Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3
This Forum is Read Only

for ppl that complain about turn based combat in mmoFollow

#1 Dec 02 2012 at 12:51 PM Rating: Default
****
4,957 posts
Nope, not an official alpha video, sorry.

umm look at the fight at around 4:17... that looks just as turn based as FFXI to me..... yet FFXI is old/outdated whereas this is considered good/different?

Edited, Dec 2nd 2012 1:01pm by Wint
#2 Dec 02 2012 at 1:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Anterograde Amnesia
Avatar
*****
12,363 posts
Look folks it's simple, if it isn't on the official FFXIV youtube channel, don't post it. I don't want to ban anyone but I will if we keep posting this video. Thanks.
____________________________
"Choosy MMO's choose Wint." - Louiscool
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the world he didn't exist.
Keyser Soze - Ultros
Guide to Setting Up Mumble on a Raspberry Pi
#3 Dec 02 2012 at 1:13 PM Rating: Decent
**
598 posts
Wint wrote:
Look folks it's simple, if it isn't on the official FFXIV youtube channel, don't post it. I don't want to ban anyone but I will if we keep posting this video. Thanks.


You're slipping Wint. I got to see that one!

In all seriousness. What's this turn base battle about? Is there a Devil May Cry mmo I'm unaware of? Does Bayonetta make an appearance? Am I off the mark?
____________________________
Sour Cherry
#4 Dec 02 2012 at 1:15 PM Rating: Default
****
4,957 posts
ShindaUsagi wrote:


In all seriousness. What's this turn base battle about? Is there a Devil May Cry mmo I'm unaware of? Does Bayonetta make an appearance? Am I off the mark?



that sthe EXACT point I tried to make in the thread where we had said discussion.... so yeah someone please point me in the direction of teh MMO that plays like devil may cry because I WANT to see that lol
#5 Dec 02 2012 at 1:34 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,112 posts
Its not turn based anyway, its just slower than playing Street Fighter or something. Turn based implies that whatever you're fighting cannot take any action until you've taken yours and vice versa which is just not the case. Unless you're playing an actual turn based MMO like Dofus or Atlantica Online that is.

Examples like WoW, XIV 1/2.0, SW:TOR etc are not turn based at all. Combat might not be "fast paced" but it isn't turn based either. The confusion is when people are looking at newer more action orientated MMO's such as Guild Wars 2 or Tera where damage migitation does not come from (by large) abilities or roles of classes but through active dodging of enemy attacks a-la Monster Hunter. So ARR doesn't employ this. That doesn't make it turn based.
____________________________
To endanger the soul endangers all,
when the soul is endangered it must become a Warrior.
#6 Dec 02 2012 at 1:52 PM Rating: Decent
**
598 posts
Kordain wrote:
Its not turn based anyway, its just slower than playing Street Fighter or something. Turn based implies that whatever you're fighting cannot take any action until you've taken yours and vice versa which is just not the case. Unless you're playing an actual turn based MMO like Dofus or Atlantica Online that is.

Examples like WoW, XIV 1/2.0, SW:TOR etc are not turn based at all. Combat might not be "fast paced" but it isn't turn based either. The confusion is when people are looking at newer more action orientated MMO's such as Guild Wars 2 or Tera where damage migitation does not come from (by large) abilities or roles of classes but through active dodging of enemy attacks a-la Monster Hunter. So ARR doesn't employ this. That doesn't make it turn based.


I'm a pretty naive kitty when it comes to these type of arguments. For instance I assume the whole 'turn base' stigma games like this receive is due to the timers. I hear non- turn base and I assume live action combo. IDK. I haven't seen a discussion. I've only seen one-liner arguments in derailing posts.
____________________________
Sour Cherry
#7 Dec 02 2012 at 3:01 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
The presence of timers still doesn't really make it turn-based, but there are definitely some conceptual similarities between the two systems. Basically, the argument is becoming one of semantics because some people don't understand basic game elements. What some people are trying to say is that they want a more reflexive combat system, probably one that includes elements of aim (e.g., dodging, aiming attacks) and timing. But trying to label a game as turn-based or action when almost every game has some elements of both is silly. What we have here is an inability to articulate what we want.
____________________________
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.
#8 Dec 02 2012 at 3:14 PM Rating: Decent
**
598 posts
Kachi wrote:
The presence of timers still doesn't really make it turn-based, but there are definitely some conceptual similarities between the two systems. Basically, the argument is becoming one of semantics because some people don't understand basic game elements. What some people are trying to say is that they want a more reflexive combat system, probably one that includes elements of aim (e.g., dodging, aiming attacks) and timing. But trying to label a game as turn-based or action when almost every game has some elements of both is silly. What we have here is an inability to articulate what we want.


By no means am I calling anything turn base. It's simply my limited understanding of the argument that encourages me to assume.

By your account however, and forgive me if I'm wrong, people want a third person action game. Or a FPS. They want Bayonetta co-op.
____________________________
Sour Cherry
#9 Dec 02 2012 at 3:41 PM Rating: Decent
Or something like DC Universe Online.
____________________________
Our team is like a flock of woodpeckers in a petrified forest. We just need to keep working and keep an eye open for opportunity.

FFXI
Toofar - Asura (Formerly of Lakshmi (Garuda)) - WHM BLM SMN
Rafoot - Asura (Formerly of Lakshmi (Garuda)) - THF SAM BRD
#10 Dec 02 2012 at 4:54 PM Rating: Decent
**
598 posts
IKickYoDog wrote:
Or something like DC Universe Online.


What about it compared to argument? Please. Educate me.
____________________________
Sour Cherry
#11 Dec 02 2012 at 5:08 PM Rating: Decent
ShindaUsagi wrote:
IKickYoDog wrote:
Or something like DC Universe Online.


What about it compared to argument? Please. Educate me.


DC Universe is a reactive, button mashing game. You hit a button for every attack you want to do. There are abilities, combos, and blocking. Blocking in PVE reduces damage, while blocking in PVP stuns and knocks down your opponent. using ranged attacks against a blocking opponent will stun them, allowing you to close in for free hits. combos deal higher damage with their finishing moves, often dealing critical hits. There is some RPG progression with abilities that are unlocked with ability points that are earned through levels and endgame gear earned through raids.

Class dismissed Smiley: wink
____________________________
Our team is like a flock of woodpeckers in a petrified forest. We just need to keep working and keep an eye open for opportunity.

FFXI
Toofar - Asura (Formerly of Lakshmi (Garuda)) - WHM BLM SMN
Rafoot - Asura (Formerly of Lakshmi (Garuda)) - THF SAM BRD
#12 Dec 02 2012 at 5:14 PM Rating: Good
**
598 posts
IKickYoDog wrote:
ShindaUsagi wrote:
IKickYoDog wrote:
Or something like DC Universe Online.


What about it compared to argument? Please. Educate me.


DC Universe is a reactive, button mashing game. You hit a button for every attack you want to do. There are abilities, combos, and blocking. Blocking in PVE reduces damage, while blocking in PVP stuns and knocks down your opponent. using ranged attacks against a blocking opponent will stun them, allowing you to close in for free hits. combos deal higher damage with their finishing moves, often dealing critical hits. There is some RPG progression with abilities that are unlocked with ability points that are earned through levels and endgame gear earned through raids.

Class dismissed Smiley: wink


~laughs~

I was being sincere with my question. "Class dismissed" indeed.

So this is what the modern mmo base wants? Button mashing? This is the argument? I'm honestly trying to understand. DCU is getting it right?
____________________________
Sour Cherry
#13 Dec 02 2012 at 5:24 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,145 posts
ShindaUsagi wrote:
Kachi wrote:
The presence of timers still doesn't really make it turn-based, but there are definitely some conceptual similarities between the two systems. Basically, the argument is becoming one of semantics because some people don't understand basic game elements. What some people are trying to say is that they want a more reflexive combat system, probably one that includes elements of aim (e.g., dodging, aiming attacks) and timing. But trying to label a game as turn-based or action when almost every game has some elements of both is silly. What we have here is an inability to articulate what we want.


By no means am I calling anything turn base. It's simply my limited understanding of the argument that encourages me to assume.

By your account however, and forgive me if I'm wrong, people want a third person action game. Or a FPS. They want Bayonetta co-op.


I can't speak on behalf of everyone because people want different things, but personally I would like more to manage over the course of a battle. The previous and current implemented battle systems in XI/XIV revolve around starting with a resource and draining it using abilities or using auto-attacks to build the resource needed to use abilities.

IMO they need to add abilities that require more thought and planning to use. Actively dodging, parrying or blocking incoming attacks would be a start. They could also add abilities that are cooldown based and have no ties to TP or MP. It would also be nice to see abilities along those lines that require other conditions to be met in order to activate. Things like a cooldown that reflects a portion of magic damage back at the attacker if the incoming damage is magical, but is consumed or even increases physical damage taken if the attack is non-magical.

Generally, things that require quicker thinking than being afk while you're building TP, using a WS and then going afk again until you have enough TP for the next WS.

____________________________
Rinsui wrote:
Only hips + boobs all day and hips + boobs all over my icecream

HaibaneRenmei wrote:
30 bucks is almost free

cocodojo wrote:
Its personal preference and all, but yes we need to educate WoW players that this is OUR game, these are Characters and not Toons. Time to beat that into them one at a time.
#14 Dec 02 2012 at 5:29 PM Rating: Decent
ShindaUsagi wrote:
IKickYoDog wrote:
ShindaUsagi wrote:
IKickYoDog wrote:
Or something like DC Universe Online.


What about it compared to argument? Please. Educate me.


DC Universe is a reactive, button mashing game. You hit a button for every attack you want to do. There are abilities, combos, and blocking. Blocking in PVE reduces damage, while blocking in PVP stuns and knocks down your opponent. using ranged attacks against a blocking opponent will stun them, allowing you to close in for free hits. combos deal higher damage with their finishing moves, often dealing critical hits. There is some RPG progression with abilities that are unlocked with ability points that are earned through levels and endgame gear earned through raids.

Class dismissed Smiley: wink


~laughs~

I was being sincere with my question. "Class dismissed" indeed.

So this is what the modern mmo base wants? Button mashing? This is the argument? I'm honestly trying to understand. DCU is getting it right?


I know you were just kidding bud. I was simply playing off your "educate me" comment. Hence the emoticon after. As far as getting it right, I can't say. Too many people want different things, but I would like to see a little more interaction during combat. That system also seems to work primarily with a controller setup, so people with a mouse/keyboard might hate it or be ad a disadvantage.
____________________________
Our team is like a flock of woodpeckers in a petrified forest. We just need to keep working and keep an eye open for opportunity.

FFXI
Toofar - Asura (Formerly of Lakshmi (Garuda)) - WHM BLM SMN
Rafoot - Asura (Formerly of Lakshmi (Garuda)) - THF SAM BRD
#15 Dec 02 2012 at 5:35 PM Rating: Good
**
598 posts
FilthMcNasty wrote:
ShindaUsagi wrote:
Kachi wrote:
The presence of timers still doesn't really make it turn-based, but there are definitely some conceptual similarities between the two systems. Basically, the argument is becoming one of semantics because some people don't understand basic game elements. What some people are trying to say is that they want a more reflexive combat system, probably one that includes elements of aim (e.g., dodging, aiming attacks) and timing. But trying to label a game as turn-based or action when almost every game has some elements of both is silly. What we have here is an inability to articulate what we want.


By no means am I calling anything turn base. It's simply my limited understanding of the argument that encourages me to assume.

By your account however, and forgive me if I'm wrong, people want a third person action game. Or a FPS. They want Bayonetta co-op.


I can't speak on behalf of everyone because people want different things, but personally I would like more to manage over the course of a battle. The previous and current implemented battle systems in XI/XIV revolve around starting with a resource and draining it using abilities or using auto-attacks to build the resource needed to use abilities.

IMO they need to add abilities that require more thought and planning to use. Actively dodging, parrying or blocking incoming attacks would be a start. They could also add abilities that are cooldown based and have no ties to TP or MP. It would also be nice to see abilities along those lines that require other conditions to be met in order to activate. Things like a cooldown that reflects a portion of magic damage back at the attacker if? the incoming damage is magical, but is consumed or even increases physical damage taken if the attack is non-magical.

Generally, things that require quicker thinking than being afk while you're building TP, using a WS and then going afk again until you have enough TP for the next WS.



Here I am being ignorant again. What is the difference between my capped acc. or timer compared to a" cool down"? How many seconds are we talking about. I hate feeling ignorant. What am I missing here?
#16 Dec 02 2012 at 5:41 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
***
1,163 posts
FilthMcNasty wrote:
ShindaUsagi wrote:
Kachi wrote:
The presence of timers still doesn't really make it turn-based, but there are definitely some conceptual similarities between the two systems. Basically, the argument is becoming one of semantics because some people don't understand basic game elements. What some people are trying to say is that they want a more reflexive combat system, probably one that includes elements of aim (e.g., dodging, aiming attacks) and timing. But trying to label a game as turn-based or action when almost every game has some elements of both is silly. What we have here is an inability to articulate what we want.


By no means am I calling anything turn base. It's simply my limited understanding of the argument that encourages me to assume.

By your account however, and forgive me if I'm wrong, people want a third person action game. Or a FPS. They want Bayonetta co-op.


I can't speak on behalf of everyone because people want different things, but personally I would like more to manage over the course of a battle. The previous and current implemented battle systems in XI/XIV revolve around starting with a resource and draining it using abilities or using auto-attacks to build the resource needed to use abilities.

IMO they need to add abilities that require more thought and planning to use. Actively dodging, parrying or blocking incoming attacks would be a start. They could also add abilities that are cooldown based and have no ties to TP or MP. It would also be nice to see abilities along those lines that require other conditions to be met in order to activate. Things like a cooldown that reflects a portion of magic damage back at the attacker if the incoming damage is magical, but is consumed or even increases physical damage taken if the attack is non-magical.

Generally, things that require quicker thinking than being afk while you're building TP, using a WS and then going afk again until you have enough TP for the next WS.




Don't we have the cool down things you are speaking of? Barrage for Archer, 1min cool down, or 3, whatever....?

Also, if you are doing anything other than killing things too weak, you will have to watch what you're doing. Not curing, adding a dodge move, putting StoneSkin back on, not blinding or catching a TP Chain can get you killed. You also can't AFK on a too weak rabbit because you will need to kill another one or you will just sit there. Or do you mean something else?
#17 Dec 02 2012 at 5:45 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
***
1,163 posts
Turn based is Fire Emblem or Older Final Fantasy titles like, 1 through 9.

If it doesn't follow the formula above I would call it a FORM of pseudo-action. I would label FFXIV and FFXI in this category.
#18 Dec 03 2012 at 5:59 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
ShindaUsagi wrote:

By no means am I calling anything turn base. It's simply my limited understanding of the argument that encourages me to assume.

By your account however, and forgive me if I'm wrong, people want a third person action game. Or a FPS. They want Bayonetta co-op.


Yeah, I was just trying to help you understand the argument. But yes, some people want a third person action game. Having said that...

Quote:
So this is what the modern mmo base wants? Button mashing? This is the argument? I'm honestly trying to understand. DCU is getting it right?


A good action game (of which there are many) is much more than button mashing. It's real-time strategy. If you look at a classic series, Super Smash Bros... this is a series of fighting games. Sure, some people just mash buttons. They get completely creamed by experienced players, because in reality the game is more complex than your average MMO. You need to know which moves have priority over others, where the hitboxes are, which ways your character can effectively dodge... you have to be able to predict your opponent's moves and learn to fake them out. There's much more to it than button mashing. And understandably, some people want that higher level of stimulation that those games can offer.

Having said that, there are also concerns with ping and lag with that kind of game in an online environment. Having a fraction of a second of delay between what your opponent does and what you see can be a tremendous disadvantage. There's even screen output delay, and with some monitors or televisions, you effectively can't play.

For PVE, those concerns aren't as meaningful, and a lot of players would be happy to see more of them. Personally I wholly agree, but I also want to see a greater effort to facilitate communication in combat. That means you can't be pushing buttons 95% of the time.

____________________________
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.
#19 Dec 03 2012 at 5:47 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
FF 1-9 are Active Turn Based. FFX is Conditional Turn Based (and I loved it because you could drop the controller and go stir the chicken without missing a beat.) So was Tactics. X-2 went back to Active Turn Based.

FFXI isn't really either of them, and neither was XIV 1.0 - you were free to perform any individual action if the timer was up on it or if other conditions were met (e.g. you had enough MP to cast the spell), instead of waiting for a single universal timer across all of them that indicated "your turn."
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#20 Dec 03 2012 at 6:16 PM Rating: Good
****
4,957 posts
Kachi wrote:
ShindaUsagi wrote:

By no means am I calling anything turn base. It's simply my limited understanding of the argument that encourages me to assume.

By your account however, and forgive me if I'm wrong, people want a third person action game. Or a FPS. They want Bayonetta co-op.


Yeah, I was just trying to help you understand the argument. But yes, some people want a third person action game. Having said that...

Quote:
So this is what the modern mmo base wants? Button mashing? This is the argument? I'm honestly trying to understand. DCU is getting it right?


A good action game (of which there are many) is much more than button mashing. It's real-time strategy. If you look at a classic series, Super Smash Bros... this is a series of fighting games. Sure, some people just mash buttons. They get completely creamed by experienced players, because in reality the game is more complex than your average MMO. You need to know which moves have priority over others, where the hitboxes are, which ways your character can effectively dodge... you have to be able to predict your opponent's moves and learn to fake them out. There's much more to it than button mashing. And understandably, some people want that higher level of stimulation that those games can offer.

Having said that, there are also concerns with ping and lag with that kind of game in an online environment. Having a fraction of a second of delay between what your opponent does and what you see can be a tremendous disadvantage. There's even screen output delay, and with some monitors or televisions, you effectively can't play.

For PVE, those concerns aren't as meaningful, and a lot of players would be happy to see more of them. Personally I wholly agree, but I also want to see a greater effort to facilitate communication in combat. That means you can't be pushing buttons 95% of the time.




coming from a guy who can beat the DMC and ninja gaiden games on the hardest difficulties without even getting scratched.. Id have to disagree slightly..


turn based combat to me is more about strategy, brainpower and planning... 100% brainpower.. its like a game of chess..

whereas games like smash bros, dmc or NG take SOME intelligence but Id say its 90% skill and reflexes.. it comes down to knowing the enemies attack patterns and being fast enough to avoid them... even if you do know the enemies tactics all that knowledge means nothing if youre not fast enough in teh reflex department to pull it off.. so id say its 90% reflex 10% strategy.. and I prefer to win my battles by outhinking/being more cunning than my opponents than being able to press a button faster than he can or before he does.. so Id prefer "slow turn based mmo" combat over monster hunter/guild wars 2 style anyday... even though i can do fine in either scenario.. theres just MORE than enough games out there already that rel y on reflxes as it is.. give us a few games for those of us who wanna use our brains too lol.
#21 Dec 03 2012 at 7:27 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,145 posts
WFOAssassin wrote:
Don't we have the cool down things you are speaking of? Barrage for Archer, 1min cool down, or 3, whatever....?

Also, if you are doing anything other than killing things too weak, you will have to watch what you're doing. Not curing, adding a dodge move, putting StoneSkin back on, not blinding or catching a TP Chain can get you killed. You also can't AFK on a too weak rabbit because you will need to kill another one or you will just sit there. Or do you mean something else?

People want a more active role in combat. A few cooldowns on a couple minute timers isn't really what I had in mind. I was talking about things that you might be able to use several times over the course of a fight with something you were killing solo. 10-20 seconds seems more reasonable.

What I mean by 'afk' is that you otherwise don't have anything to do. Basically you sit there and watch your character auto-attack to build TP, press a button to fire off your weaponskill and then go right back to sitting. In essence, you're watching the game play itself instead of having a more active role in combat. This is something lacking in the current implementation(as of 1.0 anyway) and probably wouldn't be missed by many players.
____________________________
Rinsui wrote:
Only hips + boobs all day and hips + boobs all over my icecream

HaibaneRenmei wrote:
30 bucks is almost free

cocodojo wrote:
Its personal preference and all, but yes we need to educate WoW players that this is OUR game, these are Characters and not Toons. Time to beat that into them one at a time.
#22 Dec 03 2012 at 7:34 PM Rating: Good
I don't think FFXI was turn based either.

If you ever played previous FF titles, you know that Square has messed around with it in the past quite a few times.

It might of been "Turn Based" at some point in time, I don't know, perhaps FF1 or FF2, I'm not really sure.

But Square introduced ATB (Active Time Battle, Charge Time Battle, Conditional Turn-Based Battle, Active Dimension Battle and Command Synergy Battle.

According to the FF wikia, FF14 is considered to be part of the RTB system, FF11 as well.

If anything, the closest thing that is similar to FF11 and FF14 RTB system is FF12's Active Dimension Battle system.

But in any case, neither FF11 nor FF14 is "Turn Based".

Gamers should have done their own extensive research before using words and phrases they do not understand completely. You would have to define the various systems Can's and Can'ts, before you can make a judgement on which category this game belongs to.
____________________________
CPU: Core i7 960 (OC'ed 4.0ghz)
CPU Cooler: Corsair H70 hybrid liquid cooler
Mobo: Gigabyte G1 Sniper
RAM: Corsair Dominator 1600 DDR3 (12gb, 2gb x 6)
Video: EVGA Nvidia GTX 570 (Single Card)
HDD: Western Digital Caviar Black 7200 rpm, 1TB x2 (In Raid 0)
Case: Corsair 600T Graphite with mesh side panel
PSU: Corsair HX850 professional series
Optical: Asus 24x DVDRW+/- DL drive
KB: Logitech G110
Mouse: Logitech G500
Pad: Logitech Rumble Pad F510
Monitor: Asus 24" 1080p LED-backlit LCD display
#23 Dec 03 2012 at 8:33 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
catwho wrote:
FF 1-9 are Active Turn Based. FFX is Conditional Turn Based (and I loved it because you could drop the controller and go stir the chicken without missing a beat.) So was Tactics. X-2 went back to Active Turn Based.

FFXI isn't really either of them, and neither was XIV 1.0 - you were free to perform any individual action if the timer was up on it or if other conditions were met (e.g. you had enough MP to cast the spell), instead of waiting for a single universal timer across all of them that indicated "your turn."


Yeah, if for no other reason than you can move around freely in combat, FFXI and XIV were obviously different from traditional turn based systems whether active or not.

Quote:
coming from a guy who can beat the DMC and ninja gaiden games on the hardest difficulties without even getting scratched.. Id have to disagree slightly..

turn based combat to me is more about strategy, brainpower and planning... 100% brainpower.. its like a game of chess..

whereas games like smash bros, dmc or NG take SOME intelligence but Id say its 90% skill and reflexes.. it comes down to knowing the enemies attack patterns and being fast enough to avoid them... even if you do know the enemies tactics all that knowledge means nothing if youre not fast enough in teh reflex department to pull it off.. so id say its 90% reflex 10% strategy.. and I prefer to win my battles by outhinking/being more cunning than my opponents than being able to press a button faster than he can or before he does.. so Id prefer "slow turn based mmo" combat over monster hunter/guild wars 2 style anyday... even though i can do fine in either scenario.. theres just MORE than enough games out there already that rel y on reflxes as it is.. give us a few games for those of us who wanna use our brains too lol.


You're plucking against one of my nerd pet peeves here, but I'm going to try not to lay into you. However, that's completely wrong.

First of all, turn-based combat, in theory, could be like chess. In standard video games it almost never is, especially not MMORPGs. You have your rare exceptions like certain Fire Emblem games, but even games like FFT suffer from statistical inbalance which causes the strategic elements to be very iffy. In fact, PvP turn-based games are far better at this for the same reasons--because they are able to make it a game of skill over statistics. And that's where real-time PvP games require the most strategy.

First of all, the primary "skill" in those games IS strategy. It's the same in many professional sports. It's not all about having the best reflexes. It's about making snap judgments according to what your opponent is likely to do next. It's chess in hyperspeed. The whole "it's reflexes" argument is, sadly, a defense mechanism for players who can't accept that they're getting "out-thunk" in a shooter or fighting game. But that's exactly what happens. (and I say this as someone who doesn't do that great at real-time strategy games and is, frankly, pretty amazing at turn-based games). Good hand-eye coordination imparts an advantage, of course, but in many of these games, it's strategy that rules. It's knowing where to pan the camera, how to defend against an oncoming attack, and how to create advantages for yourself. It's not just about being able to push the buttons quickly. In neuromotor terms, there's not that significant a difference in those capabilities from one person to the next. At least 75% of the challenge is being able to quickly figure out which buttons to press, not just press the obvious buttons more quickly.

As much as we'd all like to think that we'd kick a lot more *** if those games were just slowed way down, it's generally not true. It's fine to say, "I don't have good reflexes or coordination, so I prefer turn-based games." But it's a total fallacy to say that those games don't require as much strategy when they generally require far more. And the truth is, if you play more of those games, you'll get better at both hand-eye coordination AND strategy. In fact, there have been a number of studies that find that real-time strategy games like certain first-person shooters actually offer more intellectual benefit than turn-based games. The reasoning, essentially, is that you're engaging in the same process of decision-making, but you have to become more efficient at it. Turn-based games can actually make you worse at it, causing you to develop habits of slow decision-making (which are not generally better).

Anyway, sorry for the rant, but purely on the principles of science, it bothers me when people fail to recognize that real-time strategy games actually require a lot of strategy and intelligence. I guess I could have saved us all some time and just said, "There's a reason they call them real-time strategy games."
____________________________
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.
#24 Dec 04 2012 at 1:43 AM Rating: Decent
****
4,957 posts
Kachi wrote:
catwho wrote:
FF 1-9 are Active Turn Based. FFX is Conditional Turn Based (and I loved it because you could drop the controller and go stir the chicken without missing a beat.) So was Tactics. X-2 went back to Active Turn Based.

FFXI isn't really either of them, and neither was XIV 1.0 - you were free to perform any individual action if the timer was up on it or if other conditions were met (e.g. you had enough MP to cast the spell), instead of waiting for a single universal timer across all of them that indicated "your turn."


Yeah, if for no other reason than you can move around freely in combat, FFXI and XIV were obviously different from traditional turn based systems whether active or not.

Quote:
coming from a guy who can beat the DMC and ninja gaiden games on the hardest difficulties without even getting scratched.. Id have to disagree slightly..

turn based combat to me is more about strategy, brainpower and planning... 100% brainpower.. its like a game of chess..

whereas games like smash bros, dmc or NG take SOME intelligence but Id say its 90% skill and reflexes.. it comes down to knowing the enemies attack patterns and being fast enough to avoid them... even if you do know the enemies tactics all that knowledge means nothing if youre not fast enough in teh reflex department to pull it off.. so id say its 90% reflex 10% strategy.. and I prefer to win my battles by outhinking/being more cunning than my opponents than being able to press a button faster than he can or before he does.. so Id prefer "slow turn based mmo" combat over monster hunter/guild wars 2 style anyday... even though i can do fine in either scenario.. theres just MORE than enough games out there already that rel y on reflxes as it is.. give us a few games for those of us who wanna use our brains too lol.


You're plucking against one of my nerd pet peeves here, but I'm going to try not to lay into you. However, that's completely wrong.

First of all, turn-based combat, in theory, could be like chess. In standard video games it almost never is, especially not MMORPGs. You have your rare exceptions like certain Fire Emblem games, but even games like FFT suffer from statistical inbalance which causes the strategic elements to be very iffy. In fact, PvP turn-based games are far better at this for the same reasons--because they are able to make it a game of skill over statistics. And that's where real-time PvP games require the most strategy.

First of all, the primary "skill" in those games IS strategy. It's the same in many professional sports. It's not all about having the best reflexes. It's about making snap judgments according to what your opponent is likely to do next. It's chess in hyperspeed. The whole "it's reflexes" argument is, sadly, a defense mechanism for players who can't accept that they're getting "out-thunk" in a shooter or fighting game. But that's exactly what happens. (and I say this as someone who doesn't do that great at real-time strategy games and is, frankly, pretty amazing at turn-based games). Good hand-eye coordination imparts an advantage, of course, but in many of these games, it's strategy that rules. It's knowing where to pan the camera, how to defend against an oncoming attack, and how to create advantages for yourself. It's not just about being able to push the buttons quickly. In neuromotor terms, there's not that significant a difference in those capabilities from one person to the next. At least 75% of the challenge is being able to quickly figure out which buttons to press, not just press the obvious buttons more quickly.

As much as we'd all like to think that we'd kick a lot more *** if those games were just slowed way down, it's generally not true. It's fine to say, "I don't have good reflexes or coordination, so I prefer turn-based games." But it's a total fallacy to say that those games don't require as much strategy when they generally require far more. And the truth is, if you play more of those games, you'll get better at both hand-eye coordination AND strategy. In fact, there have been a number of studies that find that real-time strategy games like certain first-person shooters actually offer more intellectual benefit than turn-based games. The reasoning, essentially, is that you're engaging in the same process of decision-making, but you have to become more efficient at it. Turn-based games can actually make you worse at it, causing you to develop habits of slow decision-making (which are not generally better).

Anyway, sorry for the rant, but purely on the principles of science, it bothers me when people fail to recognize that real-time strategy games actually require a lot of strategy and intelligence. I guess I could have saved us all some time and just said, "There's a reason they call them real-time strategy games."


youre right real time STRATEGY does require strategy... but Age of Empires is on a whole different level than lets say call of duty... you can be wonderful in age of empires (which I am) but suck at lets say CoD..

but a I said before. in something like CoD its more reflexes than strategy because.. you could formulate the best strategy known to man.. and logically and or on paper it very much would work.. however if you lack the skill (i.e reflexes) to pull it off, then youre strategy is then useless... whereas in an rpg (which are usually not very reflex based) once youve figured out what to do.. youve already won.. theres no way at all you could lose.. whereas in CoD you can figure out what to do but theres the chance you wont be able to pull it off.


For example you fight an enemy in an rpg that uses lets say darkness attacks.. you have armor that can absorb darkness, you then come to the conclusion that if he uses darkness attacks he must be weak to light.. and you have light based attacks, and finally you have a way to quickly revive your party members IF by chance they actually should die. Ok now youre absorbing every attack this guy throws at you, hitting him for the most you can due to exploiting his weakness and you have quick revivals in the case something goes wrong... theres now 0% chance of you losing. Whereas in CoD you could figure out "xyz person(s) come here so ill hide in abc area to easily ambush or get the drop on them as they need to come here and have no idea Im waiting" ok but even with that your victory is not guaranteed.. you might catch him off guard and get the kill but theres also the chance that you wont OR you DO catch him off guard but he still pulls the trigger faster..

so in the later example you need both strategy AND reflexes.. whereas the former example only requires strategy.. as reflexes and or "being faster than the other guy" plays no role in the outcome of that fight.

Also as for this comment:

"FFT suffer from statistical inbalance which causes the strategic elements to be very iffy"

Id have to say the opposite, statistical imbalance is what makes the strategy.... strategic.. I find no greater joy in an RPG than taking down something 10+ levels higher than me that due to this "statistical imbalance" of yours.. I shouldnt be able to win... sure in doing so I just made a 5 minute fight into a 60+ minute one (ive been in plenty of 2-3 hour long fights in my RPG adventures lol.. and these werent 2-3 hours or game over screens and retrying... this was.. the one fight/attempt actually lasting awhole 2-3 hours before the battle was finally settled) and to me getting through a battle like that (especially if yo do it on your own without the help of any guides.. but instead coming up with a plan completely on your own) is in extremely great sense of accomplishment... Youd never have an epic battle/long standoff like that in something like CoD where both sides are so good the battle comes completely down to who screws up/makes a mistake first as opposed to whos the better player and it takes 2-3 hours before blood is finally drawn lol. I have however had PLENTY of 2+ hours battle sin Age of Empires

so yeah again RTS definitely DO require strategy.. but something thats more cation oriented or an FPS? yes theres some degree of strategy involved but reflexes are much more important
#25 Dec 04 2012 at 3:58 AM Rating: Good
***
3,177 posts
Final Fantasy games have never been super fast games. I would like to say that XI and XIV's systems took ATB to a level that would work in an MMO. You control one character, you cast a spell and the ATB bar begins to fill.

Edited, Dec 4th 2012 1:59am by UltKnightGrover
____________________________
Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn
Grover Eyeveen - Hyperion Server
Viva Eorzea Free Company/Linkshell Leader - Hyperion Server

Aegis Server (2012-2013)
Figaro Server (2010-2012)

Final Fantasy XI:
Retired

Blog
#26 Dec 04 2012 at 7:07 AM Rating: Excellent
Anterograde Amnesia
Avatar
*****
12,363 posts
I always thought XII's battle system would be awesome with at least multiplayer, if not an MMO.
____________________________
"Choosy MMO's choose Wint." - Louiscool
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the world he didn't exist.
Keyser Soze - Ultros
Guide to Setting Up Mumble on a Raspberry Pi
#27 Dec 04 2012 at 8:29 AM Rating: Decent
Wint wrote:
I always thought XII's battle system would be awesome with at least multiplayer, if not an MMO.


I can agree with this. Those gambit systems were always a little annoying.
____________________________
Our team is like a flock of woodpeckers in a petrified forest. We just need to keep working and keep an eye open for opportunity.

FFXI
Toofar - Asura (Formerly of Lakshmi (Garuda)) - WHM BLM SMN
Rafoot - Asura (Formerly of Lakshmi (Garuda)) - THF SAM BRD
#28 Dec 04 2012 at 8:34 AM Rating: Default
****
4,957 posts
Wint wrote:
I always thought XII's battle system would be awesome with at least multiplayer, if not an MMO.



well white knight chronicles pretty much gives you just that :p FFXII's battle system (or at least the closest thing to it) with online multiplayer
#29 Dec 04 2012 at 2:53 PM Rating: Excellent
***
3,530 posts
< Turn-Based - - - - - Timer-Based - - - - - Timer-Based with Action Elements - - - - - Action-Based >
      ↓           ↓                   ↓                   ↓
< FF Tactics..........ATB in early FFs.............. Standard MMORPGs................... Elder Scrolls, &c. >
____________________________
"... 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."
#30 Dec 04 2012 at 6:17 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,145 posts
KaneKitty wrote:
< Turn-Based - - - - - Timer-Based - - - - - Timer-Based with Action Elements - - - - - Action-Based >
      ↓           ↓                   ↓                   ↓
< FF Tactics..........ATB in early FFs.............. Standard MMORPGs................... Elder Scrolls, &c. >


You forgot 'Action-based with timer elements', my personal favorite Smiley: nod
____________________________
Rinsui wrote:
Only hips + boobs all day and hips + boobs all over my icecream

HaibaneRenmei wrote:
30 bucks is almost free

cocodojo wrote:
Its personal preference and all, but yes we need to educate WoW players that this is OUR game, these are Characters and not Toons. Time to beat that into them one at a time.
#31 Dec 04 2012 at 7:01 PM Rating: Good
**
598 posts
Kachi wrote:
ShindaUsagi wrote:

By no means am I calling anything turn base. It's simply my limited understanding of the argument that encourages me to assume.

By your account however, and forgive me if I'm wrong, people want a third person action game. Or a FPS. They want Bayonetta co-op.


Yeah, I was just trying to help you understand the argument. But yes, some people want a third person action game. Having said that...

Quote:
So this is what the modern mmo base wants? Button mashing? This is the argument? I'm honestly trying to understand. DCU is getting it right?


A good action game (of which there are many) is much more than button mashing. It's real-time strategy. If you look at a classic series, Super Smash Bros... this is a series of fighting games. Sure, some people just mash buttons. They get completely creamed by experienced players, because in reality the game is more complex than your average MMO. You need to know which moves have priority over others, where the hitboxes are, which ways your character can effectively dodge... you have to be able to predict your opponent's moves and learn to fake them out. There's much more to it than button mashing. And understandably, some people want that higher level of stimulation that those games can offer.

Having said that, there are also concerns with ping and lag with that kind of game in an online environment. Having a fraction of a second of delay between what your opponent does and what you see can be a tremendous disadvantage. There's even screen output delay, and with some monitors or televisions, you effectively can't play.

For PVE, those concerns aren't as meaningful, and a lot of players would be happy to see more of them. Personally I wholly agree, but I also want to see a greater effort to facilitate communication in combat. That means you can't be pushing buttons 95% of the time.



I love fighting games. Street Fighter broke my cherry so to speak. My boyfriend would nag me into playing and pull the 'slow kill' bit on me to encourage me to play more. Needless to say, many fighters later (and a few more boyfriends) I love the genre. But fighters are absolutely about repetition. It's learning your opponent when it's all said and done. Also, I love hack and slash. I'm absolutely furious that Bayonetta is a Wii U exclusive. But I digress. There is skill to it. I'm very proud to have mastered that game. But again. It's learning repetition. All hack and slashes are.
We're in a stage in the genre where it's, careful what you wish for. I understand everyone wants to feel like an @ss kicking jedi. I understand they want to be surrounded by their peers as they do so. But there's a fine line.
____________________________
Sour Cherry
#32 Dec 04 2012 at 9:41 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
"FFT suffer from statistical inbalance which causes the strategic elements to be very iffy"

Id have to say the opposite, statistical imbalance is what makes the strategy.... strategic.. I find no greater joy in an RPG than taking down something 10+ levels higher than me that due to this "statistical imbalance" of yours.. I shouldnt be able to win... sure in doing so I just made a 5 minute fight into a 60+ minute one (ive been in plenty of 2-3 hour long fights in my RPG adventures lol.. and these werent 2-3 hours or game over screens and retrying... this was.. the one fight/attempt actually lasting awhole 2-3 hours before the battle was finally settled) and to me getting through a battle like that (especially if yo do it on your own without the help of any guides.. but instead coming up with a plan completely on your own) is in extremely great sense of accomplishment... Youd never have an epic battle/long standoff like that in something like CoD where both sides are so good the battle comes completely down to who screws up/makes a mistake first as opposed to whos the better player and it takes 2-3 hours before blood is finally drawn lol. I have however had PLENTY of 2+ hours battle sin Age of Empires

so yeah again RTS definitely DO require strategy.. but something thats more cation oriented or an FPS? yes theres some degree of strategy involved but reflexes are much more important


My problem is not with acknowledging that reflexes are important in action-games, or even with proclaiming that in some games, they're more important than the strategy elements (though that statement is untrue for a great many games). My problem is with not acknowledging that many of those games require more strategy. You could say that Tic Tac Toe is 100% strategy, and Smash Bros. is only 80% strategy... Smash Bros. still requires far more strategy than Tic Tac Toe (and Smash Bros. is an excellent example of a game where both strategy and reflexes are important, but strategy far more so).

As for the statistical imbalance in FFT, you had things the other way around if you ask me. For me, the game became way too easy, in part because it's easy to overlevel, but even if you don't, it's still easy because if you pick a halfway decent team formation, special tactics aren't really necessary. I would even have to impose artificial challenges before letting myself win just to make that game a bit tougher. Games like Fire Emblem at least don't give you the ability to overlevel since there are no random encounters, and it's at least a bit more difficult to build a universally good team.
____________________________
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.
#33 Dec 05 2012 at 1:27 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
2,426 posts
this thread...i am not sure if it is serious.
____________________________
monk
dragoon

#34 Dec 05 2012 at 4:14 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
334 posts
ShindaUsagi wrote:
We're in a stage in the genre where it's, careful what you wish for. I understand everyone wants to feel like an @ss kicking jedi. I understand they want to be surrounded by their peers as they do so. But there's a fine line.


This is the problem in a nutshell. Not just with video games, but with people's attitudes in general.

People look at their lives and realize that they aren't going to be a rock star, pro athlete, etc. They are disappointed. Some of these people decide to play an MMO. They want the MMO to give them what their real life can't- the ability to be a rock star. But guess what- if everyone is a rock star, there's no such thing as a rock star. It's like typing an essay in Microsoft Word and then making every word Bold. The original purpose is lost. All you've really done is changed to a thicker font.

I am a high school science teacher. I deal with kids every single day who think that they should get an A because they don't fall asleep in class. They do their homework, participate minimally in class etc. They don't blow off the tests, but they don't really study hard for them either. Those kids end up with high C's or low B's. It's called a bell curve and it's kind of how life works... I don't do anything special to make the bell curve exist. I just find the appropriate difficulty for the group as a whole and let statistics take care of the rest. Some people have a bit more natural ability. Some others work really hard. Those two types of people are rare and they make up the group that get A's. The kids that don't have the natural ability can get there through sheer desire. If you don't have one or the other- your ceiling is a B. Not because I said so, but because the difficulty sorts people into groups. That's why grades exist- to rank performance...

Honestly, this is what I want from an MMO as well. The difficulty should be set such that there is a bell curve of "rock star-ness" or "a$$ kicking jedi-ness". If everyone can have the best of everything with little effort, all you've done is recreate kindergarten in a video game. Everyone gets an award for participation. You've typed the essay in Bold. I can't play a game like that. It's too boring. I need a game that challenges me. I don't mind getting frustrated with it because when I succeed, I actually get a feeling of accomplishment. FFXI had some semblance of this. Granted it wasn't really that hard, but it did punish you if you didn't have your sh*t together. That's why PUG's were a hit or miss proposition for things like CoP etc- if you had a PUG that contained idiots, you would lose. These are the same kids that fail my class. They walk in and say "There's a test today??". They join a shout for a mission yet have never even read a wiki page on what must be done to win. They don't even know their own JA's let alone party mechanics.

tl;dr If you dumb down an MMO so everyone can have access to everything with little or no skill/effort, all you've done is @#%^ people who actually do give an effort. And a game like that will fail. Because getting something for nothing isn't actually fun...



Edited, Dec 5th 2012 5:24am by ChaChaJaJa
____________________________
BlueLand wrote:
You can always take a screen shot of the 1017 error and set it to your desktop background, its like playing FFXIV from work
#35 Dec 05 2012 at 5:19 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
ChaChaJaJa wrote:
ShindaUsagi wrote:
We're in a stage in the genre where it's, careful what you wish for. I understand everyone wants to feel like an @ss kicking jedi. I understand they want to be surrounded by their peers as they do so. But there's a fine line.


This is the problem in a nutshell. Not just with video games, but with people's attitudes in general.

People look at their lives and realize that they aren't going to be a rock star, pro athlete, etc. They are disappointed. Some of these people decide to play an MMO. They want the MMO to give them what their real life can't- the ability to be a rock star. But guess what- if everyone is a rock star, there's no such thing as a rock star. It's like typing an essay in Microsoft Word and then making every word Bold. The original purpose is lost. All you've really done is changed to a thicker font.

I am a high school science teacher. I deal with kids every single day who think that they should get an A because they don't fall asleep in class. They do their homework, participate minimally in class etc. They don't blow off the tests, but they don't really study hard for them either. Those kids end up with high C's or low B's. It's called a bell curve and it's kind of how life works... I don't do anything special to make the bell curve exist. I just find the appropriate difficulty for the group as a whole and let statistics take care of the rest. Some people have a bit more natural ability. Some others work really hard. Those two types of people are rare and they make up the group that get A's. The kids that don't have the natural ability can get there through sheer desire. If you don't have one or the other- your ceiling is a B. Not because I said so, but because the difficulty sorts people into groups. That's why grades exist- to rank performance...

Honestly, this is what I want from an MMO as well. The difficulty should be set such that there is a bell curve of "rock star-ness" or "a$$ kicking jedi-ness". If everyone can have the best of everything with little effort, all you've done is recreate kindergarten in a video game. Everyone gets an award for participation. You've typed the essay in Bold. I can't play a game like that. It's too boring. I need a game that challenges me. I don't mind getting frustrated with it because when I succeed, I actually get a feeling of accomplishment. FFXI had some semblance of this. Granted it wasn't really that hard, but it did punish you if you didn't have your sh*t together. That's why PUG's were a hit or miss proposition for things like CoP etc- if you had a PUG that contained idiots, you would lose. These are the same kids that fail my class. They walk in and say "There's a test today??". They join a shout for a mission yet have never even read a wiki page on what must be done to win. They don't even know their own JA's let alone party mechanics.

tl;dr If you dumb down an MMO so everyone can have access to everything with little or no skill/effort, all you've done is @#%^ people who actually do give an effort. And a game like that will fail. Because getting something for nothing isn't actually fun...
Edited, Dec 5th 2012 5:24am by ChaChaJaJa


If you've not done so, you should read up on the educational implications of the mastery orientation vs. the ego (sometimes called performance) orientation.

Overall, I really get what you're saying (as a fellow educator), but I disagree emphatically. Some of this will be a bit disjointed (your comments really opened my floodgates but I'll try to be brief) so bear with me.

First, you simply can't compare the intrinsic motivation that gamers have to play an MMO to the extrinsic motivation that most children have to do well in school. It's totally apples to oranges. What you describe are kids who aren't passionate about learning and muster whatever energy they can to get a grade. Recreation occurs in an entirely different context. The number of players who are trying to sublimate some desire to be great at something is very small. Most people just want to have fun.

Related to that is the fact that people want to be good at things that they value, if they can be. And yeah, I know many teachers just present the material and figure the grade should be enough to motivate any young person who is deserving of a good grade. But the reason most kids don't try is that they either don't see why it's important, or they don't think they can be successful. Getting feedback (e.g., a grade) on something you didn't really want to do anyway isn't meaningful to most people. In a video game, players typically get immediate feedback on goals that they set for themselves.

The irony is that you're right-- there are lots of players whose goals are to stand out, and be recognized as being good at something. And the sad thing is that our schools are often to blame for that mentality because we place so much emphasis on setting kids on the bell curve. After all, your complaint isn't that they want to excel at something--it's the thing they want to excel at that you have a beef with. You and I only wish kids would care as much about their learning. It's the reason for the serious games movement in education.

But to my point--the problem is not that kids or players don't want to put forth effort. That's actually a huge component of what makes all games fun--an appropriate challenge. "Dumbing the game down," is boring for everyone. And I'm pretty sure you're mistaken if you think that's what anyone wants. The answer is, ironically again, the same in education and in gaming--individualization. People are most motivated when the challenge in front of them is significant but achievable (about an 80% success rate is the throw-around number). They're most engaged when they have to try in order to be successful. But not everyone is at the same level, whether it's due to lack of game knowledge, or research skills, or social skills. And that's why games that take the same approach that you describe:
Quote:
find the appropriate difficulty for the group as a whole and let statistics take care of the rest.


tend to not do so hot. Well-designed games have high challenge flexibility. They have things like Easy Mode -and- Intense Mode! It's a feature as old as video games themselves, and it WORKS.

So the problem is not that games are being dumbed down or that players want them to be dumbed down. The problem is that game designers aren't good at defining a range of challenge to accommodate the diverse needs of players. They try to create that "appropriate difficulty for the whole" and they inevitably get it wrong. It's an almost impossible task, because even any given player doesn't have one "appropriate difficulty level." At times their skills will improve, and at times they'll plateau. Even at their best, they'll have good days and bad days. I'm not so good first thing in the morning, and I don't want to have to be. That doesn't make me a bad, lazy gamer. That makes me a customer of a recreational service with my own wants, and any company that wants to keep my attention is going to have to respect that. Not very different from students, really, except that school is a game that we force them to play, and we don't even try to make it fun.

And I'm sure if you'll think back to your own education, you'll recall at least a few examples of teachers who totally turned you off to subjects that you were otherwise motivated to do well in, and those who kindled and nurtured interests that you never imagined you could have. Or at least, you must have known others for whom that was the case.
____________________________
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.
#36 Dec 05 2012 at 6:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Anterograde Amnesia
Avatar
*****
12,363 posts
Llester wrote:
this thread...i am not sure if it is serious.


The internet is serious business.
____________________________
"Choosy MMO's choose Wint." - Louiscool
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the world he didn't exist.
Keyser Soze - Ultros
Guide to Setting Up Mumble on a Raspberry Pi
#37 Dec 05 2012 at 8:11 AM Rating: Default
****
4,957 posts
ChaChaJaJa wrote:
ShindaUsagi wrote:
We're in a stage in the genre where it's, careful what you wish for. I understand everyone wants to feel like an @ss kicking jedi. I understand they want to be surrounded by their peers as they do so. But there's a fine line.


This is the problem in a nutshell. Not just with video games, but with people's attitudes in general.

People look at their lives and realize that they aren't going to be a rock star, pro athlete, etc. They are disappointed. Some of these people decide to play an MMO. They want the MMO to give them what their real life can't- the ability to be a rock star. But guess what- if everyone is a rock star, there's no such thing as a rock star. It's like typing an essay in Microsoft Word and then making every word Bold. The original purpose is lost. All you've really done is changed to a thicker font.

I am a high school science teacher. I deal with kids every single day who think that they should get an A because they don't fall asleep in class. They do their homework, participate minimally in class etc. They don't blow off the tests, but they don't really study hard for them either. Those kids end up with high C's or low B's. It's called a bell curve and it's kind of how life works... I don't do anything special to make the bell curve exist. I just find the appropriate difficulty for the group as a whole and let statistics take care of the rest. Some people have a bit more natural ability. Some others work really hard. Those two types of people are rare and they make up the group that get A's. The kids that don't have the natural ability can get there through sheer desire. If you don't have one or the other- your ceiling is a B. Not because I said so, but because the difficulty sorts people into groups. That's why grades exist- to rank performance...

Honestly, this is what I want from an MMO as well. The difficulty should be set such that there is a bell curve of "rock star-ness" or "a$$ kicking jedi-ness". If everyone can have the best of everything with little effort, all you've done is recreate kindergarten in a video game. Everyone gets an award for participation. You've typed the essay in Bold. I can't play a game like that. It's too boring. I need a game that challenges me. I don't mind getting frustrated with it because when I succeed, I actually get a feeling of accomplishment. FFXI had some semblance of this. Granted it wasn't really that hard, but it did punish you if you didn't have your sh*t together. That's why PUG's were a hit or miss proposition for things like CoP etc- if you had a PUG that contained idiots, you would lose. These are the same kids that fail my class. They walk in and say "There's a test today??". They join a shout for a mission yet have never even read a wiki page on what must be done to win. They don't even know their own JA's let alone party mechanics.

tl;dr If you dumb down an MMO so everyone can have access to everything with little or no skill/effort, all you've done is @#%^ people who actually do give an effort. And a game like that will fail. Because getting something for nothing isn't actually fun...



Edited, Dec 5th 2012 5:24am by ChaChaJaJa



I agree with this post 100%... thats exactly how i feel and why i prefer my MMOs (or game sin general) to have challenge.. I wanna be that guy thats the first to beat xyz mob that everyone got obliterated by for months or years before someone finally took it down (absolute virtue comes to mind), well maybe not THAT extreme but somethin like that. Or something as challenging as CoP.. when I did that we had no guides to follow or no fight strategies to read up.. we had to figure all that out on our own (and die a million time sin the process).. I felt a huge surge of accomplishment after every battle (mainly because i was the group tactician so it was MY strategies and thinking that won us those fights), even going as far as grabbing another person in the group outside schedules CoP time and just the two of us entering the fights just to test theories I came up with,, and if they showed the expected results (which obviously wasnt gonna be a win with two people) then Id apply them to the full 6 man group and wed go in there and mop the floor easily.. I felt like king of the world when we made it to Sea (not literally but you know what i mean).

Making i to sky didnt feel as satisfying because it didnt take a grueling effort to get there nor did it provide battles that made you sweat and your heartbeat accelerate (the fights in CoP actually did that to me lol).

Point being.. like the poster I quoted said... its hardly feels as satisfying if EVERYONE is doing it on their first 1-2 tries.. but if youre the first to do it, or the only group capable of doing it that month (or week) then you feel like a badass.

and thats just not an experience a game like WoW can/will give you, nor does it seem like an experience a gam eliek FFXIV will be giving either considering the direction it seems to be going in.. though I do hope Im wrong and it does still have some small trace of its older brother (FFXI) within it.
#38 Dec 05 2012 at 9:34 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
334 posts
Kachi wrote:
First, you simply can't compare the intrinsic motivation that gamers have to play an MMO to the extrinsic motivation that most children have to do well in school. It's totally apples to oranges. What you describe are kids who aren't passionate about learning and muster whatever energy they can to get a grade. Recreation occurs in an entirely different context. The number of players who are trying to sublimate some desire to be great at something is very small. Most people just want to have fun.


Valid point, but you missed the gist of my comparison. My comparison wasn't about whether or not the goal was "fun" it was about the level of effort people are willing to put in to achieve an outcome. Perhaps I should be more specific about my context. I teach Physics to juniors and seniors and it is an elective. They choose to take the course and they do care very much about their outcome (grades). So the comparison, although not perfect, is still a reasonable generalization. If you want to pick it apart, that's your choice. The basic premise is fine for the broadness of my point.

Let me say it another way. My issue isn't with success rate, it's with the amount of effort people are willing to put in to achieve that success. One of my biggest challenges as a teacher is trying to get kids to try past the initial stumbling point. They do fine with easy questions, but the moment they struggle with something, they stop trying. They want me to just give them the answer. And honestly, it's not because they don't care... they want to succeed. It's because they are in disbelief that things should be anything other than easy. They aren't used to struggling, so anything that is a struggle is foreign to them. They don't want to have to try. They feel that their initial effort level (whatever that may be) ought to be enough to get them what they want.

Also, I agree with you about motivation. The kids prefer the easy questions because their motivation is for the grade, not the learning. But again, my point wasn't as much about the outcome itself, but the effort they are willing to invest to achieve the outcome. And this applies directly to the analogy of video games. The gamers I'm complaining about want to run around in UBERLEETZ GEARZ but they don't want it to be hard to achieve said gear.

Kachi wrote:
In a video game, players typically get immediate feedback on goals that they set for themselves


Depends on what you consider immediate and what your goals are. If your goal is simply to casually play said game and experience content, then that's awesome. There is usually plenty of casual content for people to enjoy. If your goal is to have all the best stuff in the game and take down the hardest bosses- well, you should have to invest time and effort into that. Why? because there are people who value that also. That's their goal. If you make all the content easy enough for all the people, you haven't actually improved the game. You're just @#%^ing a different group.

It's similar to differentiated instruction. In theory, if you have 20 kids in a classroom, you have 20 different ability levels. And differentiated instruction says let's adjust the content to meet every child's ability level. It doesn't say "dumb down the material so everyone can 'master' it". It says make several difficulty levels so that kids can challenge themselves at their ability level. I agree with this in the classroom and in video games. But should the highest and lowest difficulty levels have the same rewards? No @#%^ing way. That's just dumb and there's no other way to say it. When I give a test, I am expecting a bell curve of test grades. This is because the content of the test has multiple difficulty levels, low, medium and high. The bell curve takes care of itself. If i make the test easy enough for everyone to get an A, then the kids who have more ability and the kids who are working their asses off get screwed because they weren't afforded the opportunity to show it. It's a way bigger crime to deny them that chance than it is to prevent a "casual student" from getting an A.

And if you can't follow my analogy at this point, let's just agree to disagree because I honestly don't have time to dissect your entire response.

P.S.

Kachi wrote:
I'm a gamification consultant, which means I help businesses who want to use game-like features in their business

and
Kachi wrote:
I am someone who helps businesses (not very different from SE) conduct legal gaming practices

and
Kachi wrote:
as a fellow educator


A few threads ago, you were a gaming lawyer... now you are a teacher... are you a person who teaches gaming laws? Or are you just another internet expert who thinks they know something about EVERYTHING...


P.P.S.

Kachi wrote:
school is a game that we force them to play, and we don't even try to make it fun.

Speak for yourself, but that doesn't describe all of us...
The two nicest comments I've ever received from students:
"I don't really like physics, but I like coming to your class."
"I really like your tests. They are hard, but they really make me think about things."
Teaching is an art. And done correctly, can foster intrinsic motivation and unforced participation. That's why it's not that hard for me to make the gaming analogy. The gulf isn't as vast as you would attempt to describe it.


Edit: Just finishing up...


Edited, Dec 5th 2012 3:24pm by ChaChaJaJa
____________________________
BlueLand wrote:
You can always take a screen shot of the 1017 error and set it to your desktop background, its like playing FFXIV from work
#39 Dec 05 2012 at 10:44 AM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
Heh, I remember working my *** off for my A in physics in my senior year. I studied, really actually studied, for the very first time in my life. (Prior to that, I was one of the "coasters" - bright kids who didn't have to study because they remembered enough from class and basic homework to just BS their way through. You can't do that in physics, or organic chemistry, or the majority of college level classes...)
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#40 Dec 05 2012 at 11:06 AM Rating: Excellent
***
3,530 posts
ChaChaJaJa wrote:
[some very well-articulated points]


That was post of the month, for me: the rare, lengthy post that isn't simply a misguided rant.
____________________________
"... 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."
#41 Dec 05 2012 at 12:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Anterograde Amnesia
Avatar
*****
12,363 posts
KaneKitty wrote:
ChaChaJaJa wrote:
[some very well-articulated points]


That was post of the month, for me: the rare, lengthy post that isn't simply a misguided rant.


Yeah I bookmarked that.
____________________________
"Choosy MMO's choose Wint." - Louiscool
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the world he didn't exist.
Keyser Soze - Ultros
Guide to Setting Up Mumble on a Raspberry Pi
#42 Dec 05 2012 at 7:04 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
A few threads ago, you were a gaming lawyer... now you are a teacher... are you a person who teaches gaming laws? Or are you just another internet expert who thinks they know something about EVERYTHING...


I specifically said that I am not a lawyer; I'm a consultant. My background is in education--I have for many years and always will consider myself an educator, but I am not currently a teacher. My doctorate is basically in educational game design, if that helps clarify.

____________________________
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.
#43 Dec 05 2012 at 7:27 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
That aside, I sense some hostility? It wasn't my intention to offend you as an educator or pass judgment, so let's not turn this into an argument. It seems like we agree for the most part, though there are some important differences. I'm fairly sure I got your point, but between you saying a lot, and me having a lot to say, I'm not trying to articulate a strong cohesive argument (boring). I'm just sharing my difference of opinion.

If I had to peg it down to one thing, I'd say it's the onus of learning, or in this case, gaming. And I'm not trying to ascribe this to you specifically, or to even say that it's entirely wrong, but it's the "blame the students/players" mentality that I picked up on which set me off. When you're a results-oriented professional, whether as a teacher or game designer, that mentality is an immediate tool for the inevitable failures of a job that asks one person to please many. But it's also a red herring that doesn't lead to anything being improved. So as an educator and game designer, I just can't accept statements that suggest that it's because of the students/players wanting it to be easy. Especially when if you condense all that we know about behavioral psychology into one sentence, it's probably, "If you want people to do good things, make good things easy to do."

In education, that's a long discussion that we probably shouldn't go into. But in recreational gaming, that's an easy discussion, because gaming is just supposed to be fun. Now yeah, you're correct that given everyone the best stuff with minimal effort put forth isn't fun for certain players--the part that I disagree with is that you seem to think that there are players who actually want that at all. Usually when players are complaining that they want something to be easier, what they're actually complaining about is the nature of the challenge. Because a lot of the "challenges" in gaming are not challenges of skill or development as they are (supposed to be) in education. What they are is... everybody say it with me now... time sinks.

And I think it's the same thing in most of education, though we can argue (but we shouldn't) whether or not we're doing kids any favors by holding their hands.



Edited, Dec 5th 2012 5:28pm 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.
#44 Dec 05 2012 at 8:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Sage
***
1,675 posts
<---Misguided rant.

I work in education as well, and let me say that's its a luxury where I work to make kids "get it."

Motivation aside, here we scrap by on low budgets, behavior problems, apathetic parents, scapegoated by frustrated taxpayers, an academic and out of touch district. So please forgive when anecdotally I can't relate to any analogies in here.

It is our job to create that motivation, despite these odds, so in one sense I agree with Kachi that it's apples to oranges.

As far as motivation and gaming I can only really speak for myself. I prefer to play solo most of the time. FFXI while soloing (especially soloing AF) with DRG and NIN were some of the most exciting and challenging battles I have ever been in, including offline games as well. Managing adds in a good group also was exciting.

In these sorts of trials, no one knew I was a superman. I had no gear, despite the AF I solo'ed, showed that I was a skilled player.

Heck, just like a straight A student who copies or has their friends do their work for them, or buys their gear, or tags along on dungeon runs and ninjas gear. You can look the part, but not actually be the part.

I want a game where I can feel like a superman through skill, and if the gear comes, then it comes.

No, game at least MMO awards pure skill, and I don't think it ever has. Time, gear, and repetition and not being a moron, was all that was required to run instances.

The absolute quickest and first guilds/linkshells had to have some skill above the average player, perhaps, but you still need to make content accessible.

Some kids will always be C students. It may not be their bag. They may even try their hardest to get C's, but most of them still have a good time and some times their your boss.

Some kids are 7' tall and get scholarships from bouncing a ball around.

I like to solo, and "work" for something (in game) only if that something is worth working for. That motivation is always immediate, and almost always overlapping with other goals.

There needs to be content for all of them and a system that rewards skill; not just time and repetition.

Again this is a misguided rant so I'll end with this:

I really liked FFXII's battle system. I like the ability to macro things; to micro manage; if I choose. Sometimes I like to bash buttons. I didn't really mind FFXIII-2's battle system either; it seemed to fix some of the problems that XIII had. I liked GW2 battle system, like I said in another post, but it didn't provide a ramping up challenge like FFXI did.

In an RPG or MMO, you're always going to fight less powerful monsters to level and more powerful monsters to get the best gear. Give the option for some to solo a little more powerful monster for a little better gear, or give the option to kill a crazy amount of lower level guys for a little better gear.

Then again, if the game is sufficiently challenging and fun, then gear is irrelevant. Rewarding people for doing well when they are already having fun is well, called playing in the NBA.

#45 Dec 06 2012 at 2:05 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
I work in education as well, and let me say that's its a luxury where I work to make kids "get it."

Motivation aside, here we scrap by on low budgets, behavior problems, apathetic parents, scapegoated by frustrated taxpayers, an academic and out of touch district. So please forgive when anecdotally I can't relate to any analogies in here.

It is our job to create that motivation, despite these odds, so in one sense I agree with Kachi that it's apples to oranges.


It's probably for the best that I had to cut myself off to go to dinner, but I do want to qualify my statements real quick to say that I certainly don't blame teachers for not making kids excited for learning. It's an institutional problem. At the end of the day you're still just a teacher in a school, and there's only so much you can do to get kids excited about a system that has treated them like cattle for years. Getting kids excited for learning can only happen when a lot of people are willing to get on board with it, and are trained to do it well. Neither of those things can be taken for granted in most schools.

And it's the same for game design, really. How many people used to believe without equivocation that harsh death penalties were necessary to make MMOs fun? It takes enough people to stand up and say, "Maybe this isn't the way to go about it." Right now I'm sure there are game designers out there who do know what they're doing, but they're one or two members of a team. But I really don't think the problem is that players want it easy... everybody likes an appropriate challenge. Some people are more equipped to handle those challenges than others. We could just slap them on a bell curve and make the game enjoyable to only the "A" and "B" gamers, but I think that itself is a lazy resignation. The "A" game designers are the ones who find out how to individualize the game to players and as we say in education, "meet them where they are."
____________________________
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.
#46 Dec 06 2012 at 3:51 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
334 posts
Kachi wrote:
That aside, I sense some hostility?


Eh, not hostility. Annoyance, but not hostility. It came off rougher than I meant it to. One thing you have to realize Kachi is that sometimes when people post their opinions, they don't really want to debate them. I never said "everyone must see the world in this way", I was saying "this is the world through my lens."
And I don't mind discussion, but
Kachi wrote:
your comments really opened my floodgates but I'll try to be brief)
and then you type a 1000 word rebuttal to my post... That's not discussion. That's you trying to say "you're wrong and here's why you're wrong". That's you being an "internet lawyer." And you basically do it to everyone who posts. The majority of what you post on these forums in general has the overall tone of "I don't mean to be rude but what you are saying is incorrect and I'll prove it to you because I'm really smart." Maybe you don't intend it, but it's what happens. Once again, only my opinion. But I'm entitled to my opinion. And you can't beat it out of me with manifestos.

Kachi wrote:
... it's the "blame the students/players" mentality that I picked up on which set me off. When you're a results-oriented professional, whether as a teacher or game designer, that mentality is an immediate tool for the inevitable failures of a job that asks one person to please many. But it's also a red herring that doesn't lead to anything being improved.


This one I'm going to address because it ****** me off. And I'm going to clarify how I'm reading it so I don't accidentally take you out of context. I'm going to keep it in the realm of education because the analogy to gaming won't hold up here.

I am a high school Physics Teacher. My primary job is not to teach Physics. Some people may react to this by saying "wait... what?". But any good high school teacher realizes that their content is actually the secondary curriculum. I am the last science teacher these kids see before going to college. It's my job to set the bar higher than they've ever seen it and when they say "that's too high" I don't lower it. I don't "Blame" anyone. But I do call things as I see them. That's just how I am in life. I have a college education. I know what it takes to get a degree. Those kids do not. I say at least once a week "I'd rather have you leave here hating me and go on to succeed then have you leave here loving me and be unprepared for what's next." It's my job to call them out. I AM a "results-oriented" professional, but my "results" are making better students. Thoughtful, hard-working students who are responsible and self disciplined. Kids who can go on to be successful. If I can help facilitate that, then I've done my job. I am hard on the kids, but I do it with love. And they appreciate it. I am a popular teacher, not because my class is easy but because I am clearly invested in what I do. And they take me seriously when I say "this isn't good enough, you can do better." They value my opinion.

You may think that calling someone lazy is blaming them. But if they are lazy, I see it as being the honest voice they need to help them self-evaluate and contrary to your "red herring" comment, it actually opens the door to improvement. Because the things that needs improving are the attitudes and habits of the student. I tell them what they need to fix, and then I show them how to fix it. And I've had enough students thank me for it after the fact to know that it's energy well spent.

Sadly, in an MMO you can't say to people "try harder" because it really is about recreation, and not self-improvement. But think for a moment (in keeping with my original example)- was FFXI really that hard? The only "hard" part was navigating time sinks. On the whole the game was pretty easy, and IMO pretty **** fun. My fear is that ARR will be so "casual" that the sense of challenge is lost entirely. I took two jobs to 50 in a matter of like 3 weeks. Their was no gear progression. In XI, I spent months getting BST to 75. And I didn't mind. I saw the whole **** world leveling that job up. It was fun. I can list about 500 other examples but there's actually not much point. In reality, it's just my opinion. I don't need to be right about anything.
____________________________
BlueLand wrote:
You can always take a screen shot of the 1017 error and set it to your desktop background, its like playing FFXIV from work
#47 Dec 06 2012 at 4:04 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
334 posts
Kierk wrote:
<---Misguided rant.

I work in education as well, and let me say that's its a luxury where I work to make kids "get it."

Motivation aside, here we scrap by on low budgets, behavior problems, apathetic parents, scapegoated by frustrated taxpayers, an academic and out of touch district. So please forgive when anecdotally I can't relate to any analogies in here.


Trust me I understand that perspective. Part of it for me is that I'm still a relatively new teacher (it's my second career) and the other part of it is that I teach an elective that places me with kids who tend to have more tools in place than the average random student. But I've felt the pain of budgets (my first school laid off 150 teachers in one calendar year to make budget. Class sizes skyrocketed.). And I've dealt with parent who were literally high when I called them to discuss their kid's performance/attitude etc. I have to deal with the ugly side of education too. But inside my classroom, I get to create the atmosphere, and I try to focus on that. I could take my physics degree and literally go make twice my annual salary, but I happen to really love the teaching part of teaching. It's not about the money. And I can tolerate the ******** for now. Because my work is valuable and fulfilling. So is yours. Please don't forget or minimize how big your contribution to society is.

/end peptalk Smiley: grin

____________________________
BlueLand wrote:
You can always take a screen shot of the 1017 error and set it to your desktop background, its like playing FFXIV from work
#48 Dec 06 2012 at 4:51 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
and then you type a 1000 word rebuttal to my post... That's not discussion. That's you trying to say "you're wrong and here's why you're wrong". That's you being an "internet lawyer." And you basically do it to everyone who posts. The majority of what you post on these forums in general has the overall tone of "I don't mean to be rude but what you are saying is incorrect and I'll prove it to you because I'm really smart." Maybe you don't intend it, but it's what happens. Once again, only my opinion. But I'm entitled to my opinion. And you can't beat it out of me with manifestos.


I have a lot of opinions, I enjoy sharing them, and I don't have a problem disagreeing with people. Having said that, I'm not one to be upset by someone disagreeing with me as long as they do it respectfully. That doesn't mean they have to like me or be supportive of what I have to say, either. Believe me, I am the authority on my own shortcomings.

Typing out my response is just how I work out what I think about the issue, and frankly it's 90% for me. That's why the "manifestos." Not because I think you need or anyone else needs to be convinced by me... if that were the case, I would try to present a concise and persuasive argument. Like 99% of the posts on this forum, I'm just posting what I think and if anyone cares to comment, I might comment back if I feel like it.

I figure most people don't care what I have to say, and that's fine. I have to gather that the one's who don't like the way I post, but read it anyway, are the ones who really wish they were the kind of person who could just ignore what some random guy on the internet says, but can't, and that frustrates them.

Quote:
This one I'm going to address because it ****** me off. And I'm going to clarify how I'm reading it so I don't accidentally take you out of context. I'm going to keep it in the realm of education because the analogy to gaming won't hold up here.

I am a high school Physics Teacher. My primary job is not to teach Physics. Some people may react to this by saying "wait... what?". But any good high school teacher realizes that their content is actually the secondary curriculum. I am the last science teacher these kids see before going to college. It's my job to set the bar higher than they've ever seen it and when they say "that's too high" I don't lower it. I don't "Blame" anyone. But I do call things as I see them. That's just how I am in life. I have a college education. I know what it takes to get a degree. Those kids do not. I say at least once a week "I'd rather have you leave here hating me and go on to succeed then have you leave here loving me and be unprepared for what's next." It's my job to call them out. I AM a "results-oriented" professional, but my "results" are making better students. Thoughtful, hard-working students who are responsible and self disciplined. Kids who can go on to be successful. If I can help facilitate that, then I've done my job. I am hard on the kids, but I do it with love. And they appreciate it. I am a popular teacher, not because my class is easy but because I am clearly invested in what I do. And they take me seriously when I say "this isn't good enough, you can do better." They value my opinion.

You may think that calling someone lazy is blaming them. But if they are lazy, I see it as being the honest voice they need to help them self-evaluate and contrary to your "red herring" comment, it actually opens the door to improvement. Because the things that needs improving are the attitudes and habits of the student. I tell them what they need to fix, and then I show them how to fix it. And I've had enough students thank me for it after the fact to know that it's energy well spent.


I don't really disagree with anything you've said there, and don't really see how it disagrees with what I've said, either. So maybe we're just talking past each other a bit.

Quote:
Sadly, in an MMO you can't say to people "try harder" because it really is about recreation, and not self-improvement. But think for a moment (in keeping with my original example)- was FFXI really that hard? The only "hard" part was navigating time sinks. On the whole the game was pretty easy, and IMO pretty **** fun. My fear is that ARR will be so "casual" that the sense of challenge is lost entirely. I took two jobs to 50 in a matter of like 3 weeks. Their was no gear progression. In XI, I spent months getting BST to 75. And I didn't mind. I saw the whole **** world leveling that job up. It was fun. I can list about 500 other examples but there's actually not much point. In reality, it's just my opinion. I don't need to be right about anything.


Was FFXI really that hard? It depended on what you wanted to do. To me, it's very "hard" to do something that isn't fun for very long periods of time during my recreational hours just to get a piece of equipment that makes me do .5% more damage. See, for you, that was fun enough (and BST is a good job for that). It provided the necessary stimulation to retain your engagement. For many players, it didn't. And that's what I'm driving at. In both gaming and in education, the goal is to promote engagement. And in both, there is no "one size fits all" approach, as you've probably heard a thousand times. What I'm trying to demonstrate is that there isn't this inherent conflict of interest between the lazy and the hardworking. That's the old-school view of motivation--emphasizing the extrinsic motivators. It's the stuff that falls in between the grades and the rewards that really determines engagement, and that includes decent challenges. The stuff that fell between the rewards in FFXI was boring! And if you messed up, you were punished for it with more boredom.

That's why people complained-- not because it was too hard, but because it was boring. People don't tend to get that upset when they lose against a boss in a video game if they can jump right back into things. But when they have to spend hours assembling a functioning party, spend lots of hard-earned gil, and recoup lost XP from death... then they get frustrated with how "hard" it is. Because all of that stuff was boring, and now they have to do even more of it. And again, I think you find a lot of the same in education. Kids can deal with a challenge. At the very least, they can learn to deal with failures easily enough with the right encouragement. But nobody handles boredom well except for the very-easily-stimulated.
____________________________
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 Dec 06 2012 at 12:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
***
2,426 posts
i approve of this thread because it started out as a "seriously, people don't understand the difference between turn based and real time?" and became a dialogue on the state of education. and then some stuff about FFXI. i should probably go back and read more of it now.
____________________________
monk
dragoon

#50 Dec 06 2012 at 1:35 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
970 posts
I can't speak for everyone. But what I want in a combat system is fluidity, precision, knowledge, strategy, precognition, and non gimmick visibillity in some shape or form. If a game offers me that in combat, the speed or whether it's Auto attack or not matters not to me.

Fluidity: When I press a button, equip a gear, string a pattern of button presses, perform a move, perform synergistic moves with others, etc. The game recognizes this and the effect is determined by the cause. If something fails it is because I or a teammate failed to execute mentally and physically, not fail due to the system itself.There is a grace underlying the whole process, a song and dance where harmony converges.

Precision: A system beyond pressing a button whenever and watching an animation fire off. One that requires me to know my position, teamates positions, position of the enemy, the danger zones, the neccessity of using a skill at a precise moment in time to maximize the effect. What string of personal or synergistic skills are the best option to preread, maximize, or lessen the endured effect in a given situation. Perhaps a modifier, where I hold a button down and it charges or builds. And the desired effect is determined on when I release this button. Will my blow be a critical? Will my blow be a status inducing affair? Will my blow setup an opportunity for a teammate to capitalize on? How much momentum will It take to tear that horn off the dragons head? Will my spell focus on range? Will my spell focus on potency? Will my spell focus on mp conservation? Will my spell mix with another casters spell and become a force of nature much more powerful than when cast on it's own with no synergy? How many fire casts will it take to wear down the armor of this particular foe? A game that requires you play smarter, is kind of lenient in the beginning. But in the latter stages makes you want to murder babies. Not because it was unresponsive but because you failed. ***** how fast it is, give me precision. Take too long thinking about things and your hesitation breeds obliteration to your cause.

Knowledge: If i read up on or practice on an enemy. I learn what it takes to increase my chance of dominating the foe or foes.

Strategy: I take that knowledge and apply it but if someone has a better proven strategy. I consider it and take their track record into account. I would hope that SE creates monsters with a wide and diverse tendency/trait. And that nothing can ever be beat by brute force or spamming a single button over and over. Or at the very least, team coordination always trumps that method in terms of efficiency.

Precognition and Non gimmick visibility: A clear visible indicator of what the foe is fixing to do. No gamey UI that tells you how much hate you have, the monster is fixing to cast meteor, etc. I think Tera was doing this but I never played it so I can't comment on that. This might be argued that gamey stuff is good or better or that 3rd party apps would do this anyway. Or they might say have it as an option and you choose whether or not to use it. I'd agree to an extent on their points being valid.Social conditioning would rear it's ugly head trying to make you conform or be left at arms lengths in the hardcore community. Humans by nature tend to want the easier more efficient path to things. I'd agree in lots of cases. Where would society be if we didn't use and appreciate technology as it came to be?

But at the same time in my opinion at least. Sometimes techology might remove some of the wonder and fear of the unknown. Imagine a day in the future where technology advances so much. That many of the things just become instant, automated, or infused inside us where we no longer have to do much of anything manually or physically. Think of a food you want to eat and it appears perfectly cooked and prepared in seconds in front of your eyes. Want ***? Imagine your dream girl and one is fabricated in the flesh to do your bidding. A subservient being or entity that is exactly tailored to your needs. It might seem cool at first but I reckon it will become boring pretty quick.

Anyways, I went way off course towards the end there. And I think I'm going to get alot of ridicule or harsh replies. I don't give a fu%$. I said what I wanted to say and look forward to reading more in this thread. Have a great day everyone!
#51 Dec 06 2012 at 2:22 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
2,426 posts
You should give Dark Souls a try. Maybe i should give Tera a try. Regardless, i have a pretty similar wishlist when it comes to what i want from combat.

I mention Dark Souls because it has that kind of "simple to learn difficult to master" philosophy. imo, pure real time combat that includes actually blocking/parrying/dodging, as well as using the terrain to your advantage (not just for line of sight) opens up a lot of opportunity for deep strategic play. More opportunity than 4 hotbars stuffed with abilities imo.

The controls are nicely tuned, rewarding good timing and reactions based on actually watching your opponent's movements/attacks. there are no annoying UI elements clogging up the screen and making things non-immersive or easy mode. And 9 times out of ten, if you died, its because you made a mistake, not because of poor mechanics/design.

Too bad its not an mmo. But ive been investing more time into it than i have into GW2(which has the most engaging combat of any mmo ive played), for instance. I could discuss mmo combat all day, because i honestly think there is so much territory left untouched by designers, and its a real shame.

Arenanet made some nice strides with the dodge mechanic (its really tough to play other mmos now because of this feature alone) as well as their soft-targeting(being able to just swing your weapon and hit whatever is in range, regardless of what you have targeted).

Too bad GW2 still makes me feel like im playing a UI, but really thats just the effect that mouse-keyboard games have on me.

You did go a bit off course there at the end, but the hallmark of the modern mind is a tendency towards digression, someone once said somewhere. But i digress.

Edited, Dec 6th 2012 3:25pm by Llester
____________________________
monk
dragoon

« Previous 1 2 3
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 24 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (24)