PVP Worlds...Follow

No, it isn't. The simple fact is that, unquestioningly, the entire franchise has had an entirely co-operative theme to it. It hasn't had "quesitonable good with separate ideals and goals"-type storylines. Ever. If they want to make an MMO like that, it would be best to do so under a new title, because this name has brand recognition and a fan base that has an expectations.

Let me put it another way: New Coke.

Now, all sodas are basically the same. Carbonation, high fructose syrup, et cetera. So why do people prefer a brand? Because when they purchase a brand they recognize, they expect it to taste a certain way. In 1985, Coca-Cola decided to change the formula of their main product, and simply label it new. It still was in the traditional red can, and if you did not look closely, you would get a sip of a product you most likely did not want. It led to it being rebranded, and eventually discontinued.

Brand recognition means something. It's not just a cutsey marketing phrase. When you have a tradition of a certain set of criteria that your product has always has, a radical departure from that can result in a major negative backlash. Like, say, making jobs tied to weapons, and those jobs not feeling unique enough to honour the tradition of the franchise. Sound familiar?

Now if the franchise had dipped its toe into those waters, or was more about internal conflict, or faction warfare like, oh, Warhammer, or Warcraft, or Star Wars... then I would expect them to include PvP and storylining to back that up. Final Fantasy never really has had too much in the way of moral ambiguity or multi-pronged storylines about warring nations. Pretty much, every story is two-sided. There are rarely even multiple factions in play, it's normally rag-tag heroes of differing backstories facing down against a unified front of unquestionable evil/destruction/malevolent intent.

FFXI did have conflict among the nations, but you see how it was handled. The writers did, in fact, put in the fact that the three nations were not on the same page, and had greatly differing ideas and methods of working. However, there was no question that the nations knew, at the end of the day, it was stand united or fall into darkness. When conflict games were introduced, it was more based, again, on teams of players rather than open PvP; PvP in the sense of taking one another out wasn't even the focus, it was about scoring goals in a game, like Blitzball. It failed mainly because it was ridiculous to join a match at times unless your server was mostly on board for it (the fact that level sync wasn't a thing back then hurt it too). However, that mechanic is more in keeping with the "game within a game" mentality you see in the series. If they had made it so groups could have started the event, rather than it be scheduled, it likely would have been a broader success.

You want to know what happens when you try to totally change ideals of a game? Chocobo Racing. You see, if they had just stripped out the racing mini-game from FFVII, layered in more content, and released it, it likely would have been somewhat more successful. What they did was buckle to investor pressure to jump on a bandwagon, and sell out the brand. Instead of trying to see the franchise through a new light, they simply dropped in a new mechanic to an existing property and expected that brand recognition alone would move product. By taking FFXIV, turning it into an Open PvP, and releasing it, it would be no less than making Chocobo Racing II. It's obvious that it is to jump on the PvP bandwagon, and try to win new fans from that experience rather than providing the experience people expect when they buy an FF game.

Again, it's not a matter of could, it's a matter of should.

"This franchise has never been about online play." So you must agree that Final Fantasy XI, by virtue of the "doesn't feel like" argument, doesn't feel like a Final Fantasy game either. By extension then XIV doesn't feel like a Final Fantasy game either. Here's another example: "This franchise was never about mini-games." A motorcycle chase through a highway? Submarine battles? Card games? Underwater Rugby? We just eliminated 7 through 10 because they don't "feel like Final Fantasy games." I don't see the outrage over that, though. In fact, I see excitement over it, yet those mechanics are very clearly not Final Fantasy. You know what made them "work?" A writer. Arguably another writer could have made Open World PVP work as well. We can probably eliminate every Final Fantasy that isn't Final Fantasy 1 as "not feeling like a Final Fantasy game" if we bother.

There's no such thing as "it doesn't feel like Final Fantasy." You know what does feel like Final Fantasy, though? The developers trying new things. That's the only true constant (besides the obvious similarly objects, named or otherwise). It's pretty hit or miss, but the alternative is stagnation which is infinitely worse. Just dismissing an (hypothetical) idea simply because it hasn't been done yet is hardly a good reason to not do something.[/quote]
You are confusing storyline and thematic tones with game mechanics. Square has always played with gameplay mechanics, and it's even known for doing it. The game has gone from turn based, to real-time combat. It has had varying leveling systems. It has had differing settings and environments. It has even played with the genre with success (Final Fantasy Tactics, Final Fantasy Dissidia, Chocobo Dungeon), even if it has failed when not trying to honour the thematic tones of the franchise. Also, their very first game in the series had a tile puzzle game embedded in it, so yea, games within games have existed as long as the series has. But it has also had unified themes. Don't believe me?

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy

SpoilerPlot and themes

The central conflict in many Final Fantasy games focuses on a group of characters battling an evil, and sometimes ancient, antagonist that dominates the game's world. Stories frequently involve a sovereign state in rebellion, with the protagonists taking part in the rebellion. The heroes are often destined to defeat the evil, and occasionally gather as a direct result of the antagonist's malicious actions.[5][50] Another staple of the series is the existence of two villains; the main villain is not always who it appears to be, as the primary antagonist may actually be subservient to another character or entity.[5] The main antagonist introduced at the beginning of the game is not always the final enemy, and the characters must continue their quest beyond what appears to be the final fight.[50]
Stories in the series frequently emphasize the internal struggles, passions, and tragedies of the characters, and the main plot often recedes into the background as the focus shifts to their personal lives.[25][51] Games also explore relationships between characters, ranging from love to rivalry.[5] Other recurring situations that drive the plot include amnesia, a hero corrupted by an evil force, mistaken identity, and self-sacrifice.[5][52][53] Magical orbs and crystals are recurring in-game items that are frequently connected to the themes of the games' plots.[50] Crystals often play a central role in the creation of the world, and a majority of the Final Fantasy games link crystals and orbs to the planet's life force. As such, control over these crystals drives the main conflict.[50][54] The classical elements are also a recurring theme in the series related to the heroes, villains, and items.[50] Other common plot and setting themes include the Gaia hypothesis, an apocalypse, and conflicts between advanced technology and nature.[50][52][55]

I honestly was about to rewrite the majority of that here never having read it in this article! Just being a long-time fan of this series, you see the recurring themes. Sacrifice, devotion, teamwork, setting aside rivalry for the better good, fights against unquestioning evil. WoW, one of the major PvP games out there, is set up with warring factions since the first games in the Warcraft franchise. Hell it's set in the same bloody world! It's literally the same story just seen via different mechanics.

Nowhere up there does it say that FF cannot transcend the genre of game (it has tactics-based games and even a couple of solid fighters based on it). Nowhere in that summery does it state that there are rival factions either. Changing thematic tone in a series is a dangerous thing. If done well, it can be respected, and even praised. But by and large, shifts in tone are panned. Let's look at Resident Evil.

Resident Evil started as a tense horror game, where resources were limited, the enemies seemingly endless, and where you were very much dis-empowered. It was a critically praised game, even if it had terrible dialogue. Over the course of the series, however, the horror elements have been stripped away, leaving a generic shooter game where the enemies are zombies. The plot has become utterly laughable, and the thematic tones of the series largely lost under the shift of gameplay style. Now, when they made each game, they faced a choice. Should they continue to cater to fans of horror, or should they lighten the survival elements to cater to a broader audience. They chose the latter, to the ruination of what the franchise was about.

I can fault Square for tons of things. TONS. I am not a fan of their games after XI (XII felt like offline XI, which felt terrible, XIV had major issues, and I didn't even play XIII when I heard the phrase "it gets good 18 hours in"), but one thing that I can see about those games I do treasure is that I can see the thematic reason why. Square has done an absolutely brilliant job of maintaining Final Fantasy as a brand recognized for quality stories, interesting characters, solid game mechanics and, yes, strong thematic undertones making it all feel connected. To suddenly jar that is unwelcome and unwanted. You can see I'm not alone in this. I am willing to bet that everyone who says PvP does not feel like Final Fantasy has been a long-time fan of the series.

Then why ever grab a whm when you can just slap on another DD and function just fine?

Maybe you're talking way above my head here and I'm just not understanding where you're coming from, but shouldn't whm's be high value squishy targets? And pld's high value rock solid targets?

I must be too engrained from FFXI and other games that the DD role is pretty much dime a dozen and sometimes does get left sitting around longer since there are most likely more people playing DD compared to healer and tank.

Yes, that is what I'm saying, but understanding what I'm saying and why I'm saying it are two completely separate things, as has been made apparent. It has absolutely nothing to do with PvP.

Honestly I think that's a lot of what's going on here--not being able to think outside the EQ/FFXI paradigm.

You grab the WHM because they're your friend, or they're particularly good at their job. Those are the reasons you should play with someone--not because they're literally the only person on the server who is available for an artificially necessitated role.



Most MMOs ARE poorly designed. The players know it, and other game designers know it (even though some don't know how to solve it).

Also, this idea that evenly balancing the classes makes them boring is a complete non sequitur. So why don't you save me some time here and tell me: Why do you think that? Because it's complete nonsense, and you haven't bothered to explain why a WHM needs to be more important than a damage dealer to a party's success. To me, that just shows that you don't understand how fun works. I do, because that's what I study, so I'm happy to break this down.

Also, spare me the "declaring when the argument is won/lost." It's not really constructive to an adult discussion. If you're looking for debates to win and lose, look somewhere else. I'm here for friendly discourse.

Correct me if I'm wrong. You think that for some reason, if all the classes are balanced such that all classes have a 50/50 shot in PvP of beating other classes, that somehow translates into the ability to design PvE encounters that are inclusive to every class equally. Is that the jist?

If so, let me give you two huge reasons why that will not work.

1. Mobs may have completely different resistances than players, or completely different reactions to abilities that automatically throw the class balance off. Like, what if there are no classes that are weak/strong to certain types of damage or certain abilities, yet there are mobs that have that weakness/strength, thus throwing things out of balance. I'm assuming your response would be, well then don't make mobs with those weaknesses/strengths. Well now we've just dumbed down our content in order to keep class balance. Because whether you like it or not, one of the main things that raid bosses in almost all games have are strengths and weaknesses. By eliminating those, you're removing one avenue of making interesting content.

2. Mobs may use certain tactics or have certain traits and abilities that players don't. For instance, flying mobs that can only be hit by spells or ranged attacks when in the air. Unless player classes have that same trait, you've just unbalanced your classes, regardless of how balanced they are against one another. Or how about a mob that has a different attack style than all the classes? How about a mob that is in perma-hundred fists mode? Unless there's a player character that can attain that, you've just unbalanced the classes because now the classes that are best equipped to handle that become more important than others.

I could list about 100 more scenarios where your class balance idea doesn't work. And please don't tell me that developers should just develop the content to work within what the classes offer. That's lame, boring, and to quote you "bad design".



When you can't even admit that what you're posting is an opinion, you have lost. Sorry, unless you're going to parenthetically site your proof to back your claims, what you are stating are opinions. Plain and simple.

Edited, Jun 1st 2013 4:41pm by BartelX

And almost completely lacking in party play or any meaningful endgame content for PvE... but hey, the PvP is fun.

Hmm! Why are you bringing this up ? In XIV PVP and PVE are separated, as in your abilities in PVE, are not the same ones as the ones you will use in PVP, totally negates your argument, there is not balacing PVP & PVE at the same time.

I

He was, until they keept talking about healers and being left out and sad stuff like that lol

Uh, because we're talking about more than just XIV at this point, and we're not even really talking about PvP other than using at as a starting point. I thought that was pretty obvious.



No, what doesn't add anything to your argument is saying stuff like this:



What you described had nothing to do with what you were quoting, and nothing to do with math. You were quoted as saying



Having a whm be on equal footing as a DD in a 1 on 1 battle has absolutely nothing to do with making challenging, unique encounters. Unless it's a whm solo encounter, and if that's what you meant, you're absolutely right! If you meant in a group setting, it does nothing to make designing the content easier. Having all classes balanced so that, by your own words, you can design an encounter rating of 30 and use any 6 classes with a rating of 5, doesn't work. I mentioned a couple reasons above, which you conveniently just sidestepped by saying you rebalance after the fact (which by the way you'd have to do every time you add a new encounter variable not available to classes). The insane amount of time that would waste in a development cycle alone makes it completely moot.

Perhaps I was being a jackass in saying you lost, but you come off as such an arrogant, I-can-never-be-wrong poster all the time that I felt the need to point out that if you can't even admit something you're posting is an opinion, you lose. Perhaps I was too harsh, but it's my opinion, much like everything else I'm posting.

SpoilerSee how that works?

So you inferred that I was being arrogant, and you can see my sig about that as well. That's exactly what the quote is in reference to. Honestly, your counter-arguments are not as compelling as you seem to think they are, either, and I could just as easily accuse you of the same arrogance, but since you can't seem to avoid making things personal and keep the discussion constructive, I'm just going to ignore you. You're really not leaving me an avenue of productive discourse when you just dismiss my arguments out of hand.

If anyone else would like to discuss why intraplayer statistical balancing in an MMO should be done prior to encounter balancing, I'm happy to discuss it.

It seemed to me like you were nitpicking on my larger argument (which was not an opinion so much as a math problem) based on the way I phrased it (which I acknowledged, at least twice, was as an opinion). I apologize when I believe I've made a mistake (I think I just did so two minutes before you posted that), and I'm generally very willing to believe that I've made a mistake. The entire spirit of why I'm here is to see if I'm wrong about FFXIV.

The bottom line for me is this: I state what I think in a matter-of-fact way, just as you do, but I focus on the subject of conversation, rather than the person. If you can't do the same, we're not going to have discussions about these things, period. Whatever you think about game design, FFXIV, etc., is really not important enough for me to humor someone who can't show me that basic respect. These are not weighty matters, and I have a hard time respecting people who take these sorts of discussions so seriously that they snipe at others over them (or just don't care because, "Whatev's, it's the intrawebs"). If that bothers you, then please, just don't talk to me.

Also, you get no credit for unapologetically admitting your faults, at least not with me.

AND: You have to infer that someone is being arrogant before you can tell them that they are. Unless you're a mind reader, which I presume you're not.

Edited, Jun 1st 2013 2:51pm by Kachi

If what Kachi says is really what they're teaching in game design school these days, that really helps me understand why games these days are so boring. Seriously, anyone, go play Guild Wars 2 and tell me that's really an interesting battle system. It flat-out sucks. Solo play is super easy, and there's really no point to play in parties. Even when people do play in parties, they just kind of zerg the same thing, because everyone is good at everything. There are no real strengths or weaknesses. It's like the little-league soccer of MMORPGs.

I have no doubt that Kachi's opinions on balance are based on math. That doesn't mean it's the optimal approach though. Obviously, it depends on what you want from your game; other approaches to game design will also be based on math, too.

Whichever math you choose to follow, the bottom line is that FFXIV should not be (and, thankfully, will not be) a game where a white mage can go toe-to-toe with a damage dealer. That's just not realistic, and it doesn't make any sense. A damage dealer should win that fight pretty quickly 100 percent of the time. I'm trying to imagine a real-world example of a soldier versus a field medic... the soldier wins that fight every time... but soldiers need field medics to survive.

You add "balance" to the confrontation by adding different players (or, in this case, monsters) with their own strengths and weaknesses to each side of the battle. THAT is how you encourage interesting, involved PvE battles. That's the difference between Final Fantasy (which has always emphasized party play) and everything else on the market, which is catering to the individual. That's why SE would be making a HUGE mistake to balance FFXIV on PvP principles.

Edited, Jun 1st 2013 3:54pm by Thayos

There's also the fact that 1v1 balancing is just about the dumbest thing you can attempt.

There's no way to do it without making the classes carbon copies of each other. MMOs are meant to be played in groups. And there's a very good reason why Blizzard stopped caring about even their 2v2 arena bracket, and doesn't offer a 1v1 bracket.