trying to do something after the fact that is beyond them atm.


XI didn't play like EQ, unless I've played the wrong EQ lol. It was inspired by it but XI definitely had its own identity at the time.

So I wouldn't say a decade service is "luck" because luck runs out pretty quickly in terms of the gaming industry.
#23 Mar 27 2011 at 9:30 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,045 posts
Quote:
So I wouldn't say a decade service is "luck" because luck runs out pretty quickly in terms of the gaming industry.


Well given just how way off the mark 14 is and how many of the same people worked on both games I can think of no other reason for XI being good aside from luck, lets be honest they didn't change anything much on it for a long long time for fear of breaking something they had no idea why was so successfull.

Also it helps releasing a game into a market with little to no competition and even more in terms of loyalty if you get a playerbase made up of gamers that have never played an MMO before, which is what happened with FFXI.

They were lucky with XI, in many different ways. Just how bad 14 is and how hilariously wrong they got it shows that without a shadow of a doubt. You can expect a degree of bad things in a new game from any company but just how badly they failed in almost every way on a big name title is just...amazing.
____________________________
BANNED
#24 Mar 27 2011 at 10:00 AM Rating: Good
***
1,636 posts
SE just didnt change with the times. Who knows FXIV could have been a hit in 1999-2002, but from todays standards, I can get better gameplay from browser games.
____________________________


#25 Mar 27 2011 at 10:03 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,041 posts
preludes wrote:

They were lucky with XI, in many different ways. Just how bad 14 is and how hilariously wrong they got it shows that without a shadow of a doubt. You can expect a degree of bad things in a new game from any company but just how badly they failed in almost every way on a big name title is just...amazing.



Actually, SE admitted the problem with XIV was because they wanted to try to make it as different from XI as possible -- That means if they actually built off of what XI accomplished instead of throwing it out, it would have been a lot better than it is.

What actually happened with XI and why I didn't play it originally was because like me many FF fans didn't think an online FF game would work or would be a black sheep title like Mystic Quest, but surprisingly, people eventually warmed up to the idea of an online FF game and it got an international release and well, rest is history of love/hate.

It was a bad choice to ignore XI to try something different, which as said, they admitted. So in all honesty, if XIV launched with every end-game system, job system with current flexibility that XIV offered, very large storyline that XI built as well as type of reward systems (Assault/Campaign/Magian that lets you work toward something) in terms of size of course, not direct copy -- we can safely say it would have done a **** of a lot better -- instead they wanted to try something different that was unfinished and ended up being rushed out to pad financial reports.

So I understand what you're saying, but you also have to take into consideration there actually is a reason XIV is the way it is, not because they got lucky with XI and couldn't reproduce the luck, but because of a bad decision on ignoring what they did with their last online game even on the basic of levels, e.g Search System, Party based grinding etc.

Seiken Densetsu 3 was better than Seiken Densetsu 2, so it's not a case of "being lucky the first time", it's the case of whether you make a good or bad design decision -- XIV's was a bad design decision to step away from XI instead of building off of it.





Edited, Mar 27th 2011 2:47pm by Jennestia
#26 Mar 27 2011 at 10:24 AM Rating: Good
***
3,530 posts
Mithsavvy wrote:
As for solo versus group play, why is this so hard? It worked ok in FFXI. The fundamental truth about soloers is that they are willing to accept less exp/hr in exchange for the flexibility or soloing. So build the game such that soloers can gain about half the sp/hr that groups can gain. If that isn't working then bump it up to 60% and see what happens. If still no one is soloing bump it to 70% and see what happens. If all of a sudden everyone is soloing, then knock it back down some.


I'd QFT the whole post if it wasn't for my desire to save space. This part, however, I think is particularly accurate.
____________________________
"... he called to himself a wizard, named Gallery, hoping by this means to escape the paying of the fifteen hundred crowns..." (Machen 15)

"Thus opium is pleasing... on account of the agreeable delirium it produces." (Burke para.6)

"I could only read so much for this paper and the syphilis poem had to go."
#27 Mar 27 2011 at 12:57 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
351 posts
Jennestia wrote:
preludes wrote:
They got lucky with FFXI cause they just directly copied Everquest and only had to worry about the party system, they are trying to do something after the fact that is beyond them atm.


XI didn't play like EQ, unless I've played the wrong EQ lol. It was inspired by it but XI definitely had its own identity at the time.

So I wouldn't say a decade service is "luck" because luck runs out pretty quickly in terms of the gaming industry.


However, EQ never had the gravitational pull against FFXI that WoW had against FFXIV. FFXIV is in an incredibly tough market to get started in. Even a game like Rift which had all its ducks in a row is going to need a miracle to retain their fickle WoW-sian playerbase from getting bored and going "back home" to WoW. For FFXIV to make a comeback against the severe odds it finds itself against will be nothing short of divine intervention.
#28 Mar 27 2011 at 3:23 PM Rating: Good
***
3,530 posts
ForceOfMeh wrote:
FFXIV is in an incredibly tough market to get started in....For FFXIV to make a comeback against the severe odds it finds itself against will be nothing short of divine intervention.


Make an FFXI-clone = ~150,000 - 200,000 guaranteed subscribers for years. Doesn't seem like divine intervention is necessary in such a case.

You must remember that FFXIV is not "getting started," they already had/have their FFXI capital. In one of the early surveys from Erozeapedia, a survey of thousands, most players of FFXIV declared themselves "long time FFXI players." FFXIV could be a quiet, moderate success just by tapping a portion of the player-base that it had from the beginning.
____________________________
"... he called to himself a wizard, named Gallery, hoping by this means to escape the paying of the fifteen hundred crowns..." (Machen 15)

"Thus opium is pleasing... on account of the agreeable delirium it produces." (Burke para.6)

"I could only read so much for this paper and the syphilis poem had to go."
#29 Mar 27 2011 at 3:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
**
351 posts
KaneKitty wrote:
Make an FFXI-clone = ~150,000 - 200,000 guaranteed subscribers for years. Doesn't seem like divine intervention is necessary in such a case.


Precedent says you're wrong:
http://www.mmocrunch.com/2008/04/30/sequels-for-mmorpgs-death/
#30 Mar 27 2011 at 4:11 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,636 posts
ForceOfMeh wrote:
KaneKitty wrote:
Make an FFXI-clone = ~150,000 - 200,000 guaranteed subscribers for years. Doesn't seem like divine intervention is necessary in such a case.


Precedent says you're wrong:
http://www.mmocrunch.com/2008/04/30/sequels-for-mmorpgs-death/


Games can't just expect to directly follow up with a sequel like that. You have to add enough to make it significantly better, otherwise, yeah the original is going to stay better. The rewards, friendships, history is already there. Its why no "wow-clone" has done well so far. I think rift may be right on the line as far as what it takes for a game to use a working formula, improve on it, and actually take players away from the "source" game.

Whats not a great call, is when you ignore what got you your fan base from the beginning, effectively start from scratch, and just roll the dice creating a new game.


To go back on topic though, SE seems to be trying to have their cake and eat it too. Its near impossible to make a mob that is soloable around an even level, and still have it be challenging and rewarding when fought by a group of lower levels. Too many numbers need to be tweaked to make it a good game design, its likely going to be far too rewarding or too punishing. Now I'm going off of my memory here, but I seem to recall roughly 70% of japanese players preferring to solo for SP, and slightly less for NA players in the last player survey. What I think they need to do, is setup group intended mobs for players who actually want to do that, and I think they are on their way now that they have setup optimal group sizes of 4, and 8.
____________________________


#31 Mar 27 2011 at 5:00 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
351 posts
KujaKoF wrote:
ForceOfMeh wrote:
KaneKitty wrote:
Make an FFXI-clone = ~150,000 - 200,000 guaranteed subscribers for years. Doesn't seem like divine intervention is necessary in such a case.


Precedent says you're wrong:
http://www.mmocrunch.com/2008/04/30/sequels-for-mmorpgs-death/


Games can't just expect to directly follow up with a sequel like that. You have to add enough to make it significantly better, otherwise, yeah the original is going to stay better. The rewards, friendships, history is already there. Its why no "wow-clone" has done well so far. I think rift may be right on the line as far as what it takes for a game to use a working formula, improve on it, and actually take players away from the "source" game.

Whats not a great call, is when you ignore what got you your fan base from the beginning, effectively start from scratch, and just roll the dice creating a new game.


Rift is basically the WoW2 that Blizzard didn't want to make because they knew it would fail (in comparison to the original). It will appeal to WoW players who don't like the direction Cataclysm has taken WoW for awhile. However, I think many of these players will get Rift out of their system and head back to WoW once the novelty wears off. These players have status, friendships, memories, and a substantial time/financial investment in WoW already, and it will be very hard for them to completely turn their backs on it to start all over in a blatant clone of one of their favorite games.

Like a WoW2, Rift would only really attract a fraction of the numbers of what WoW had. However, a fraction of WoW players is a pretty substantial number, so as long as they're realistic about the audience they can attract, it might be good enough to eek out an existence. But there's no way it will be a "WoW-killer."

You could try to make FFXIV like a FFXI-2, but you'll just have the same problems, and FFXI doesn't have the overwhelming subscriber base that WoW has. Veterans will drift back to FFXI where they had status, friends, and all that invested time and can enjoy all the rich, mature content that FFXIV couldn't possibly offer. People tired of FFXI won't want to play what amounts to a FFXI-clone with a fresh coat of paint. FFXIV could never attract the numbers it needs to survive by being a mere imitation of what's been done before.
#32 Mar 27 2011 at 5:18 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,636 posts
ForceOfMeh wrote:
KujaKoF wrote:
ForceOfMeh wrote:
KaneKitty wrote:
Make an FFXI-clone = ~150,000 - 200,000 guaranteed subscribers for years. Doesn't seem like divine intervention is necessary in such a case.


Precedent says you're wrong:
http://www.mmocrunch.com/2008/04/30/sequels-for-mmorpgs-death/


Games can't just expect to directly follow up with a sequel like that. You have to add enough to make it significantly better, otherwise, yeah the original is going to stay better. The rewards, friendships, history is already there. Its why no "wow-clone" has done well so far. I think rift may be right on the line as far as what it takes for a game to use a working formula, improve on it, and actually take players away from the "source" game.

Whats not a great call, is when you ignore what got you your fan base from the beginning, effectively start from scratch, and just roll the dice creating a new game.


Rift is basically the WoW2 that Blizzard didn't want to make because they knew it would fail (in comparison to the original). It will appeal to WoW players who don't like the direction Cataclysm has taken WoW for awhile. However, I think many of these players will get Rift out of their system and head back to WoW once the novelty wears off. These players have status, friendships, memories, and a substantial time/financial investment in WoW already, and it will be very hard for them to completely turn their backs on it to start all over in a blatant clone of one of their favorite games.

Like a WoW2, Rift would only really attract a fraction of the numbers of what WoW had. However, a fraction of WoW players is a pretty substantial number, so as long as they're realistic about the audience they can attract, it might be good enough to eek out an existence. But there's no way it will be a "WoW-killer."

You could try to make FFXIV like a FFXI-2, but you'll just have the same problems, and FFXI doesn't have the overwhelming subscriber base that WoW has. Veterans will drift back to FFXI where they had status, friends, and all that invested time and can enjoy all the rich, mature content that FFXIV couldn't possibly offer. People tired of FFXI won't want to play what amounts to a FFXI-clone with a fresh coat of paint. FFXIV could never attract the numbers it needs to survive by being a mere imitation of what's been done before.



first I would argue that many players, after 8 years, have specifically asked for FFXI-2, with the new coat of paint. FFXIV is a successor in name only. races are the same, and thats about it. Its not currently party focused at all levels, classes are not the same, progressions not the same, etc. FFXIV could succeed by becoming any number of things, all we know so far is what it is will not.

and like I said before. Will rift be the wow killer? probably not. Might it, yes. Its gone further beyond the WOW model than any game before. What will decide it, is did it go far enough beyond what wow has to offer, and has wow stuck around so long that people are bored. by the odds, how many games have tacked wow and failed, tons so its easy to dismiss yet another. Out of everything thats coming out this year, if something does, it will be rift. It actually embraces wow players rather than alienate them.
____________________________


#33 Mar 27 2011 at 5:59 PM Rating: Good
*
68 posts
As far as killing WoW goes, I've seen so many attempts at it that I am sure WoW will be around until Blizzard releases its next MMO. Even then, I'm sure there are people who would play for a little while longer. It's a hard game to compete with, because it offers a decent amount of content for a variety of players. There just happen to be people who like "that sort" of system, and that's fine. They can play WoW all day, (if they skip school), and it won't bother me. I'm not a WoW-fan, but I think even the disgruntled masses of players who hate it would have to admit that it has been around for quite a while. It's still alive and kicking, and I'm sure there is a reason for it, even if I am not a part of it.

So far as balancing SP/EXP, it is a difficult process. Obviously, SE doesn't want us to just sail through the game in a matter of days. The game has shifted toward solo play, or small parties. Leve quests are alright, (ha!), but it does seem that more SP/hour can be gained through grinding mobs. You'll spend less time trying to set up a functioning party, or trying to leve link. On top of that, most grinding mobs are easy to kill and require no strategy. In some leves, one might encounter a mob that much tougher to dispatch. Walking back cuts into time. Time = SP.

The only advantage to doing leves is for the Faction points, and the gil.

To balance this, I would like to think that SE would want to reward players that cooperate, and function well together. An efficient group of people should get more SP than someone who chooses to deny the social aspect of the game, and wants to go it alone. If they want to be a "moderate" all-around character, then fine. Let them get moderate SP. But it is counter-productive to punish players who are efficient. Unfortunately, there are parts of the game that do this quite a bit.

As it stands, though, it isn't terribly difficult to level. Just terribly boring. It just takes a while, and it gets less and less fun the more times you hit surplus. Though I would enjoy seeing a system that rewarded players for being productive... I've just gotten used to how bad things are. I'm still waiting for the various system over-hauls that are looming in the distance. I think we can worry about experience gain after that.
#34 Mar 27 2011 at 7:27 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
351 posts
KujaKoF wrote:
first I would argue that many players, after 8 years, have specifically asked for FFXI-2, with the new coat of paint. FFXIV is a successor in name only. races are the same, and thats about it. Its not currently party focused at all levels, classes are not the same, progressions not the same, etc. FFXIV could succeed by becoming any number of things, all we know so far is what it is will not.

and like I said before. Will rift be the wow killer? probably not. Might it, yes. Its gone further beyond the WOW model than any game before. What will decide it, is did it go far enough beyond what wow has to offer, and has wow stuck around so long that people are bored. by the odds, how many games have tacked wow and failed, tons so its easy to dismiss yet another. Out of everything thats coming out this year, if something does, it will be rift. It actually embraces wow players rather than alienate them.


You're just failing to see the larger picture, here.

If Rift woos even 10% of the WoW population, that's 1.2 million subscribers. ****-poor by WoW standards, but for nearly any other MMO, that's worth uncorking champagne over.

If a FFXI-2 style FFXIV woos 10% of the current FFXI population, that's 25k players. May as well declare bankruptcy now...
#35 Mar 27 2011 at 7:47 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,202 posts
ForceOfMeh wrote:
KujaKoF wrote:
first I would argue that many players, after 8 years, have specifically asked for FFXI-2, with the new coat of paint. FFXIV is a successor in name only. races are the same, and thats about it. Its not currently party focused at all levels, classes are not the same, progressions not the same, etc. FFXIV could succeed by becoming any number of things, all we know so far is what it is will not.

and like I said before. Will rift be the wow killer? probably not. Might it, yes. Its gone further beyond the WOW model than any game before. What will decide it, is did it go far enough beyond what wow has to offer, and has wow stuck around so long that people are bored. by the odds, how many games have tacked wow and failed, tons so its easy to dismiss yet another. Out of everything thats coming out this year, if something does, it will be rift. It actually embraces wow players rather than alienate them.


You're just failing to see the larger picture, here.

If Rift woos even 10% of the WoW population, that's 1.2 million subscribers. ****-poor by WoW standards, but for nearly any other MMO, that's worth uncorking champagne over.

If a FFXI-2 style FFXIV woos 10% of the current FFXI population, that's 25k players. May as well declare bankruptcy now...


^^ /Thread
____________________________
MUTED
#36 Mar 27 2011 at 11:31 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,041 posts
Ostia wrote:
ForceOfMeh wrote:

If a FFXI-2 style FFXIV woos 10% of the current FFXI population, that's 25k players. May as well declare bankruptcy now...


^^ /Thread


Interesting -- Thought Square Enix had more projects than just their online games?
#37 Mar 27 2011 at 11:51 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Jennestia wrote:
Ostia wrote:
ForceOfMeh wrote:

If a FFXI-2 style FFXIV woos 10% of the current FFXI population, that's 25k players. May as well declare bankruptcy now...


^^ /Thread


Interesting -- Thought Square Enix had more projects than just their online games?


His point was that spiritual successors of WoW can afford to have relatively poor subscriber bases because WoW is huge; whereas FFXI already has too small a pool of subscribers to support a spiritual (or direct) successor. Therefor it would most likely be a financial disaster to invest the amount it takes to launch an MMO in such a game-- and honestly, an MMO is a large enough an endeavor to sink even SE, not unlike a movie could (*cough*SpiritsWithin). All the little successes in the world don't amount to much with failing major projects. Look at Sega, as an example. In this industry, being a giant doesn't guarantee that you won't fall.
____________________________
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.
#38 Mar 28 2011 at 4:06 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,202 posts
Jennestia wrote:
Ostia wrote:
ForceOfMeh wrote:

If a FFXI-2 style FFXIV woos 10% of the current FFXI population, that's 25k players. May as well declare bankruptcy now...


^^ /Thread


Interesting -- Thought Square Enix had more projects than just their online games?


Now mind you, i hate being negative about Square-Enix, because i really loved Squaresoft, but they are not the same company that they where 10-20 years ago, they do not innovate anymore, most if not every single ****** under Squaresoft, was an innovation for the genre, you knew that if it said Squaresoft, those 30-40 dollars where worth whatever the ****** name was, even if it was not Final Fantasy, look at parasite eve, secret of mana, front mission, romancing saga, chrono trigger, secret of evermore, bahamut lagoon, super mario RPG, secret of the Rudras and IMO the greatest RPG to have ever been developed Xenogears.

Most of the games i mentioned have little to very few similarities in between then, and every single one of them is a classic must play game, that was SQUARESOFT! That's not the same company that is Square-enix, i don't know if is all the talent they have bleed over the years, or if sakaguchi was really the man behind squaresoft's success, or that enix roots run to deep into the company, the fact of the meter is that SE has become a one trick pony, yes their games usually have the best graphics, but always at the cost of something else, be it gameplay, freedom, character development, story(Yes i'm talking about FFXIII & FFXIV), none of their releases after the merger has felt like a Squaresoft release(Except with maybe the world ends with you) they have either been "Ok" or have "Failed" expectations, look at Front mission evolved, a supposedly restart of the entire franchise, failed hard on its face, anybody who has played the game for more than 1hr can tell you exactly where and what went wrong with the game, just as FFIXV.

I'm not saying the company will die or go down, but they are not the same Titan, they once where, not every single of their games is an instant success, and other company's are not following what they are doing, instead they are now leading in innovation and setting standards, while all SE does is re-release old games with a few tweaks here and there, they do not take chances anymore, they only put money on their flagship ******** and all the other series and independent ******* that had made them what they are, are locked down because they are not DQ or FF, where is FFT2 ? Secret of mana 3 ? what about chrono trigger/cross 3 ? WHAT ABOUT XENOGEARS!?!?!

Anyways damm that was a long rant XD! Sorry i just really loved squaresoft, and i'm really disapointed in what my favorite game company has turned :)

And sure feel free to default me for my opinion :P
____________________________
MUTED
#39 Mar 28 2011 at 5:31 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
844 posts
Ostia wrote:

And sure feel free to default me for my opinion :P

Nah you are right, I don't think S has been the same since they added the E.

Wish they didn't but oh well...


____________________________
See your face upon the clear water. How dirty! Come! Wash your face!
#40 Mar 28 2011 at 7:45 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
351 posts
Jennestia wrote:
Ostia wrote:
ForceOfMeh wrote:

If a FFXI-2 style FFXIV woos 10% of the current FFXI population, that's 25k players. May as well declare bankruptcy now...


^^ /Thread


Interesting -- Thought Square Enix had more projects than just their online games?


I was being somewhat hyperbolic there. But I will say SE was projected to lose 91% of its projected profits in fiscal 2010 (ending this month) in part because FFXIV tanked and there is no subscription money coming in from it. It's not bankruptcy inducing, but it's definitely a kick in the balls.
#41 Mar 28 2011 at 8:10 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
Now mind you, i hate being negative about Square-Enix, because i really loved Squaresoft, but they are not the same company that they where 10-20 years ago, they do not innovate anymore, most if not every single ****** under Squaresoft, was an innovation for the genre, you knew that if it said Squaresoft, those 30-40 dollars where worth whatever the ****** name was, even if it was not Final Fantasy, look at parasite eve, secret of mana, front mission, romancing saga, chrono trigger, secret of evermore, bahamut lagoon, super mario RPG, secret of the Rudras and IMO the greatest RPG to have ever been developed Xenogears.


Aw, that's not true. They still innovate-- off the top of my head, Dissidia was innovative, as was FFXIII. In the latter's case, we can see that innovation doesn't always turn out especially well. Innovation can be great, but it's not essential, nor does it ensure success. A great game is a great combination of great elements-- they don't have to be brand new, never before seen elements.
____________________________
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.
#42 Mar 28 2011 at 8:32 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,707 posts
ForceOfMeh wrote:
KujaKoF wrote:
first I would argue that many players, after 8 years, have specifically asked for FFXI-2, with the new coat of paint. FFXIV is a successor in name only. races are the same, and thats about it. Its not currently party focused at all levels, classes are not the same, progressions not the same, etc. FFXIV could succeed by becoming any number of things, all we know so far is what it is will not.

and like I said before. Will rift be the wow killer? probably not. Might it, yes. Its gone further beyond the WOW model than any game before. What will decide it, is did it go far enough beyond what wow has to offer, and has wow stuck around so long that people are bored. by the odds, how many games have tacked wow and failed, tons so its easy to dismiss yet another. Out of everything thats coming out this year, if something does, it will be rift. It actually embraces wow players rather than alienate them.


You're just failing to see the larger picture, here.

If Rift woos even 10% of the WoW population, that's 1.2 million subscribers. ****-poor by WoW standards, but for nearly any other MMO, that's worth uncorking champagne over.

If a FFXI-2 style FFXIV woos 10% of the current FFXI population, that's 25k players. May as well declare bankruptcy now...


Obviously that comparison is pointless. The successor to a game should "woo" a much greater percentage than 10%. FFXI-2 I would imagine would ultimately "woo" the vast majority of FFXI players. The goal would be to transition all FFXI players to FFXI-2, plus some non FFXI players.

Just like WoW-2 would have no problem wooing the vast majority of WoW players, that is, assuming they did not specifically try ot make WoW-2 drastically different than WoW - and ***** it all up in the process.

I'm in the crowd that thinks they should have gone for more of a FFXI-2 approach. I realize saying that now is easy. They could ultimately still end up there - and I think they need to if they want to make some money on this game. You can have FFXI-2 and still tweak enough things to make it a little more "mainstream". I think if begin heading in that direction now it would not take long to end up with exactly that product. It will all depend on the battle system changes and the type of content we get, obviously.

#43 Mar 28 2011 at 8:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
**
351 posts
Mithsavvy wrote:
ForceOfMeh wrote:
KujaKoF wrote:
first I would argue that many players, after 8 years, have specifically asked for FFXI-2, with the new coat of paint. FFXIV is a successor in name only. races are the same, and thats about it. Its not currently party focused at all levels, classes are not the same, progressions not the same, etc. FFXIV could succeed by becoming any number of things, all we know so far is what it is will not.

and like I said before. Will rift be the wow killer? probably not. Might it, yes. Its gone further beyond the WOW model than any game before. What will decide it, is did it go far enough beyond what wow has to offer, and has wow stuck around so long that people are bored. by the odds, how many games have tacked wow and failed, tons so its easy to dismiss yet another. Out of everything thats coming out this year, if something does, it will be rift. It actually embraces wow players rather than alienate them.


You're just failing to see the larger picture, here.

If Rift woos even 10% of the WoW population, that's 1.2 million subscribers. ****-poor by WoW standards, but for nearly any other MMO, that's worth uncorking champagne over.

If a FFXI-2 style FFXIV woos 10% of the current FFXI population, that's 25k players. May as well declare bankruptcy now...


Obviously that comparison is pointless. The successor to a game should "woo" a much greater percentage than 10%. FFXI-2 I would imagine would ultimately "woo" the vast majority of FFXI players. The goal would be to transition all FFXI players to FFXI-2, plus some non FFXI players.

Just like WoW-2 would have no problem wooing the vast majority of WoW players, that is, assuming they did not specifically try ot make WoW-2 drastically different than WoW - and ***** it all up in the process.


Pointless? Or you just don't want to hear it.

My assertion is that Rift is effectively a WoW-2, a blatant copy that closely builds on the original for that WoW-but-better feel. But while history has shown there's no "spiritual sequel" of an MMO that's ever done well, WoW is a big block off which to chip some subscribers.

FFXI doesn't have much of a base. At its peak it was in between 500k - 600k subs and they've done two sets of server merges since then. It's likely in the neighborhood of 250k - 300k subs about now, and even most of them probably aren't playing much anymore. Even if, let's say, 100% of FFXI subscribers join FFXIV for good (because they all want a FFXI-2 that much), it would be an incredibly shaky beginning for FFXIV because it's such a small audience.

And how do you sell that to the general population who wanted nothing to with FFXI anymore or even in the first place? You can't!

FFXI-2 is a dream that's doomed to failure. It has no chance of working out.
#44 Mar 28 2011 at 9:03 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:

Obviously that comparison is pointless. The successor to a game should "woo" a much greater percentage than 10%. FFXI-2 I would imagine would ultimately "woo" the vast majority of FFXI players. The goal would be to transition all FFXI players to FFXI-2, plus some non FFXI players.

Just like WoW-2 would have no problem wooing the vast majority of WoW players, that is, assuming they did not specifically try ot make WoW-2 drastically different than WoW - and ***** it all up in the process.


It wouldn't work for many of the reasons given in the linked article. Most players don't want to start their character over when they already have so much invested into their current one, much less to experience what is basically the same game they have already played. If they're going to move on, they want something new-- something that promises to be substantially better. That's difficult enough with competitors who have a ten-year lead on you, let alone when you're starting over from nothing by copying an already ten-year old game.
____________________________
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.
#45 Mar 28 2011 at 9:16 AM Rating: Default
***
2,202 posts
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
Now mind you, i hate being negative about Square-Enix, because i really loved Squaresoft, but they are not the same company that they where 10-20 years ago, they do not innovate anymore, most if not every single ****** under Squaresoft, was an innovation for the genre, you knew that if it said Squaresoft, those 30-40 dollars where worth whatever the ****** name was, even if it was not Final Fantasy, look at parasite eve, secret of mana, front mission, romancing saga, chrono trigger, secret of evermore, bahamut lagoon, super mario RPG, secret of the Rudras and IMO the greatest RPG to have ever been developed Xenogears.


Aw, that's not true. They still innovate-- off the top of my head, Dissidia was innovative, as was FFXIII. In the latter's case, we can see that innovation doesn't always turn out especially well. Innovation can be great, but it's not essential, nor does it ensure success. A great game is a great combination of great elements-- they don't have to be brand new, never before seen elements.


Dissidia was not innovative, it was not MK or SF or any of that, it was a fan service, and yes it was a good game, but that was it, and FFXIII was innovative how ? tunneling ? having X as an I win button ? sure the battle system was way faster paced than any other FF in history, but other than that, what was innovative about it ?

And i agree a game does not need to innovate or re-design the industry, but as of late, is not just one ******* one ****** i can forgive, every company has atleast a horrible ****** (Paper mario, Breath of fire V?)
____________________________
MUTED
#46 Mar 28 2011 at 9:30 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
*****
12,707 posts
Ostia wrote:
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
Now mind you, i hate being negative about Square-Enix, because i really loved Squaresoft, but they are not the same company that they where 10-20 years ago, they do not innovate anymore, most if not every single ****** under Squaresoft, was an innovation for the genre, you knew that if it said Squaresoft, those 30-40 dollars where worth whatever the ****** name was, even if it was not Final Fantasy, look at parasite eve, secret of mana, front mission, romancing saga, chrono trigger, secret of evermore, bahamut lagoon, super mario RPG, secret of the Rudras and IMO the greatest RPG to have ever been developed Xenogears.


Aw, that's not true. They still innovate-- off the top of my head, Dissidia was innovative, as was FFXIII. In the latter's case, we can see that innovation doesn't always turn out especially well. Innovation can be great, but it's not essential, nor does it ensure success. A great game is a great combination of great elements-- they don't have to be brand new, never before seen elements.


Dissidia was not innovative, it was not MK or SF or any of that, it was a fan service, and yes it was a good game, but that was it, and FFXIII was innovative how ? tunneling ? having X as an I win button ? sure the battle system was way faster paced than any other FF in history, but other than that, what was innovative about it ?

And i agree a game does not need to innovate or re-design the industry, but as of late, is not just one ******* one ****** i can forgive, every company has atleast a horrible ****** (Paper mario, Breath of fire V?)


I wonder how many people played the original Street Fighter? Innovation to the series, look at every FF game post II, they all offered a new type of system to the series, with X, X-2, XII and XIII sharing 1 similar character progression, a sphere grid type of leveling progression, but XIII also brought back/redid weapon building to get to the ultimate path.

Dissidia was the first real FF fighting game (you can argue Ehrgeiz) and the gameplay style was pretty interesting. Mortal Kombat I wouldn't say innovated anything beyond overuse of gore...since you can argue the same for Killer Instinct or Clay Fighter as being 'innovative'.

Also what was wrong with Paper Mario? You could argue Super Paper Mario was innovative in a way with merging 2D and 3D platforming.





____________________________

#47 Mar 28 2011 at 10:16 AM Rating: Default
***
2,202 posts
Mistress Theonehio wrote:
Ostia wrote:
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
Now mind you, i hate being negative about Square-Enix, because i really loved Squaresoft, but they are not the same company that they where 10-20 years ago, they do not innovate anymore, most if not every single ****** under Squaresoft, was an innovation for the genre, you knew that if it said Squaresoft, those 30-40 dollars where worth whatever the ****** name was, even if it was not Final Fantasy, look at parasite eve, secret of mana, front mission, romancing saga, chrono trigger, secret of evermore, bahamut lagoon, super mario RPG, secret of the Rudras and IMO the greatest RPG to have ever been developed Xenogears.


Aw, that's not true. They still innovate-- off the top of my head, Dissidia was innovative, as was FFXIII. In the latter's case, we can see that innovation doesn't always turn out especially well. Innovation can be great, but it's not essential, nor does it ensure success. A great game is a great combination of great elements-- they don't have to be brand new, never before seen elements.


Dissidia was not innovative, it was not MK or SF or any of that, it was a fan service, and yes it was a good game, but that was it, and FFXIII was innovative how ? tunneling ? having X as an I win button ? sure the battle system was way faster paced than any other FF in history, but other than that, what was innovative about it ?

And i agree a game does not need to innovate or re-design the industry, but as of late, is not just one ******* one ****** i can forgive, every company has atleast a horrible ****** (Paper mario, Breath of fire V?)


I wonder how many people played the original Street Fighter? Innovation to the series, look at every FF game post II, they all offered a new type of system to the series, with X, X-2, XII and XIII sharing 1 similar character progression, a sphere grid type of leveling progression, but XIII also brought back/redid weapon building to get to the ultimate path.

Dissidia was the first real FF fighting game (you can argue Ehrgeiz) and the gameplay style was pretty interesting. Mortal Kombat I wouldn't say innovated anything beyond overuse of gore...since you can argue the same for Killer Instinct or Clay Fighter as being 'innovative'.

Also what was wrong with Paper Mario? You could argue Super Paper Mario was innovative in a way with merging 2D and 3D platforming.



I think you dint understand what i was saying in a way, i never said FF dint innovate, in fact i said that the old squaresoft innovated outside of their main series(FF II and foward to FFXI) and IMO FFXII is their most complete FF ****** to date( I still prefer FF6 ) it had so many things from previous game, yet it lacked a more deep storyline or atleast i feel like it could have been longer, like it needs a sequel or they could have just done so much more with the storyline, as for FFXIII i really tried to like it, i went bough the game on release, then i was like "WTF is this?" and i do realize what they where trying to do with it, is just that for my taste, they gave up to many things for them.

As for Dissidia well, it was fun, to me it was fan service, it dint had a great battle system, and the storylines where well not the best, but again i toke it for what it was, fan service, as for paper mario i dont know, it felt out of place lol, tho i agree that super mario was a great game, a big leap foward as mario III for the nes was
____________________________
MUTED
#48 Mar 28 2011 at 10:23 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:

Dissidia was not innovative, it was not MK or SF or any of that, it was a fan service, and yes it was a good game, but that was it, and FFXIII was innovative how ? tunneling ? having X as an I win button ? sure the battle system was way faster paced than any other FF in history, but other than that, what was innovative about it ?


Uh, Dissidia was PLENTY innovative. The Break/HP system is innovative-- ****, just the fact that it's a Fighter/RPG is innovative. On top of which, it's a pretty good 3D fighter on its own, but adding to that you can equip abilities, accessories, and a "summon" to a number of characters with very distinct playstyles. The level progression interface and achievement style additions are hardly ripped straight out of the old playbook either. Not to mention a perfectly respectable story and plenty of incentive to replay on each character. It's a superb game, and honestly gave me the greatest optimism for the direction of FFXIV before the curtain was lifted.

Did you ever even PLAY the game?

As for FFXIII, well, it was innovative in the sense that it wasn't even really an RPG, for starters. The battle mechanics were completely innovative. Beyond that, improved graphics standards have always been a marker of innovation-- it's what has made many of the FF titles feel more innovative than they really were. The "tunneling" is fairly innovative, like it or not. I mean, surely you aren't suggesting that they aren't innovative because every aspect of the game wasn't innovative? XIII was easily one of the biggest leaps from its predecessors and definitely introduced elements you won't find in any other RPG, so you can critique the quality, but not the effort to innovate.

Edited, Mar 28th 2011 9:24am by Kachi
____________________________
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.
#49 Mar 28 2011 at 11:22 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
970 posts
XIV is on the precipice of something profound. Which direction the game goes will be known shortly. They have alot of solid potential of casual and innovation in the game. Most of it has been drowned with lag, vague tutorials, non streamlined crafting, non streamlined markets, repetitive landscapes, repetitive animations, repetitive guildleves, lack of content, and various other issues. Looking at some of the reasons I listed, do you see a common reason for these problems? Other than the lag, most of these are due to insufficient development time. Which everyone knows already right. You can argue whether you like market wards or ah more. Or you could argue that crafting or repairs aren't great. But you can't argue that they have improved substantially since launch with increased tlc/dev time can you?

XIV already has one thing working against it's sub base even if the game becomes perfect. That is the need for a solid computer to run it smoothly. The game doesn't need harsh penalties or restrictions that impede you having fun or finding groups. While I do think we need more unique animations, skills, etc. Imo they should be more restrictive than now, but not to the point of XI or other mmos. Here's my opinion:

1.Make weaponskills and certain high tier spells 100% unique to the respective class.
2.Make each single class very one dimensional sorta similar to FF tactics(not have innate dual role skills, this shouldn't be a big problem due to cross classing)
3.Make actions cost 1/2 or nothing when using innate skills for the class you are playing as.
4.Increase enemy HP and fix emnity.
5.Introduce more timing mechanic to battle regiments.
6.Either make an extended battle queue aka semi auto attack or reimplement the alpha accuracy meter and make it fully realized.(Affect potency, power, AoE range, shorten or lengthen cooldowns,etc.

Overall just continue streamlining old and new features from birth to death of this mmo and add content, content, content, Sorry if this is the wrong thread for my post. I just saw the discussion shift from SP to many other topics.
#50 Mar 28 2011 at 12:53 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
844 posts
Sorry, dissidia and 13 may have been good games but innvoation had little to do with it.

And take for example, 3rd birthday and lord of arcana, plain crap, copycat repetitive grindy gameplay.

Dissidia 2 should be called dissidia champion edition, you are really playing the same game all over again.


SE may still put out good games once in a while but they don't innvoate, they simply improve over what they did before, or apply a new layer of gimmick to try and keep it fresh. Which is what every established game house does 95%, not really a bad thing.
____________________________
See your face upon the clear water. How dirty! Come! Wash your face!
#51 Mar 28 2011 at 1:33 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
*****
12,707 posts
Ilean wrote:

Dissidia 2 should be called dissidia champion edition, you are really playing the same game all over again.


Exactly, same game with a bit more to it, it won't be widly differently, since I mean it worked for:

The six versions of Street Fighter II:
World Warrior
Champion Edition
Hyper Fighting
New Challengers
Turbo
Anniversary Edition

So not drastically changing what works isn't that bad of a thing. They do Innovate for within their series, which Final Fantasy games offers different systems somewhere that's generally unique to the series.

____________________________

« Previous 1 2
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 20 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (20)