Am I crazy for thinking the massively multiplayer combat systems simply stink? I've played some AO, and I've read a ton of strategy online for the games, and the whole green mobs, blue mobs, purple mobs, and buffing, pulling, healing, and the aggro mobs, and the tank and the buffers and the whole damn system; is just boring/dumb/simple?

I really want to enjoy one of these games, but the auto-attacking seems silly. AO is so dumb. I have a submachinegun. I want to pull the trigger like in WW2OL and mow down the opposition. Instead, I have this little bar that swings back and forth, and when it maxes out I get one shot. When my skill is charged I do one little burst, and then I have to wait until it recharges. Huh? All the time my little bar is swinging back and forth. The concept of attacking by clicking the attack button, and then waiting to watch the combat unfold in such a silly fashion is frustrating.

Do I have any chance at enjoying DAoC, or am I always going to be hung up on this system? The forums are brimming with good reports of the games launch, but everytime someone mentions pulling an aggro mob, or how long the buffs last, I totally go cold on this game. In your honest opinion, can someone who dislikes this system have a change of heart and enjoy this type of game?

Gotta go to bed now. I went to Chinatown tonight and had the greasiest dumplings. The highlight of the night was watching a drunk take out a table, stumble outside and puke his guts out, and wander into the street hailing any car, every car, to see if it was a cab. I should have stayed home and played some Flashpoint with Wumpus.

Unfortunately that's the way it's gonna have to be I think for most action/RPG-style games because of today's internet and lag. Spacially there's a lot you have to consider, in fact even moreso than WWIIOL or online flight sims (arm length/striking distance vs. delay/lag). Even old-style games are the same -- MUDs allowed players to enter combat and keep you swinging until either a) you died, b) it died or c) you ran away. The only more complex situation I can think of is games like IoK that just allowed you to make each swing but of course spacially either he was on your hex or just next to you or something.

Then again, FPS games seem to get away with it to some extent, but complex hand-to-hand combat is not in them.

--- Alan

Die By The Sword Online!

Isn't traditional RPG combat a form of gambling? Maybe that's the attraction? That and a little bit of Diablo-ish collecting of items?

As I see it, there are a couple models for combat interfaces:

1. DOOM-style, with point and shoot weapons of either hitscan or variable speed projectile types. Eg, "shooters". A classic and clearly the most viable model-- but ONLY for projectile weapons, which unfortunately rules out a lot of combat types.

2. Street/Virtua Fighter-style. Another extremely successful model. However, it cannot deal with multiple combatants and doesn't translate all that well to 3D.

3. Statistics. Roll out the 100-sided die! Certainly fun and addictive, but it's also a bit dry and abstract as pointed out above.

There are a couple "in-betweeners" we could talk about that mix these modes. Most notably, Oni (which I think is underrated in this regard), and Die By The Sword with its insane learning curve and VSIM mouse antics.

It would be nice to have a reflex-based melee combat model of some kind, without it degenerating into Rune. Of course, the finest minds of our age have yet to come up with a workable solution for this, so.. I'll just reinstall Bilestoad on my Apple II in the meantime. ;)

Why can't a MMORP morph into a turn-based combat mode of some sort every time you encounter an enemy? This would solve the problem of lag and put the strategy back in. Ok, I guess it would take away suspension of disbelief, and I don't know how you'd deal with the problem of other people coming across the battle (perhaps they would have to enter the turn-based mode if they wanted to participate). It would like rather strange to passersby. But still, it could work.

You are forgetting the other style, of course it is Max Payne! It is like the best parts of all other styles you describe in your email, because it is the most exciting and most realistic, even for the statistic games which as you say are very boring indeed.

So! It is true also that combats and fights in EQ and AO are designed that way. Because it is not about the fights, it is about the selling and the graphics. The best way to design would be a way that you do not have to see the fights at all, but touch the button to tell you immediately if you are winning or no. If no, you start again and you did not watch the long fights only to die again and again! Some of the times, you will be winning 100% but still you must watch all of them, without the stopping. Do I win? Yes or no is the answer, and not the long way. It is not the sense of it.

Greetz

"Why can't a MMORP morph into a turn-based combat mode of some sort every time you encounter an enemy?"

Removing the element of time entirely is too extreme. It's a solution, but it's a scorched earth solution that destroys half of your potential audience.

Imagine a turn-based DOOM, or a turn-based Street Fighter. Knowing when to time your weapon reloads, when to duck behind an object for cover, when to time parries vs. combo moves-- these things are enjoyable, and they're all based on timing. Which is part of the fun. Removing that takes away a huge chunk of the white-knuckle excitement both games provide.

", I have this little bar that swings back and forth, and when it maxes out I get one shot. When my skill is charged I do one little burst, and then I have to wait until it recharges. Huh?"

Ugh. MMORPG games should be about strategy, not timing/reflexes. MMORPG designers should be up front about this-- they are realistically limited to statistical, turn-based combat. So rather than dressing it up in some kind of faux real time wrapper and pretending it's something other than that.. they should embrace it.

"Am I crazy for thinking the massively multiplayer combat systems simply stink? I've played some AO, and I've read a ton of strategy online for the games, and the whole green mobs, blue mobs, purple mobs, and buffing, pulling, healing, and the aggro mobs, and the tank and the buffers and the whole damn system; is just boring/dumb/simple?"


I tend to agree. I found the current combat systems very interesting in dikumuds from 92-95, but nowadays in graphical land they seem .. contrived and out of place I guess. It never ceases to amaze me how few significant differences there are betweeen the final sojourn codebase (a circa '95 dikumud) and EQ.

Maybe McQuaid's next project will be less combat-centric.

Didn't The Realm have turn-based combat?

Turn-based would be a nice change of pace, but one-on-one turn-based might be a bit dull. Maybe a MMOG where you control a squad?

EQ actually has quite a bit of tactical depth in group play at the higher levels. It's not unusual for a group leader to be shouting out attack and spellcasting orders. There's lots of teamwork involved.

Camelot melee strategy is much more in depth than EQ melee strategy (at least solo player wise)... imagine the monk class in EQ with a skill almost every other level (at least fully specced melee players) and you get a taste of the average melee player in Camelot ... like my warden... at level 9 i have four extra blunt attacks to use during melee, each uses an amount of endurance and some are taunts or anti taunts and some stun... then theres the choice of buffs, debuffs, soaking damage, item choice, power vs speed etc etc etc... some might find this boring, but for alot its cool to have the options to try out things in diffent ways.

And actually most mmrpgs work on a turnbased timer system... clicks or ticks of time they sometimes call them iirc, a true real time mmrpg has yet to be made, and if it were made the lag would be TERRIBLE. though UO was the closest to realtime (considering its engine is almost a pseudo 2d realtime game engine). Anyway, true turnbased wouldnt sell well for an online game... thats why its not considered anymore.

anyway, you should give camleot a try, the combat in it is as complex, or moreso, (and faster paced) than EQ's. Plus the added melee strategies make it much more interesting. Even before level 10 you will see how the different strategies are used by various classes (rogues sneak backstab and poison DoT, Paladin types buff up, self haste, etc etc).

And group dynamics in these games, mainly EQ and DAoC is as deep and complex or even moreso than some strategy games... theres alot of timing and planning that has to be considered. This is the meat of the enjoyment in these game and whatnut, powergaming tactics and whatnut...

I agree almost all these games are just mindless hack n slash... and that these developers should be looking into more deep gameplay besides combat. But i think that this IS what TRUE crpgs/mmrpgs are about... they are like the pseudo child of a personalized beer n pretzels wargame in the middle ages. Basically DnD started out as a wargame.... its all about combat ... and if you dont like this type of combat i cant see why youd even want to pick up any rpg.

etc

oh yeah the realm did use a turnbased system, it kind of resembled the combat in the Krondor games... except online. I tried a demo of it and it was actually pretty cool! reminds me of an online version of HoMM (you could have groups in the turn based combat...)

etc

oh btw, brad mcquaid quitting EQ!?! maybe hes tired of all the whiners! or maybe hes just sick of the genre and/or EQ in general...

etc

I don't see how the EQ, AC, and DAoC combat engines are any simpler than those in Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, etc. Both game styles involve fighting mostly unintelligent enemies by choosing an attack type and then basically watching the battle unfold with occasional interruptions for some inventory management, spellcasting, or movement. It seems like pretty much the same thing to me, except that in the online games, you actually have to coordinate your actions with teammates before and during the battle.

"I don't see how the EQ, AC, and DAoC combat engines are any simpler than those in Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, etc. Both game styles involve fighting mostly unintelligent enemies by choosing an attack type and then basically watching the battle unfold with occasional interruptions for some inventory management, spellcasting, or movement. It seems like pretty much the same thing to me, except that in the online games, you actually have to coordinate your actions with teammates before and during the battle. "

Yeah, I think there is a bridge here between a gaming experience I like and a gaming experience I dislike. I enjoy BGII because I'm managing a whole group of guys, spell casters, clerics, fighters, as they battle it out in basically the same "wait for the bar to fill before you swing" sort of way. I like it because there is a good amount of tactical challenges to face. Now, if I put myself in the shoes of Minsc, I am basically playing DAoC. Hmmmm...., still not as combat enjoyable as WW2OL, but I think I could make the jump. Now if they only had a copy available somewhere in Massachusetts...

Thanks for the comments guys. I still think that you could take the WW2OL model, and add an extremely close range point and click weapon and call it "sword" and give it a little animation, and as simple as that would be it would still be more fun than EQ. But, I guess I'll just have to get my fix elsewhere.

Anyone playing the roleplaying server in DAoC? That sounds like the most fun to me.

Actually there is a whole lot of strategy to daoc. It was touched on above, but every class gets combat moves as you level. Every move requires certain circumstances before you can use them. Some are openers, some you have to use in response to a block, some when you miss, you do have to pay attention the entire time. Which makes it completly different from ao, where I could read a magazine while waiting for combat to resolve. Group play is actually really involved, and quite necessary to advance at all. It would take to long to describe the dynamics involved in it, but it is no different from a strategy game.

---

Quote:

or a turn-based Street Fighter

---

Well. Late to the party again--finally a topic I kinda know something about, and I miss it. :)

Rob:
"Am I crazy for thinking the massively multiplayer combat systems simply stink?...I really want to enjoy one of these games, but the auto-attacking seems silly. AO is so dumb. I have a submachinegun. I want to pull the trigger like in WW2OL and mow down the opposition... The concept of attacking by clicking the attack button, and then waiting to watch the combat unfold in such a silly fashion is frustrating."

The combat is less than optimal for a couple of major reasons--latency and game balance.

Latency: There isn't an MMOG out now that doesn't have PvP combat. Some are going to depend on PvP primarily (Shadowbane, for instance). In order to move the kind of numbers you need to keep these games viable, you have to make sure there's as level a playing field as possible, and that means making sure 56k players (still the bulk of your audience, Broadband Revolution� aside) have a chance. Thus, combat can only be so complex and time/twitch-based before the latency issues make 56k unplayable. To give a rough example, think the early days of pre-Quakeworld Quake. Being on a modem meant death; the only folks that could really play were on fat pipes. True, client-side prediction makes it a bit better now, but in MMOGs, the sheer amount of positional data alone that has to come down the pipe means you've gotta do something in the game to balance it out. Thus, simplified combat that can be done mostly on the server.

Balance: In your gun example above, AO has both melee weapons and ranged weapons. How do you balance a guy with a sword against a guy with an assault rifle? I can't think of a single instance (other than by using stealth, which I have yet to see implemented in any reasonable fashion) where a character with a melee weapon would have any chance against a guy with an energy-based assault weapon on full auto. (Another Quake example: You've got the axe and quad damage, your opponent has the rocket launcher. Who's going to win?) So if you want to have melee be viable, you have to bend the rules on using ranged weapons--and even with that, Agents with Aimed Shot and Soldiers with multiple-special combos pretty much rule the roost in AO. Sure, there are exceptions, but there are exceptions to everything.

With that said, I'll agree the way they balanced it is idiotic.

"In your honest opinion, can someone who dislikes this system have a change of heart and enjoy this type of game?"

No. If you crave frenetic combat action, you by and large will not get it from an MMOG... and I can't see that changing much, if at all, in future.

Wumpus:
"It would be nice to have a reflex-based melee combat model of some kind, without it degenerating into Rune."

Twitch and RPG don't mix; they're diametrically opposed in concept. In twitch games, the skill of your avatar is dependent on your personal skill. In RPGs, the skill of your avatar is completely disassociated from your personal skill, and is dependent on the developed statistics of said avatar. Thus, it matters little if my twitch skills suck--if my character's skills are godlike, that needs to be reflected in the system. If I'm on 56k and I can't hit the broad side of a barn with a rocket launcher, but my character is a rocket launcher expert, it matters little what my personal skills are. And the game needs to reflect that.

Planetside looks to incorporate a bit of both, but who knows when--or if--that'll ever see the light of day. And you'll note that the RPG elements in Planetside won't be nearly as deep as regular RPGs; they're mostly icing on the action-game cake.

Re: Turn-based MMOG combat. Got a real bad feeling when I thought about it. It could work, I suppose, but again, MMOGs seem to be moving to the PvP model. Just thinking about how long the game would wait to assume a player went link-dead would be horrifying. Maybe using like action points to determine moves and whatnot would work, but that's in effect what AO does, and that sucks. And can you imagine 30-on-30 combat? Christ, it'd take hours. So... in theory it could work, but I'm not enough of a designer to make it interesting for the casual gamer. And man, to have every combat be like that... blah.

Omax:
"I don't see how the EQ, AC, and DAoC combat engines are any simpler than those in Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, etc."

AC has probably the most action-oriented and tactical combat of any of the games out right now. It may be why I played it as long as I did (and why I've since gone back to it after cancelling AO). For those that aren't familiar with it, this is how it works. As a melee or archer character, you have a choice of attack heights (low, medium, high) and a choice of attack strengths. For melee, it goes least powerful to most powerful; for archers, it goes from fastest/least accurate to slowest/most accurate. Now, added to that are the types of attack; there are 7 different types of damages you can deal, and knowing what a mob is weak against helps greatly. Now, on the mob end, they have differing armor on various attack heights (for instance, Lugians are weakest against high attacks, but those are slower for melee), and they too do differing types of damage. On top of all that, facing in AC matters, as does having a shield if you're melee. And armor coverage is by body region, and the game does tell you where you're getting hit (finally)--so after a while, you'll know that you can fight Olthoi without a helmet because they'll never ever hit your head, but you'll want to double protect your gloves, because they hit hands a LOT.

So of the big seven or whatever that are out now, AC combat is the fastest, most frantic, and most tactical that I know of. It's the only game I've played where, if you're smart, you can tank a dozen mobs at a time. If you're dumb, one of those dozen can kill you. :)

So... yeah, combat leaves a bit much to be desired, but if you make it too much twitch, you move right out of the RPG realm. And too much RPG makes it, "Ho hum, click attack and go make a sandwich." There's a happy medium in there somewhere, I'm sure--and I'll be interested in seeing whatever it is when it comes.

ah... AC...

the frantic moments of combat, be it solo or in a group, is one of the things that 'makes the game' for me. nothing quite beats running to the bottom of the Olthoi Horde Nest or through the Acid Vault on your own, or even with a couple friends.

so what, big deal- the graphics aren't the greatest in the world- i still enjoy playing the game. the content they add monthly, plus the friends i have in the game.. those are the things that keep me interested in it.

on top of it all, AC is still the cheapest of the 'big 3' to 'get into'.. $20 for the retail box (includes a month of play), and priced at $10/mo like the rest of the 'big 3'. i just don't have any interest in spending $40 to try and get into another game- one that i'll have to pay MORE to play ($13/mo vs. $10/mo)- when i already have a lot of time invested in the game, the friendships, etc.

at any rate, unless some of these newer games are going to be as cheap as the existing competition, i have no need to spend any money whatsoever on them.

anyways..welcome back to AC, Bill. ;)

- mike - gimped out lvl 61 sword/staff on leafcull -

I disagree that combat leaves much to be desired in all of these games. The lag issues are of course the main reason they remove the one click one hit type of a rule plus the people who play mmorpgs are not all twitch gamers anyway.

For solo combat varies by what class you are playing. My Sorcerer is not simple to play. If I pull a creature with a spell that is too strong it will ignore my pet and beat me senseless. Also I can't cast too quickly on the monster otherwise it will leave my pet and attack me. Of course if my pet is low on health then I have to cast as quickly as possible on it to pull it off or kill it. With melee classes it is more straight forward but the combat styles (much like small spells themselves) add to the strategy.

Group combat is difficult to pull off well. There has to be a lot of comunication and every party member has to know what to do in every situation. Like say as a Sorceror when the puller brings too many creatures what happens? In a poor group with a Sorcerer the tanks spread out and attempt to kill the multiple pulls and generally won't be able to keep the aggro off of the healers or casters who are assisting with the pulls. In a good group the Sorcerer simply mesmerises the extra pull(s) while the tanks concentrate on the main pull wiping it out quickly and keeping the casters safe. They then move to the extra pull(s) and take them out one at a time. A good group works like a well oiled machine able to quickly and efficiently take out even the most difficult monsters.

So as you can see I would claim the combat is far from simple.

-- Xaroc

"Anyone playing the roleplaying server in DAoC? That sounds like the most fun to me. "

If I can ever find a copy of the game, I'm there. All the stores were just loaded with copies of Jumpgate, for some reason, but no DAOC...I wonder why?

Re: Turn-based MMOG combat

its already in existence, the reason u guys have never heard of it is because is in chinese... a few taiwan developed online games are turned base and sure enough RPGs... u wont see any mob on screen, just a buncha players walking around, when u 'hit' a mob it changes to a combat screen, player(s) and mobs take turn to move in a set order, kinda reminds u of some old nintendo games which u have to punch in all the commands then hit go and the 'combat' resolves etc...

"Group combat is difficult to pull off well. There has to be a lot of comunication and every party member has to know what to do in every situation. Like say as a Sorceror when the puller brings too many creatures what happens? In a poor group with a Sorcerer the tanks spread out and attempt to kill the multiple pulls and generally won't be able to keep the aggro off of the healers or casters who are assisting with the pulls. In a good group the Sorcerer simply mesmerises the extra pull(s) while the tanks concentrate on the main pull wiping it out quickly and keeping the casters safe. They then move to the extra pull(s) and take them out one at a time. A good group works like a well oiled machine able to quickly and efficiently take out even the most difficult monsters."

Jesus, the terminology leaves me cold. Is it really that dry and academic? Eg, not hideous, drooling monsters, but "pulls"? Not paladins/barbarians/knights, but "tanks"? Bleah.

Yeah, the pulling thing kills me. Its like the Scrabble psychos. There is a book out on the Scrabble fanatics, I forget what its called, and part of it is about how the real psycho players know tons and tons of words, but they don't care or have a clue what they mean. They just know they're worth points. They've adapted to win. The same goes for these MMOG players. The games are dressed up in Dungeons and Dragons and Damsels and other stuff, but the people (some anyway) playing them could care less. Its all about adapting to the environment, with the pulling and the training and the buffing and the healing.

I'm sure some people get psyched up about fighting an orc because its an orc, but I think most get psyched up for fighting an aggro mob with an XP ticket and a 20% chance of a good drop (huh?).

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

"Jesus, the terminology leaves me cold. Is it really that dry and academic? Eg, not hideous, drooling monsters, but "pulls"? Not paladins/barbarians/knights, but "tanks"? Bleah."

It's just slang, like referring to someone as a camper.

"Tank" just refers to the character that will absorb the brunt of the damage in melee, like an infantry grunt. It's a role to be played by someone in the group. "Pull" just refers to the process of finding a monster and bringing it back to the group.

Any game that players play for hours every night, night after night, week after week, and month after month, is going to develop a specialized vocabulary. Doesn't Counter-Strike have its own?

'A good group works like a well oiled machine able to quickly and efficiently take out even the most difficult monsters."

'Jesus, the terminology leaves me cold. Is it really that dry and academic? Eg, not hideous, drooling monsters, but "pulls"? Not paladins/barbarians/knights, but "tanks"? Bleah.'

As indicated above, for the most hardcore players all the game is about is maximizing your xp and item gain over time. Lots of games are multi-variable function maximization problems, but MMORPGs are ludicrously transparent about it.

I've noticed that whenever I do occasionally buy one of these, I find myself thinking after a few days of play that it'd be a lot more fun to write an AI client to play the game for me than it is to hit the attack button every 15 seconds.

mike:
"anyways..welcome back to AC, Bill. ;)"

Thanks. The game got a lot easier while I was gone... just hit 25 tonight after playing for, what, less than a week. Only 25 and my UA's already tanking handfuls of Gigas with 73 health. :) Did they pull a stealth nerf on peerless kits, btw? I'm finding they're much less reliable and effective than they used to be...

Wumpus:
"Jesus, the terminology leaves me cold. Is it really that dry and academic? Eg, not hideous, drooling monsters, but "pulls"? Not paladins/barbarians/knights, but "tanks"? Bleah."

Sure, they're hideous, drooling monsters, but we call 'em "mobs" (short for Mobile; they move around). And one major difference between EQ (which is the game being referred to, though all use the same basic terminology) and the Epic Fantasy Quests of Yore... well. Let's put it this way. Remember when Frodo got laid up after getting that chunk of evil metal stuck in him? Was, what, three weeks or something, if I recall.

If Lord of the Rings were an Everquest game, Frodo's downtime wouldn't have been a simple time transition change. It'd have been seventy-five pages long. And you would have had to have read the whole thing before you got the rest of the book.

EQ's death penalty--especially at/during the Hell levels--is particularly heinous. You really really don't want to die, and if it takes cold, dry tactics to do so, that's what you do.

Unless you really enjoy wasting your time. Then, hey, no tactics required. Just jump right in. :)

Jason McCullough:
"I've noticed that whenever I do occasionally buy one of these, I find myself thinking after a few days of play that it'd be a lot more fun to write an AI client to play the game for me than it is to hit the attack button every 15 seconds."

In AC, anyway, this has already been done. Pretty full-featured macro/script bot that is marginally self-aware, in that it knows when it needs to heal or replenish stamina or mana, it knows when it's debuffed or under vitae, it can filter targets by name or type, and it can use the most effective attack against said target if it has such. Pretty nifty. Tried to find a link to it, but couldn't. Did find Onlinegamegimp, so that shows you what's possible, anyway.

EQ will ban you for using third-party apps, so most people don't. UO has a built-in macroing script language, I think, but it's been a long time since I played UO. And AO, well. When the basic game doesn't work right, it's hard to write add-ons. DAoC closes the game if you alt-tab, so it'll take scripters longer to work around it. They will, though. They always do.

DAoC has a pretty nice macro system, but it's nothing as fleshed out as UO or AO's system.

I don't think there will ever be "compelling" combat in an MMORPG. Hell, I don't think I've ever played a single game that has compelling combat. Even the vaunted FFVII combat system ended up being redundant at the end (timer runs out, summon uber-dragon for AE damage, have healer heal if necessary, drink ether potion if low on mana). Baulder's Gate II gave us a fairly nice system, but it turned into an EQ style where you had to pull mobs off of the main group to "break" a room.

I do like some of the things DAoC has done to spark exploration and paying attention to combat. They have combat styles for melee types which are like spells. They execute a special move which modifies your attack: some add bonus damage, some stun the mob, some cause a small DoT to be triggered, etc. These attacks all take stamina, which does not replenish during combat, so the melee has to decide which move to use when to maximize his stamina for the fight while remembering the situation (you may use up all your stamina in a short period to pull a mob off of your healer, etc).

They also added a neat system to cut down on people who just sit at static spawns all day. First, all mobs have a chance to drop a magic item. Boss mobs have a greater chance of dropping one them, but all humanoid critters have at least a small chance of dropping something nice and rare. Second, mobs generate bonus experience while they are up. 1 hour after it spawns, a critter gets a 10% experience boost. Every 6 minutes after that, the boost goes up 1% to a max of 30% after 3 hours. This was meant to encourage people to move to areas that people seem to be ignoring. It works pretty nicely and a person can get through a level much faster if they are willing to travel and explore.

But yeah, at its heart the combat system becomes repetitive no matter how hard you try to mix things up from a development standpoint. At that point, it becomes the players responsibility to try new things and maximize their own fun. Powergamers may work on min/maxing and be willing to spend 3 weeks in the same room getting loot and exp, but I'm sure I'm having much more fun than they are, enjoying the scenery, socializing, and exploring places that I've never been before.

Er, wow, I sure droned on, but you get the point.

---

Quote:

There is a book out on the Scrabble fanatics, I forget what its called, and part of it is about how the real psycho players know tons and tons of words, but they don't care or have a clue what they mean.

---

Annnnnnnnnnd, the Amazon link for that. Good user reviews. Must be nifty. The thought of competition Scrabble kind of freaks me out, though.

People who do this sort of thing: count cards, test and manipulate every wargame turn possibility, memorize high value words for Scrabble, or just use patterns for Pac Man... I don't get them. They've stopped playing the game and started controlling it.

I generally play games for a sense of the unpredictable. In a wargame I like to react, sometimes rashly. In Pac Man I play for the questionable "Zen" value of moving around the maze and avoiding ghosts. Scrabble? For the fun of finding that one word out of a pile of crap (and because my grandma enjoys the game).

I mean, what could be more pathetic than "mastering" Scrabble? Oh, "mastering" EverQuest probably comes close.

;> I understand you loopy role-players more than the anti-social rule freaks. (or is that phreaks?)
-Andrew

This is the sort of thing that costs me $50:

http://www.gonegold.com/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=004056

It is a thread over at Gone Gold in which everyone is talking about how great DAOC is. Some of you might be the posters (I think BobM posts here too). I eat this stuff up like candy, I can't help it. I'm back in Maine so maybe there will be a store with a copy left on the shelves here, but I'll have to wait until next weekend to play (grrrr!). I guess I can put up with the pulling and the buffing and give it another try, although I'll try and minimize the funny vocab by playing on a roleplaying server.

In the meantime, I loaded SMAC onto my laptop for the business trip. Santiago put the boot heel down on Miriam last night, and now I'm looking aggressively across the sea at Hiveboy. No one can counter my missile jets yet, but I need an aircraft carrier to really use them.

Oddly enough, one of the things that annoys me the most about SMAC and Civ II is how (mostly) useless naval forces are. It's fine from a gameplay standpoint, but for a strategic historical simulation it makes everything kind of dry.

If you plan on being an EQ style cleric type, you'll love the new buffing system. The AC and Stat buffs are all permanent and cost no mana to cast. No more casting a +20 str buff every 45 minutes.

The limitation is that each permanent buff has a concentration cost. Once you're concentration pool is used up, you can't cast any more buffs until you cancel one or more of the perma-buffs.

There are also classic buffs which cost mana and have a time limit on them that don't take any concentration to maintain. It's really a neat twist on the classic system.

On the SMAC/Civ II front... I dispised that costal bombarbment was such a minor part of the game. A classic tactic in warfare is to soften up a landing area with bombardment and finishing off the remains with your marines. In SMAC the only thing a navel bombardment is good for is taking out the artilary that a city or group has buried deep in its stack.

Back on the topic of combat quirks, I thought about it for a bit and decided that it was the mixture of 1st person and stat-based auto-combat that bothered me. Even 3rd person is a bit unnerving, as I associate that view with action games. I mean, can you imagine how boring Jedi Knight would have been if combat was handled automatically based upon character stats?

- Alan

";> I understand you loopy role-players more than the anti-social rule freaks. (or is that phreaks?)"

Hey! Let's show a little respect.
http://www.google.com/intl/xx-hacker/

Wumpuss said:

---

Quote:

Jesus, the terminology leaves me cold. Is it really that dry and academic? Eg, not hideous, drooling monsters, but "pulls"? Not paladins/barbarians/knights, but "tanks"? Bleah.

---

Here's one for all you freelancers out there-- someone should write an article comparing all the major multi-player on-line games, like a giant review. How do the ways they handle combat compare? Skills?? Which ones would appeal to what kind of players?

Man.. I'd love to read an article like that.

/Bennett

I've seen stuff like that before, in a lot of magazines, etc. Never focussed on combat, but I've seen several comparisons of the major online games.

Bennett:

"Man.. I'd love to read an article like that."

Used to have one on Gamecenter, but GC's no more. Only did UO, EQ, and AC (because AC had just come out, oh, three or four months before) though.

Was a lot more difficult than it would first appear--the whole "apples and oranges" thing. But was fun.

"I can tell you this, when your puller brings back 4 mobs instead of the 2 you were expecting or when an extra mob pops next to your healer in the middle of a battle and starts beating him sensless it is anything but dry. Being able to think on your feet is very neccessary in these type of games. In many situations the wrong descision by one member of the party can end up being the death of everyone. No matter what class you play you can't just put yourself on auto-pilot and hope to do well."

My point was, with that kind of terminology, you guys clearly aren't into the roleplaying part. I can loan you guys one of my advanced books on statistics if you want-- so you can optimize your strategies.

I'll be the first to admit that MMORPGs aren't my kind of game. But I certainly understand the desire to level up writ large. I have that tingly feeling all over. I think I'm near my limit break!

Wumpus:
"My point was, with that kind of terminology, you guys clearly aren't into the roleplaying part. I can loan you guys one of my advanced books on statistics if you want-- so you can optimize your strategies."

So, do they have to "thee" and "thou" and "forsooth" to be roleplaying? Curious... because, y'know, I'm pretty sure medieval commanders used terminology and slang and battle tactics. Roleplaying a medieval lieutenant isn't all that far off. Or a centurion.

Call it a hunch.

Ah, Wumpus is pretty much right, though -- maybe not about the terminology, but the roleplaying around there is pretty sparse. (I mean, thieves steal and all that, but online personas are pretty much facades. People don't roleplay. Not really.)

For those who wish to roleplay that is great but that is not really me or any of the people I know. Does anyone here actually like to seriously roleplay?

One other point. I think a lot of people confuse having a plot with roleplaying. Just because a game like Baldur's Gate 2 has a story doesn't mean you are roleplaying.

I enjoy leveling up my characters with friends and seeing new things in game. Diablo is sort of the same thing but the group combat dynamics in that game suck IMO. Also the opportunity to engage in Realm versus Realm combat in this game make it unique (at least for now). EQ had something like it but it wasn't designed from the ground up to handle it and it was poorly implimented. I don't know how organized the RvR will be but it sounds like a lot of fun. I can't wait to charm giants with my sorcerer and send them against enemy forces. I just wish I could see the looks on their faces when that happens. :)

Bill makes a good point as well. In pretty much everything we do there is slang and acronyms (just look at computers). Every job and game and sport has it's own language used by the players to more effectively communicate. Using these just makes sense because they are more efficient.

http://mmo.gameznet.com/articles/mmorpgcomparison.shtml

as asked for, a comparison of all the major games out now for this genre.

'Just because a game like Baldur's Gate 2 has a story doesn't mean you are roleplaying.'

I agree. However, all of the MMORPGs out there have no story either (excepting DAOC, which I've heard nothing about). ;0

"as asked for, a comparison of all the major games out now for this genre."

Hey, thanx Gabriel! That is great!

/Bennett

Roleplaying had to die for these MMORPGs to keep a constantly growing player base. EQ would have maxed out at 50,000 subscribers if they had a hardline roleplaying stance. Casual gamers are the bread and butter of the MMORPG market right now. The perfect customer pays $12 a month and plays for 5 hours a week. The nightmare customer pays $12 a month and plays 8 hours a week.

I equate roleplaying to playing paintball (my other "multiplayer" hobby). It might be a military simulation for some, but it's just a fun way to pass the time for others. Just because I'm not saluting the leader of my paintball team and calling him Sir doesn't mean I'm not playing paintball properly.

On that note though, I do roleplay to a certain extent in both EQ (on the rare occassion that I load it up) and DAoC. I'm playing on the Percivil server which has a very strict roleplaying code of conduct. No OOC broadcasts or open chats. No names that wouldn't exist at the time period (names changed so far include Bootylicious, Cannable Lecter, and Hooty McBoob - I love that one). They don't enforce the roleplaying policy in group chat, guild chat, or tells, so it's a nice compromise. I get my roleplaying fix when talking to people that I run into while staying anchored in real life by taking about the St. Louis vrs Arizona game with a friend of mine in tells.

Even when I played pen and paper RPGs, I had a hard time taking a GM seriously when he tried to talk in Thees and Thous while licking Chee-Toes stains off his fingers.

Jason, the MMORPGs vary in story. EQ has no back story, DAOC has a back story but is pretty static, AC has those monthly events that add to the atmosphere, and AO is supposed to have a 4 year story arc (if it lasts 4 years). I would say though that the stories tend to be superficial and don't have more than a minor if any impact on the games.

The main point I was trying to make is that story!=roleplaying. In addition why does it not make sense to use slang in a MMORPG? Why are they held to such high standards when you have people on CS servers saying things like "EYE 0wN3D j00 D3WD!"?

Roleplaying is assuming the identity, mannerisms, characteristics, and speech of someone that is not you.

The rest is details.

Now, the trouble is when folks begin projecting what THEY think "roleplaying" is or should be on others. These are the aforementioned details. Some people think you need Middle English to be roleplaying. Others think you need to use formal, stilted speech. Or that you need to be an elf, or a Klingon, or whatever--even in games like AC.

Guess what? That drow elf in Baishi chatting with Gowron's lieutenant? They're both roleplaying. That Chaucer-era Paladin on TZ gritting his teeth, grinding out his made-up stories about how his parents died and he's going to avenge them by killing 75,000 rats and snakes? Roleplaying. Whether you agree with their particular approach to roleplaying, or whether you agree with their choice of roles, is, in fact, irrelevant.

Saying it's not roleplaying because it's not roleplaying like YOU think it should be played is arrogance. And irritating.