I brought up this issue on one of the dedicated AO forums and promply got flamed for "not understanding the concept of Role-playing." I thought I'd ask around here because, you all appear smarter than the average bear.

I've played UO, EQ, and AC. I've also done Pen and Paper stuff extensivly in my past (D&D, Rolemaster, etc). In playing around with Anarchy Online, I'm left feeling like the whole MMRPG community is stuck in a rut. Apparently everyone playing these games is content to go out, kill random critters so they may gain loot and levels.

I foolishly asked what the point was. What was the benfit of being level 50 over level 5. I was told that RPGs are about bettering your character/avater and that combat with wandering monsters was the primary method of doing this. I was told that trade skills were boring and that standing around emoting was silly.

I'm not sure if I was explaining myself clearly enough, but my point was that these online RPGs present you with a world complete with backstory, strange lands to discover, and monsters to battle, but ultimately, everything is static. At least in a single-player RPGs you are given the illusion that the world is changing because of your actions. My beef was that for all of this level gaining, your character has no sway in the world. No amount of grouping or organizing (clans, factions, etc.) is going to make a difference. Towns and cities remain the same, NPC still sell the same old stuff, the world essentially ignores you.

So why is EQ better than, say, Diablo2 single-player? What the point of online interaction if those interactions are untimately fruitless?

I'm honestly interested in some thoughts on this as I see such awesome potential in MMPOGs. Maybe this is why WW2 Online for all it's shortcomings, is still the most interesting online game to play right now.

"I'm not sure if I was explaining myself clearly enough, but my point was that these online RPGs present you with a world complete with backstory, strange lands to discover, and monsters to battle, but ultimately, everything is static. At least in a single-player RPGs you are given the illusion that the world is changing because of your actions."

AC at least has the world change periodically, but I these games are pretty static. It really is about character building. There's not much else at the core of these games.

EQ, which I've played the most, always dangles a carrot in front of the player in terms of new skills and abilities to be had by levelling, access to new areas, and the ever present treasure hunt for new magic stuff.

I am a bit burned out on them. I'm playing through Diablo 2 and will probably beat the game on all three levels with my assassin and then shelve it.

"It really is about character building. There's not much else at the core of these games."

Yeah, that's my fear, Mark. I'm all for building a character, but I guess I'd like to put that character to good use. And doing random, directionless quests is not good use (at least in my opinion).

Word is, Anarchy Online has a "story" that will kick in and that it will be "shaped by individual player actions." Maybe that'll work for me.

"So why is EQ better than, say, Diablo2 single-player? What the point of online interaction if those interactions are untimately fruitless?"

Because in D2 single-player no one else can see how good your character is. In EQ, you get to have power over other players by killing them or at least appearing "better" than they are (more powerful).

Ah, hey, finally a thread I know something about. Woo and stuff. While I'm waiting for AO's Login button to pop (and for the server to drop my character out of the world, since I just zone-crashed again), let's see...

---

Quote:

I'm not sure if I was explaining myself clearly enough, but my point was that these online RPGs present you with a world complete with backstory, strange lands to discover, and monsters to battle, but ultimately, everything is static. At least in a single-player RPGs you are given the illusion that the world is changing because of your actions. My beef was that for all of this level gaining, your character has no sway in the world. No amount of grouping or organizing (clans, factions, etc.) is going to make a difference. Towns and cities remain the same, NPC still sell the same old stuff, the world essentially ignores you.

---

Oh, and the AO official forums are chock-full of puling fanboys. You'd do well to stay out of there, believe me.

I'm all for hack and slash, but when you are paying money every month there SHOULD be an alternative to the monty haul/kill the rats fest treadmill of these games. I agree, there is ALOT of potential in mmrpgs. Hopefully Sims Online will prove that a game can be ALL about chatting and socializing, sell a buttload, and still be fun. Sims Online, at least the features I've read about, looks to have the most in terms of "innovation".

And like Bill, I too love to explore in mmrpgs... in fact i gave away alot of "good" items in EQ without a care, same with AC. items schmitems, i could play might and magic or diablo solo to get that feeling of a pack rat (which i am in RL!).

IMO, the next best mmrpg won't be in the vein of EQ AC or UO. It will be a fan controlled mmrpg where people are allowed to make there own content over time within the game. They will also be allowed to GM the game if they wish. Games like Arcanum and NWN are close... though i think the emphasis HAS to be on simplicity and dynamic character building ala Diablo 2. The skill based point system in Diablo 2 is one of the best systems in an rpg ive seen. Give me a Diablo 3 with online capapbility of a semi persistent world (I really dont WANT to play with thousands of players maybe a few 100) where the emphasis isnt so much on competition (levels/items) but combined with exploring and making things, and with the ability to play on or off battle.bet and I'll be in. Give me Morrowind with NWN online capability... THATs THE TICKET!!! and make it all in the vein of Final Fantasy theme so as to sell it!

etc

>So why is EQ better than, say, Diablo2 single-player? What the point of online interaction if those interactions are untimately fruitless?

Well, you can play with your friends, but that's what D2 battle.net is for. And for my money, that's just as good. I play MMORPGS not to play against others or change the world, but to run around with a couple friends in a world that just happens to be populated by real people.

I do wish those other people who populated the world did more interesting things. Maybe then I'd be more social. As it is now, I'm content to talk to the two friends I know from OUTSIDE the game that I happen to party with, and enjoy the fact that the exact same people aren't going to be in the exact same place in the game world. The NPCs are, but there are lively PCs doing stuff all around. Too bad most of it is obnoxious. Sigh...

UO2 - I mean UWO: Origin - had some neat ideas to combat this, as does SW Galaxies. Player interaction becomes a necessity when virtually all the good items are player-made and when players set the game quests instead of just scripts from the game designers. I'm curious to see how it works.

>AC at least has the world change periodically, but I these games are pretty static.

Yeah, that's why I find it parituclarly ironic that it's THAT game where the monsters just stand there in one spot until you get close enough to trigger their b-line straight for you.

>I'm all for building a character, but I guess I'd like to put that character to good use.

I like the idea expressed for SW Galaxies where, as you play, you get involved with factions and get reputations that actually matter. So if you're level 50 and you've been in Jabba's crime syndicate for awhile, you might be known for that. It might be your job to hire bounty hunters (players) to kill those that don't fufill contracts (other players). And law-enforcement types (players) might similarly put an APB on YOU. That is, if it all actually works the way they're describing. It's awfully ambitious and closing up all the abuse holes is gonna be a nightmare.

The best explanation for MMORPGs being at all successful was put before me in an article on cdmag.com (now cgonline.com). It might have been a 'Grumpy Gamer' by Jeff Vogel but whatever it was it's impossible to find now.

The author suggests the fascination with mindless bashing and levelling is akin to whittling - in fact he calls it the 'whittling syndrome'. You spend hours and hours in a familiar fashion doing a repetative task in order to relax. However, each hour actually accumulates towards a goal - in the case of roleplaying it's a powerful character. The social aspect is more like chatting with buddies on the porch while you're whittling rather than actual roleplaying (even with the painfully strained, or halfhearted, attempts at roleplaying one sees on some servers).

This is the only thing I can think of. However, it does go to show how powerful the promise and dream of real online roleplaying is. That there are even groups who try to make a believable world of of this miserable hash is a testimony to the indomitable human spirit - or the powers of rationalization and denial.

As for exploring in MMRPGs, I got involved during the open beta for AC. Many of the ideas being proposed sounded interesting and I thought I'd take a chance. One of the betatesters and I clicked really well and he adopted me into an informal clan - somewhat outside the patronage structure. Thus was born clan al-Karoog on Thistledown. Kallas was my character and the venerable Ja'mar al-Karoog was his uncle. While we roleplayed and were appreciated by our leige for it (King Fafrd) very few others did including most of our leadership. Fafrd understood us to be entertaining and being entertaining was important to keeping a group lively but other leaders barely tolerated it as a waste of time that got in the way of camping and killing.

Eventually I got out of the habit and just wandered alone - avoiding company. There were places to see and I wanted to see them. I think I may have been the first player to make note of the linear nature of certain constructs - rows of columns and aqueducts in ruin. I charted the locations and directions of these tantalizing hints and forwarded them to Ja'mar. As Fafrd's Kingdom was by far the largest on any server, and he'd not heard of this yet, I do think we may have been the only ones to notice this feature. Sometimes we would seek out particular sites together or with a small party and try to make sense of the markings.

Was this fun? Sure it was a blast actually.

But eventually it got very old. You see, it didn't matter what we found out or sorted out - the game doesn't care. It just sits there like an inanimate lump waiting for the administration to pull strings. You can explore and surmise to your heart's content but there's absolutely no point or purpose to it. I imagine this is even more true on other RPGs than Asheron's Call.

I think the promise of SW Galaxies is what I'm looking for. I don't necessarily want the world to revolve around me. But wouldn't it be nice if a slew of players all moving in the same direction actually affected the story?

Here's an example in AO I've been thinking about. As an Omni Bureaucrat, I should be able to work against the rebels by manuplating the system... let's say I locate how a particular rebel city is getting supplies (weapons, ammo, med kits) for their stores. I could order and perhaps lead a hit on their supply lines. Now, one person completing this one quest against this one town isn't going to do a heck of a lot. But what if 50 or 100 bureaucrats did the same mission? Prices for goods in the rebel town would rise or perhaps they would run out of certain items. Rebels with trade skills would suddenly have a lot to do.

I dunno. I'm rambling right now, but I think it would be amazingly fun if you could see the affect you are having on other people...

In playing more AO, I tend to agree with Vogel's whittling analogy.

Greg - your example of the Omni Bureaucrat is a perfect example of How Things Should Be Done. However, is it? Nope, the Bureaucrat is just a slightly different variety of character to go spawn-camp monsters (or run missions) with.

On a related note, I'm willing to bet a pile at this very moment that when SW Galaxies is released it'll be.....EQ with lightsabers! Camping the Mon Mothma spawn!

I'll probably drop dead of shock if Verant can actually produce something creative with the license.

Thats why I'm really looking forward to the two upcoming fantasy mmorgs shadowbane and dark ages of camalot. I like the concept of dark ages alot but shadowbane's execution looks great actual non passive skills for the warrior classes! But anyway for example most all of there equipment is rather plain and I dont think set mobs will have the same uber eq at all times on either mmorg. Also huge focus on pvp that will probably turn alot of people off but although I'm not a griefer I always loved pvp though it usually only adds to the roleplay on muds its still alot more entertaining then hacking on mobs allday. Anyway though alot of people may not be interested in the two upcoming mmorpgs I believe they will offer signifigantly different gameplay then we have seen thus far.

---

Quote:

On a related note, I'm willing to bet a pile at this very moment that when SW Galaxies is released it'll be.....EQ with lightsabers! Camping the Mon Mothma spawn!

---

I've been playing AO for a few days, and I'm enjoying myself to a small degree (so long as I can avoid entering the lag-laden, crash-prone, 3fps-in-a-good-moment cities).

But, I don't see myself playing for long.

1) The skill tree is boring. There is no real difference between fighting at 1st level and fighting at 21st. Ignore the numbers, and the percentage of damage dealt and damage received is comparable at every level. The fights don't even take more time.

2) Same with the equipment and spells. The higher level versions are just the lower level versions with bigger stats. But by the time you get to them, the results are the same. Ignore the numbers, and a quality-1 Treatment Lab heals as much damage at 1st level as a quality-5 at 12th.

At least EQ had the carrot of new skills and abilities at higher levels.

3) You need to constantly upgrade. Levelling is too fast, and so any single piece of equipment will only sufficiently meet your needs for a few levels.

Of course, an argument can be made that the, ahem, robust economy and easy-to-obtain money takes care of this. The downside is that it creates a constant loop of fight, buy stuff, fight, buy stuff, level up, buy new stuff, repeat. The game plays the same at every level, except perhaps that you need to go farther out into the world to complete your missions.

But because of this, there's no real sense of accomplishment when you get a new item, except perhaps that you actually found a someone who had it for sale and didn't crash while trying to get to them.

5) No context for anything. The world is so foreign that even those people that might want to roleplay (or at least feel like the game is anything more than an engine) have no real background with which to do so, other than "kill Omni" or "kill Clan." It's nothing but a huge, online football rally. Even the environment and detail can only be enjoyed on a purely aesthetic level.

6) No downtime. While this seems like a plus on the surface (especially to veteran EQ players), I'm finding that the quickness of the game (fights are fast, and you can heal yourself up and be fighting again in no time) makes for a really dead world. People don't chat, don't answer questions, and, most importantly, don't help each other out. Why answer someone's plea for help/info when you can kill a monster or two in relatively the same amount of time? Why stop and buff up a newbie? Why do anything but fight and level?

It's a game that accomodates and encourages power-levelling, because there's not much more to do.

7) No danger. I've just taken a character to level 15 in three days and I only died once. And that was because my game crashed while fighting. I've never once felt threatened or in over my head. Even when I was attacked by a much stronger creature, I easily ran away.

AO gets rid of everything that people criticized about EQ (downtime, lack of solo play, slow levelling), but in the end just proves that those things helped to make EQ fun.

I'm hoping AO will get more interesting once FunCom fixes the technical problems (which are starting to seem more and more like a severely flawed foundation and less like opening night jitters).

More importantly, the story, once it gets started in September, may make many of these criticisms obsolete. The Longest Journey had a great story, and its writer (Ragnar Tournquist) is also heavily involved with the story for AO. Hopefully, it will justify spending the $12.95/month to find out.

-Ron

Well. Interesting. I guess I'm playing a different game than you are, Ron. :)

"There is no real difference between fighting at 1st level and fighting at 21st. Ignore the numbers, and the percentage of damage dealt and damage received is comparable at every level. The fights don't even take more time."

Disagree. I've got a 24th level character right now, and the fights now are harder than they've ever been--even with my 60-token health buff on. Mobs use far more damaging nanos (including the damage over time ones) than they ever did, the ratio of damage to my health is far greater, and I've come closer to death lately than I have in a while. Then again, I'm not using guns, and there are a whole slew of insanely overpowered weapons in this game.

"Ignore the numbers, and a quality-1 Treatment Lab heals as much damage at 1st level as a quality-5 at 12th."

A quality 1 treatment lab heals 30 health. Near as I recall, I started with around 50 health, so that's, what, 60%. Now, I use labs that heal 170, and I have 692hp--less than 25%. And they're the biggest I can use.

"People don't chat, don't answer questions, and, most importantly, don't help each other out. Why answer someone's plea for help/info when you can kill a monster or two in relatively the same amount of time? Why stop and buff up a newbie? Why do anything but fight and level?"

Where do you hang out? I've been in West Athen and Tir and Old Athen and Newland and Borealis and Holes in the Wall and Stret West Bank and Avalon... and in each of those places, I've seen folks socializing, helping newbs out, tossing buffs, and the like. Hell, I myself spend at least a half hour a day every day in backyards just answering questions and buffing newbs with armor nanos so they can get out of the backyards faster. Many people thus far are fixated on leveling, sure--but that's partly due to the fact that they simply don't know how long the server's gonna stay up at any given moment. When people can trust server stability, it'll change, I think.

"No danger. I've just taken a character to level 15 in three days and I only died once. And that was because my game crashed while fighting. I've never once felt threatened or in over my head. Even when I was attacked by a much stronger creature, I easily ran away."

Been to Avalon? Athen Shire Exp? 4 Holes? Broken Shores? I've died I can't tell you how many times by bein run down and bushwhacked by stuff... but then, I don't ride zone lines, either. Explorer, don'tcha know. :)

"AO gets rid of everything that people criticized about EQ (downtime, lack of solo play, slow levelling), but in the end just proves that those things helped to make EQ fun."

Uh, so you're saying forced grouping, punishing players significantly for guessing wrong or Internet quirks, and staring blankly at your monitor for hours on end is a good thing? (Btw, if med'ding is so cool and fun, explain Gems please.) Wow. Never heard that before. I guess EQ's secret is "inflict so much pain on our players that they'll cheer for a respite and call it fun." Then again, EQ was one of the most tedious, repetitive, mind-numbing games I have ever played in my career, so keep that in mind. :)

Well, the pace in EQ is a bit more interesting. There is too much downtime in EQ, but it's not a bad thing to be forced to take a respite now and then.

I think the most boring EQ experience I ever had was as part of a group of six in Kunark where we waited at a popular spawn spot and killed blue creatures for about 20 minutes straight. We had a well-balanced group and we were able to kill quickly and heal one another and we had no downtime.

I think downtime is a good thing for MMOGs, but it needs to lessened somewhat in EQ.

I have about the same opinion, Ron. Hopefully the story will pull me in. BTW, your name sounds familier. Don't you play D&D with my wife?

If Online roleplaying games can ever emulate what I have been doing since I was 12 with paper and dice they will finally get me as a customer.

The thing I love about role-playing is the interaction. Your character or the party you travel with actually creates history and stories. You gain powerful allies and with them powerful enemies. There is a thrill in the quest and satisfaction in the completion. That is why I play role-playing games, strictly on paper with dice. When I am sitting there at the table with my friends for that short time my character is real, the world is real, and I believe...for a while.

Until Online games can do this I have no interest in playing them. If I want to powerlevel a character I will play Diablo, and if I want to interact with other players I will start a game that has 8 players allowed with unlimited levels. I don't need EQ, UO, AC, AO or any other game for that.

Jeff

City Frame Rates Got You Down?

If you're getting serious slowdown in crowded areas, try running around looking straight at the ground. This actually works quite well to reduce frame-rate problems if you're just trying to get from point A to point B.

I think the common misconception in the direct comparison between EQ and AO is in comparing how characters level. Isn't the level cap in AO something like 200? EQ levels don't equal AO levels. I've heard some AO players complaining about how they're "already level 20" or something like that, but it seems like just the tip of the iceberg. Take me for a ride in your private jet and I'll be impressed.

--Greg

"City Frame Rates Got You Down?

If you're getting serious slowdown in crowded areas, try running around looking straight at the ground. This actually works quite well to reduce frame-rate problems if you're just trying to get from point A to point B." -- Greg

Christ almighty, this is the most unintentionally damning assessment of a game I've ever seen.

McClendon: "Well. Interesting. I guess I'm playing a different game than you are, Ron. :)"

No, you're just playing it differently. The game system supports what I said. If you continually upgrade your armor and weapons/nanos, then the game remains static.

As for the point about social interaction, my argument wasn't that you can't be social - it's that the game gives you no encouragement to do so. Soloing is easy, money is abundant, there's no downtime, and the populated areas cause lag and memory management problems.

Asher: "I think the most boring EQ experience I ever had was as part of a group of six in Kunark where we waited at a popular spawn spot and killed blue creatures for about 20 minutes straight."

Exactly. Now imagine being able to do this on your own, and you have AO in a nutshell.

Kasavin: "EQ levels don't equal AO levels."

Of course they don't, but levelling in AO isn't a significant reward. It isn't even a big deal. If you solo, even easy missions, you will level during every mission, or at least every two missions. In some ways, it's a problem, as I stated in my earlier post w/r/t equipment.

McClendon: "Uh, so you're saying forced grouping, punishing players significantly for guessing wrong or Internet quirks, and staring blankly at your monitor for hours on end is a good thing?"

With the exception of the "internet quirks" point, I guess I am. I loved EQ in the early days. The world was more exciting to explore, there was context, social behavior. It had its problems, but I think AO is just as bad in many ways.

Jason: "Christ almighty, this is the most unintentionally damning assessment of a game I've ever seen."

Well, Gamespot gave it a 7.6, so maybe it's a compliment of sorts. :-p

Ron: "As for the point about social interaction, my argument wasn't that you can't be social - it's that the game gives you no encouragement to do so. Soloing is easy, money is abundant, there's no downtime, and the populated areas cause lag and memory management problems."

Okay, I see now. This is true--nothing is forcing you to talk to anyone else, unless they have something you want. Then again, that describes EQ as well--forced grouping = forced communication = Choadboy shouts "47 CLERIC LFG".

And the memory management thing is present all the time; it's just accentuated in cities because of the load. I'm wondering why Funcom didn't learn from AC or EQ in this regard, actually... "Gee, let's put all the essential and desirable services in the middle of every town, and then wonder why people gather there and lag it out." If there were whompas I could use that weren't in the middle of towns, and shop terminals that I could dump loot at, and banks/insurance terminals, I would use them. I haven't found any yet outside of city centers, and the lovely 25% political outposts. Feh.

"It had its problems, but I think AO is just as bad in many ways."

No argument here. AO's launch and subsequent daily patch treadmilling is a comedy of errors. As of today, they fixed the team mission terminals, but now mission keys are magically unlinked from missions... so if you get a mission and you don't want it any more, you have to wait for the timer to run out. Be choosy now until they fix this, because if you max out your mission slots, you'll have to wait hours and hours for them to expire. And since keys aren't linked to missions any more, when you complete a mission, the key stays in your bag--but since it's rare you can tell which key goes to which mission, it's best to wait until your mission queue is clear to delete any of 'em.

Never said AO wasn't a mess, believe me. :) But I guess it's personal preference, because my best day in EQ was worse than my worst day in AO thus far.

"Okay, I see now. This is true--nothing is forcing you to talk to anyone else, unless they have something you want. Then again, that describes EQ as well--forced grouping = forced communication = Choadboy shouts "47 CLERIC LFG"."

Yes and no. There are plenty of spots that people congregate at in EQ because they're relatively safe as spots to heal and med. The usual result is quite a lot of chatter. There would definitely be a lot less social interaction in EQ if there wasn't any downtime.

"Well, Gamespot gave it a 7.6, so maybe it's a compliment of sorts."

Ha-ha! Yeah! 7.6 but it doesn't work. But when it works it'll be GREAT! The review basicly says that! Whoo! Crack reviewin' there doggies! Heck, they gave WW2 Online a 5.6 or something, why?

Because it might work someday!

-DormOnkey

"Christ almighty, this is the most unintentionally damning assessment of a game I've ever seen."

Thank you.

"Crack reviewin' there doggies!"

I'm not even gonna go there.

--Greg

I'm a lurker and a newbie... be gentle, please. So... here i am, thinking about taking the plunge in a MMORPG and I'm faced with a couple of problems:

1. I've never played one. Ever. The most I do is run around UT servers. I don't even chat online much. Do I try to get into Everquest? Is it still possible to be a newbie in these games or is everyone a level 50 ranger with a +10 halberd of death? This option is kind of intimidating.

2. Do I go for AO? A mostly buggy but still relatively new thing? I don't know if I want to face the dragon of hardware issues and massive patches.

I'd love some thoughts on this. I'm just too methodical for my own good. I wish I was the kind of guy who would just jump into these things but money is tight and I don't want to make an uninformed choice.

thanks,

Rama

Rama, you can get a jewelcase version of EverQuest for $10 that includes the free month, I believe. Short of getting into a beta, that's the cheapest way to try out one of these games. There are plenty of low level characters in EQ.

Rama, AO's a pretty good place to start, though you should give it a couple more weeks just to be safe.

On the other hand, EverQuest is a safe bet right now. EQ's subscriber base continues to grow, so you wouldn't be the only new player in town. Still, it's true that most EQ players have already played for hundreds of hours, and as such, you'll probably run into a few that aren't very polite, and will laugh you out the door just because you don't know what an FBSS is. I think EverQuest uses more acronyms than the militry.

Still, since the game is so well established, you can't really go wrong with it. Check out one of the major EQ fan sites and read some of the newbie strategy guides for one of the classes that interests you, and you should have plenty of info to get you well on your way. It's an intimidating game at first, but definitely worth trying out.

--Greg

Rama:

Instead of recommending a particular title (since you now have almost four to choose from), here's a brief rundown of their bullet points:

UO: Old as dirt so it'll run on older machines; player housing; skills-based character development system; you can correct mistakes in character development without starting over; enormous, long-time community; top-down 2D/3D hybrid; lots of useful and entertaining trade skills; somewhat cumbersome interface-wise; Ultima "world" backdrop; PvP integrated into the system from the start but now separated into different "worlds".

EQ: Most popular MMOG to date; class-based system; multiple races; 2nd prettiest character models; 3D first or third-person view; high-fantasy theme; nearly impossible to solo from the mid-game on; mistakes made during development cannot be undone; fairly rigorous advancement process; unduly harsh death penalty; PvP an afterthought, though it's getting better; extremely goal- and group-oriented--if you don't play well with others, or just don't want to, you're going to hate EQ.

AC: Quake-with-color-like (almost but not quite) graphics; lots of character customization possibilities (it's currently the only game where your character's face can be unique); free monthly updates; very little "zoning"; very little downtime; skills-based; unique theme and backdrop, though there are influences from all over; purely skills-based; mistakes made at character creation cannot be undone; extremely numbers-based--the most spreadsheet-like of any of the current contestants; company permits far more abuse and exploitative activities than any other game, including hacking the client, 3rd-party utilities, and freely macroing; evolving storyline that actually affects the game, after a fashion; playable solo or in groups but better as a solo game.

AO: Absolutely atrocious launch, and continuing instability problems; client-side memory leak, zone crashes, and lag are not only common but par for the course; easily the best graphics of any of them; both class- and skills-based; faction-based (three factions); four races, 3 genders (male, female, neuter); sci-fi setting, so it's the only one with guns as well as melee weapons; player housing, after a fashion (apartments); flat leveling curve; PvP planned for and implemented--time will tell how well they've done, because it's still too new; playable solo or in groups, with actual advantages to both; significant character customization; no clue how it's going to pan out, because it's still very much late-beta in terms of stability and playability.

So... Hope that list helps you some. If you have any specific questions about any of 'em, feel free to ask. For myself, UO was a nice distraction, EQ sucks so bad it made my teeth hurt, AC was fun for me for two years, and I'm now (enduring) playing AO.

Personally, I will recommend UO to anyone who asks, and several people that don't...My days in UO are still unsurpassed in terms of overall enjoyment -- even the days just spent chopping trees...

Wow, thanks everyone. This is the kind of introduction that I was hoping for. I just saw that AC is "selling" for free with a rebate at EB. That is even better than the jewel case deal!

If I may just sort of summarize/process for a bit: It sounds like AC is the most balanced experience of them all right now. (and I'm not just saying that because it is free!) Not to much zoning, slightly smaller community, frequent updates, I'll get to use my swank new Radeon and it seems to have good support (was that up there?). I hate to say it, but with a little bit of Microsoft involved with the program, I feel a certain comfortable numbness creeping in. :) Maybe after I try that out, I'll look into AO. Maybe I'll also wait for my 2.5 gig Athlon too and geoforce 5! Haha.

thanks for making me feel welcome and thanks for the advice.

Rama

ps. what does FBSS mean? You know what... I'll look it up on those newbie guides!

pss. Why would you spend days chopping trees? It made me think of this quote: "I thought I would be Serpico... but I feel more like Fish from Barney Miller."

Rama: Okay, if you're going to go AC, you'll want to know something about character creation, and since you can't undo mistakes made at character creation time, it's kind of important. Three words, and three words only:

Specialize Life Magic.

If you do not, over 90% of the higher-level content (i.e. from roughly level 45-50 on up) will be closed to you. It's harsh, but that's the way it is.

One of the problems with spreadsheet-style systems is what are called min/maxers: people that create and "play" characters with extreme scores at the start in order to become "powerful" (or, imho, "viable") later on in the game. Well, okay, the min/maxers ain't the problem--it's the reaction from the developers to them. In this case, Turbine noted that life-spec min/max templates were literally blowing through anything in the game (since, y'know, Life magic is so horribly overpowered for its skill cost it's kind of sick), and they began introducing monsters and quests and areas designed to defeat players using this template.

That made it challenging for the min/maxers, to be sure. Problem is, due to Life magic's overpowering imbalance, those monsters and quests and areas were impossible for anyone not built just that way. And to add to that, most of the interesting and fun higher-level content has been designed to challenge the Life-spec character.

So... if you go AC, and you want to see the interesting stuff in the game, specialize Life. If you don't, you probably won't.

---

Quote:

Why would you spend days chopping trees?

---

Life Magic. Thanks! I've started to look at newbie guides. Maybe I'll see you around the servers soon.

Re: bowmaking... that is really quite cool. I guess I'll just browse around the UO websites too. The thought of a virtual economy is pretty sweet.

Thanks for the feedback. You all are much less intimidating than most of the other message boards that I have been perusing of late. It is nice to feel like I can ask my somewhat lame questions!

Alright, enough sentimentality. because of all that good advice, i've got to print out a million pages of stuff on AC and UO now!

Eapen "Rama" Leubner

eesh.. my 'main' character in AC is soooooooo uber-gimped. :)

i didn't really like to 'cheat' and go to websites and such.. and they were all so horribly laid out, using 'leet'-speak and all that shit...

so.. started a char to check out some skills and such, figuring i'd never play him beyond level 20 or so- level 20 has usually been, for me, the turning point in character development; it doesn't take long to get there, you learn some things in the process, and if it doesn't work out, you haven't really invested TOO much time in it that you'll feel bad for deleting it- well, before i knew it i was at level 28 and rising, and it felt pretty good. i still have/"play" this character.. he's level 54 now, but because he doesn't have life magic (and won't until level 70), he's pretty much hosed... that doesn't mean that i don't enjoy playing the character.

basically, i'm just affirming what Bill has said regarding character development in AC. if you DO get AC and start playing it, IMO, the best thing to do is NOT go to the websites and all that crap. learn from the shitty mistakes you made with your first N characters you make. then build one you LIKE TO PLAY.

you'll see on the AC sites examples of 'uber' character templates that, unless you have "help", REALLY SUCK. we'll define "help" as: people you know that play the game, that already have characters that don't suck, that are willing to help you get to the point where you don't suck. for a price. (usually.. and that price is typically as 'low' as swearing allegiance to them/their monarchy)

just experiment and have fun.

- mike - 'Aten' on Leafcull -

"One of the problems with spreadsheet-style systems is what are called min/maxers: people that create and "play" characters with extreme scores at the start in order to become "powerful" (or, imho, "viable") later on in the game."

One of the problems with a skill-based system -- incredibly hard to balance.

You have a good point about not learning too much about the game before hand. Frankly, I am _completely_ clueless as to how these MMORP games work. Also, I am doubly, no, make that triply cursed with being only a (gasp) casual gamer and (gasp gasp) not having enough time to play games and (gasp x 3)being an all-around lousy player who just plain old loves games! Consequently, I tend to be over analytical when buying and playing games.

I'm just trying to get my toes a bit wet before I jump in! :) I'm mostly trying to figure out the mechanics of the game a bit and get to know some of the slang before I start in. Today is payday, so I'm going to go pick that badboy up!

I think that the open-endedness of these games is what I am really looking forward to. I'm the kind of guy who starts games but rarely has the skill/patience to finish. (Am I marking myself for death here?) The chance to just sort of plod along to my own, rhythmically-impaired drummer is appealing. hahaha

"You have a good point about not learning too much about the game before hand. Frankly, I am _completely_ clueless as to how these MMORP games work."

This reminds me of an interesting anecdote. About a month ago, I did a demo of MMRPGs for a show. After the segment, the producer came up to me and said, "That Everquest looks pretty neat. I think I'll give it a try sometime." A week or so later, he comes up to me and says, "Well, I made a character and started out in this city. All I did was run around. What am I supposed to do?" I told him to leave town, and start exploring the wilderness. He asked what the point was. I didn't really have an answer other than, kill monsters and gain levels. He seemed appropriately let down by this and never went back to the game. I've been puzzling about this ever since and it was part of the reason I started this thread.

I wonder how many people who are truly interested in giving this genre a try are ultimately put off by the directionless / powergaming aspect that overshadows everything else in the game. I know you really shouldn't fault a game for not being anything more than it is, but MMRPGs appear to promise much in the way of interaction, yet fail to deliver. I think the fault might lie more in the players court. I pick up these games and start playing only to realize that I really don't want to hang out with these people for any length of time.

'I wonder how many people who are truly interested in giving this genre a try are ultimately put off by the directionless / powergaming aspect that overshadows everything else in the game.'

In my opinion, virtually all of them. MMRPGs have yet to expand beyond the gameplay style (at all) or demographics (significantly) of the text-based MUDs of the early 90s. As long as the games consist of:

1. Killing things only to gain levels.
2. Acquiring things you can use to kill things to gain levels.
3. Talking to people so you can group with them to kill things to.....gain levels! Augh!

They're going nowhere long-term. There's not many people willing to shell out for the online experience of getting into pissing-match comparative equipment/character design arguments.

Plot? Even ACs ongoing "plot" was weak, weak, weak. Maybe one day out of a hundred you'd see something related to it. AO probably isn't going to ever get a working plot in place; it'll probably turn out the same as AC, with an occasional large "happening."

Star Wars might do it, but I honestly don't think that one is ever going to see the light of day. They appear to be using the running-around-in-the-dewy-fields-naked development model where you can talk about having a space-combat engine side-component to your game. Sure, and it'd be nice to have a Panzer General game where I could do the infantry combat in a seperate FPS side game, too.

Does everything stay the same? Is that all there is?

Good questions. I'm only going to speak about EverQuest here. The good thing I can say about Verant is that it has been making an effort to change the static nature of the game by doing serverwide story-changing events and by changing old zones. Recently, there was a serverwide event that resulted in a changed zone (yes, across 40 servers), and players who normally don't read EQ news would actually ask in-game, "What's up with Lesser Faydark, and why is the sky red?" Some of the old zones like Runnyeye were also revamped with new mobs, new faction changes, etc.

Do players have an effect on this? Well, in a way yes. The ones who bother to attend events do have an effect on the outcome.

Last thing about EverQuest and character development: There is a big change in the way you play at level 5 and the way you play at level 50 or level 60. If someone gave you a level 57 enchanter to play, and you only played an enchanter to level 25, you'd be a mess in even a normal experience grind group.

Character development is one of the motivating factors to level -- it's not just about loot or equipment. In EQ, it's a question of "Well, if I get level X, I'll be able to do X, Y, or Z and I can't do those things now." This is true for casters, but it's also true for non-casting classes. And character development isn't limited by game design. On your server or in your particular community, you make friends with other regular players, and you also make a name for your avatars. So, yes, there is character development in such games.

Asher: "One of the problems with a skill-based system -- incredibly hard to balance."

It's a lot easier than most people think, but that doesn't mean it's simple. The only concept you need to keep in mind when balancing a skill-based system is this:

Every action needs to have an equal and opposite reaction. Think of it as the fatal flaw writ large.

Let's use AC's magic skills as an example. You get 50 skill points at the start to create a character. Any mage worth his salt is going to specialize what's most useful to him at the best price point. Let's run down what they do:

War magic: Purely offensive, damage-dealing, fireball-casting magic. Zero defensive skills here--it's all about aggression with the war mage. Costs 16 points to train and 12 more to specialize, for 28/50.

Item magic: Allows mages to cast buffs on armor and weapons, and is the school of portal magic. Armor only protects against physical damage--magic damage ignores armor and Item. Fighters love it, but nearly everyone has it because running sucks. 8 to train, 8 more to specialize, but you can do portal travel with a 90 skill--making it 8 points well spent. Has debuffs, but not really an offensive school; key is defensive armor buffing.

Creature magic: This is the school of stat and skill buffs and debuffs. Pretty much sums it up; good for just about everyone. In practice mages use it for the Magic Yield (lowers the magic resistance of the target) as well as for magic school buffs. Fighters use it for weapon skill and stat buffs, and to "bootstrap" their way to higher skill levels when buffing same. Cheap, and an all-around "toolbox", but has little direct combat effect.

Life magic: This school contains healing, protections, and conversions (stamina to mana, health to mana, etc). It would seem to be a defensive school, given that--the cleric/medic is a long-time concept. However, Life also has a significant offensive component, with spells like Drain Health (takes 25% of the target's HP in one shot and gives a percentage to the caster), Vulnerability spells (increasing the damage of a certain type), and Imperil (stripping the target of all armor). Lay down a vuln and an imperil and one-shotting creatures is not only not unheard of, but common. Soften 'em up with a Magic Yield, and you'll rarely fail to land. Life magic's protections, unlike Item, protect against both physical and magical damage. And it costs 12 to train, 8 more to specialize, for 20 points total.

Thus, for 40% of your starting skill points you get a school that does amazing offense, tank-like no-holes defense, works well with grouping (ask any melee how much they love when mages start tossing vulns), and the conversion/drain aspect means you can virtually eliminate downtime. Where is the weakness in Life magic? There is no downside to it. All the benefits, none of the disadvantages. Which is why nearly every character in the game has Life either trained or specialized.

Now, to balance that? Life magic shouldn't protect against physical damage, for one; layer Life with a good Item buff, and you can literally lie down on the floor and take zero damage. Two, it should have many fewer offensive spells, and those it does have should be significantly reduced in effectiveness. I mean, 25% of a monster's total hit points gone by casting an apprentice-level spell?

So... skills-based systems aren't impossible to balance. They're not easy, by any means, but just listing their pros and cons on a whiteboard and looking at what each skill does would be helpful.

Rama: "Life Magic. Thanks! I've started to look at newbie guides. Maybe I'll see you around the servers soon."

Heh. You might see my old characters, but you won't see me--I sold my account about a month ago because I was tired of the exploits and abuse Microsoft permits in the game. If you have any questions, though, feel free to email me and I'll do what I can to answer 'em... I still do know quite a bit about the backend mechanics of the game.

And mike's right--uber templates are great if you have a mage to babysit you while you grind through enough levels to make your character survivable, but solo'ing that sucks. And it's not very much fun at all.

Anon wrote:

---

Quote:

Last thing about EverQuest and character development: There is a big change in the way you play at level 5 and the way you play at level 50 or level 60. If someone gave you a level 57 enchanter to play, and you only played an enchanter to level 25, you'd be a mess in even a normal experience grind group.

---

"I'd love some thoughts on this. I'm just too methodical for my own good. I wish I was the kind of guy who would just jump into these things but money is tight and I don't want to make an uninformed choice."

Try one of the many free text-based MUD's around the Internet. All of these MMORPG's are basically expensive MUD's with prettier graphics.

"So... skills-based systems aren't impossible to balance. They're not easy, by any means, but just listing their pros and cons on a whiteboard and looking at what each skill does would be helpful."

Yeah, but the problem is that skill-systems tend to have a lot of skills. The result is just that many more combinations of skills that need to be balanced.

Class-based systems are easier to balance just because there are fewer variables. The downside is that it's probably less interesting in a lot of ways because it's more restrictive.

That's what I loved most about UO. The skill system is incredible, and as balanced as any I've seen thus far. I love the customizability that the skill system allows.