AutoPlay Button

[stormlord]

Lets say that tomorrow Sony released a new feature for their EQ1 and EQ2 games and they call it Autoattack 2.0. This feature set makes your player a bot and it plays at 95% of the efficiency of an actual player. So if you decided to play yourself then you would gain a 5% total improvement in your game. The improvement is a result of clicking kick every 5 second interval. They improved the game because they received too many complaints from people who like to watch football, make dinner, clean the diapers, take out the garbage AND play EQ all at the same time.

Autoattack 2.0 is the latest example of the recent streamlining enhancements being applied to Sony's flagship games. A second installment of streamlining enhancements are expected in the coming months. Additionally, Sony expects significant other complimentary features to come into the game over the next year to make your game even better.

Helpful advice: Remember, don't do more than you can handle. Clicking the kick button requires lots of concentration and skill. Playing manually is only recommended for experienced players only. GM's are available for help.

Sorry about this. I know EQ isn't this bad. But with all the potential out there, why do games recycle the same sh** over and over? Why don't they improve on the mechanics to make it more involved and responsive?

Autoattack in EQ is nice, I suppose. Gives you time to think about aggro management and pathers and buffs and various other issues. Perhaps it needs to be simple, for these reasons. But combat, when you remove everything except the essentials, can be overly simplistic. I really do not like clicking kick over and over, for example. Aside from /autoattack, combat amounts to clicking the same buttons most of the time, except when intangibles happen; like you get an add.

What about those 'other' things? They would tend to be circumstantial. When I stand behind a mob, I don't notice a increase in my DPS (as I probably should). Rogue backstabs make sense for their class, but I've always thought that every class should see criticals or backstabs when they're behind an opponent. And the more players there're on a mob, the more vulnerable it should probably be. Shooting a mob with a bow from a distance makes sense and is nice to have, but I'd be lying if I didn't admit that I wish there was more skill in aiming. What about when a mob flees on low health? You stand behind and hit it. But it doesn't make sense to miss. The mob is weak and panicing - it should get hit HARD. There's not nearly as much circumstantial choices as I think there should be. I like to make choices, so sue me? I look forward to the day when reading your opponent to anticipate your next move is more important.

There needs to be more unique situations, not less, to yield this result. The predictable outcome is noobs will not know what to do. Even a veteran could get confused easily on a new opponent. But if games are never going to get better than they're today then WTF is wrong with us? Are we mindless rodents on a hamster wheel? Are we forsaken?

You see, I think most gamers want a responsive game that requires some skill. But developers, by and large, never meet expectations. They keep pumping out simplistic games over and over. There's an amount of mediocrity or incompetence. So when people get sick of this sh**, developers mistake it for meaning that they want overly simplistic games. The mistake is that developers assumed the game was too complicated to begin with. And tha'ts just not true. Most games are too simple, not too complicated. It's an error to make them even simpler. But, I guess, if you really are watching football, cleaning house, cooking dinner, doing bills, disciplining the kids AND playing EQ, maybe you want it simple.

[Roanoke]

Ok. And then...?

Edit (since the op did): the features you are referring to were not rehashed, or reused during EQs conception- they were original and somewhat unique to this new genre of games (mmorpgs). There's a lot more to take into consideration than just "I want to aim my bow so I feel like I'm actually contributing" or "hitting kick every 5 seconds with auto attack on makes it play the game for me." there's game balance to attend to for one. What about those that lack the twitch reflexes it takes to be good at a FPS, wouldn't those same skills be necessary to aim a bow in game? What about the actual coding that goes into making a mechanic like that work in a massive online environment?

Sure it would be nice to have monsters take more damage when they run, but features like that are striving for a level of realism that wasn't being considered when EQ was being developed. Remember that EQ was a mind blowing experience when it came out, and paved the way for other games to succeed in this genre as well.

Other games have tried what you are suggesting to some extent. Warhammer allowed manual aim of ballistae etc. WoW had many more skills to spam that we're more or less situational. Yet these games are neither challenging or have any sense of work vs reward like classic EQ does.

If you want responsive games that require twitch based mouse movements then start playing those games. They are out there en masse, but the MMO genre caters to a different play style that is more tactic/knowledge based rather than "who can aim and click the fastest"

[Diggles]

But can it use Slam?

[pickled_heretic]

if a game can be / is automated, that's not the fault of the people who make the macros/bots/etc, it's the fault of the developers for making a crappy/boring game that is easy to play. ideally, games would require heuristic decision-making that a computer would never be able to emulate well.

edit: now that i read the OPs post more carefully, i'd say that i agree completely, these sorts of things create a lot of heuristic decisionmaking that gives incentives to play skillfully.

[stormlord]

if a game can be / is automated, that's not the fault of the people who make the macros/bots/etc, it's the fault of the developers for making a crappy/boring game that is easy to play. ideally, games would require heuristic decision-making that a computer would never be able to emulate well.

edit: now that i read the OPs post more carefully, i'd say that i agree completely, these sorts of things create a lot of heuristic decisionmaking that gives incentives to play skillfully.
I think you got the important parts.

Exploiting unique situations is the hallmark of this kind of gameplay. There's no ONE answer. Having good armor and good weapons, which are basically STATS, helps a lot, but it should not be the sole reason you win a fight!!! It shouldn't be so important. It should be about your choices during the fight. Maybe aim for a balance of 60/40; choices/stats.

You're right. Simple games are easier to make bots for.

My reference(s) to kick (the button) was really a jab at what games consider to be involved gameplay.

(involved = at your keyboard)

But like I already stated, putting attention on aggro management, spawn placement, pathing, buffs, debuffs and so on, is a big part of the involved gameplay. Those things are not explicitly a part of combat, but they're integral to your success in combat. Maybe /autoattack (combat, in general) needs to be simple so that we can focus on those other things. But the thing is, not all members of a group need worry about the larger concerns. A warrior, for example, shouldn't be worrying too much about pathing and buffs and debuffs and other side-issues; casters and cc people should be. A warrior should be consumed by his opponent(s). My argument was that combat itself, in its current state, is not very impressive.

But having to leanr more things to play would be exhausting for noobs. But it could come in phases. As you level up or change scenery, you meet more kinds of situations that challenge your skill set. It shouldn't happen all at once.

I think it's easy to be too cautious. There's a tendency to think players are dumb so we must make dumb games. It stems from this idea that we should code programs for the lowest common denominator so no one is excluded. For example, if I click the delete button - after changing something - then a window pops up that asks me "Do you really want to delete this?" This is built-in protection against users who mistakenly click it. But it can easily go too far. What if I accidentally click Yes but intended to click No? Maybe the delete button shouldn't even be offered? Heh, it could be too dangerous. Maybe it should be hidden? Or maybe only certain people can use delete? All sorts of questions pop into your head when you're making a program. It's all magnified 3x when a manager expects there to be no complaints.

So my argument here is that games are too conservative and bloated by worrying. Especially the marketing heads. But maybe I'm looking at this all wrong. Maybe MOST people are too inattentive for this. They WANT simplicity.

I myself have pointed to necromancers and other feign deathers to suggest that they're great classes to play for busy people. Got yourself in a pinch? Then click Feign Death. Now you can take care of the baby, or wash the dishes, or go to the shop, or whatever. If you don't got much time, the necro offers you a lot of bang for your buck. You don't have to run around looking for a group. It's very convenient and probably one of my favorite classes. They don't just feign death, either. They can do so much more. They keep you busy. They have power, but it's diverse.

In fact, I think all classes could use feign death. I know real life can get bad quick. Games should allow us to pause them, but they shouldn't at the same time allow us to play them AND do a dozen other things. My opinion.

[aresprophet]

Vanguard had a pretty neat weakness-exploiting system. It also had finishing attacks (crits triggered other big spells/moves), bonuses for doing skill combos (on Rangers anyway), and other stuff that really mixed up how you used your skills. Sorcs were awesome fun for being a stand-there-and-nuke class (Chaos Volley was ludicrous when it worked and hilarious when it didn't). Rogues had all kinds of ways to chain skills together too.

Some of the best class design I've seen in an MMO. Too bad about the rest of the game though.

[Roanoke]

Also, you need to look at this from a business perspective. Companies are creating "dumb games" to appeal to the most amount of people possible so they can MAKE MONEY. Dumb games don't necessarily = dumb players, but they do seem to equal a larger player base with more opportunities to create income.

When it comes down to it, the game industry is much like the music industry. Big publishers don't give a flying fuck whether your game is good or not as long as copies fly off the shelves. Rage is a good recent example, along with Brink. Both of those games were hyped to shit, developed by big name companies, and both have been highly disappointing. The problem is that you have to drop $60 to find out for yourself whether or not you like it, and by that time the game companies have made their $$ and could care less whether or not you'll play it for more than 10 minutes.

MMO's offer a different business model but follow the same principles. Except with an MMO you are looking to have a player subscribe for an extended period of time (hopefully years) and therefore you need a game that will keep them entertained for years. In order to do that realistically you have to appeal to a wider audience that doesn't put it's entire focus into hardcore, end game content that is equally challenging as it is appealing to spend time on. The majority of the player base won't see that content, so you have to make other things available to them.

[Kika Maslyaka]

This is why EQ2 and even WoW has superior combat mechanics compared to EQ1.

Auto-attack means shit in terms of DPS, if you not aggressively using your activateable abilities. There is no double attack in eq2 and wow for example, so you don't produce double dps by just hitting A and having mob targeted.

EQ2 combo strikes are especially cool

[SVentura]

It may not be an mmo, but there are games out there that cater to this kind of mentality.

Buy a PS3 and pick up a copy of Demon's/Dark Souls. Play through those a couple times, and then pvp in them a couple of times. These games will give you what you're looking for in terms of combat.

~O~

[Vondra]

EQ's simplistic gameplay and lack of rotations are what make the game, imo.

In most other modern MMOs, you've got some sort of rotation with plenty of buttons to click. More engaging, it's true, but also unsocial gameplay. In EQ you can stand up and cast a spell, sit and med, then talk with your group some without sacrificing any efficiency.

Considering that any of the new MMO's I take a look at have that WoW style rotation going, I'm glad there's this to come back to. In fact in what little has been released regarding EQNext, they comment on how they'd like to get back to being able to socialize in groups...due to lack of buttonspamming.

[snorri]

Autoattack in EQ is nice, I suppose. Gives you time to think about aggro management and pathers and buffs and various other issues.

And, more importantly, communicating with your group. Voice chat was rare, as were high speed internet connections. You need those six seconds between kicks in order to type.

One of the wow-style mmo's I played, there was no time in between mashing hotkeys. The amount of time between pressing "1" and then pressing "2" was at most a second. And you had at least 12 different things to press in the right order. And you often needed to move around at the same time. The game was almost entirely silent. See a PC, click join, wordlessly kill 8 giant rats, disband, go turn in quest.

Even Vanguard was keeping my fingers busy enough that if my group wasn't in the same room as I was, I wouldn't be able to say anything at all.

[pickled_heretic]

EQ's simplistic gameplay and lack of rotations are what make the game, imo.

In most other modern MMOs, you've got some sort of rotation with plenty of buttons to click. More engaging, it's true, but also unsocial gameplay. In EQ you can stand up and cast a spell, sit and med, then talk with your group some without sacrificing any efficiency.

Considering that any of the new MMO's I take a look at have that WoW style rotation going, I'm glad there's this to come back to. In fact in what little has been released regarding EQNext, they comment on how they'd like to get back to being able to socialize in groups...due to lack of buttonspamming.

rotations are no better or worse than autoattack or 6 second kicks unless there's some kind of decision-making process behind the rotation.

let's face it, everquest is pretty mindless for 90% of the scenarios out there, and the gameplay is crap compared to many games out there today, especially for some classes. the only satisfaction i have is nostalgia and doing some of the things i didn't get a chance to do the first time i played it.

[Tappin]

You might be interested in GW2. Who knows if the game will flop or not. I have pretty high expectations for the game but I have for other games in the past, just to be sorely disappointed, and not always only to the MMORPG genre. There obviously is a massive hole in the gaming market out there these days, or at least the online gaming market. I've been MMOing since EQlive back in 2000, when I was 12. I've played most every major MMO title since then and none of them are good enough to keep me from wanting to play a game that is over 10 years old?

I'm a PvP junkie for the most part, except for in EQ, because, really... ? GW2 is supposed to try to do a lot of what you are asking for, more involved combat with active dodging, no auto attacks, aiming skills, or being positioned for those skills at least. But again, its silly to get hyped for games these days... like was already mentioned, the publishers want your initial game purchase and for the most part they are happy with that and don't care if you like their game or not. I hope GW2 isn't this way, and they can't really afford to do this since they have no monthly sub and rely on their game quality to convince you to buy their expansion packs.

[stormlord]

This is why EQ2 and even WoW has superior combat mechanics compared to EQ1.

Auto-attack means shit in terms of DPS, if you not aggressively using your activateable abilities. There is no double attack in eq2 and wow for example, so you don't produce double dps by just hitting A and having mob targeted.

EQ2 combo strikes are especially cool
There's some thigns I don't like about where Sony is taking its games. But I won't go there since I think anybody here that's reading these posts probably has a good idea what I'd say about it.

Other than that, I would actually agree. For example, the AA abilities on live can be very appropriate and fill in that hole that's present here on p1999. For example, sometimes you get outdone and the DPS AA abilities on live can save your group. They can be used every 15 min, 30 min, every hour, or something similar. This also applies to the disciplines, like the ranger weapon shield disc or the paladin's holyforge. It makes you feel resourceful and isn't overpowering. It's kind of like the monk mend ability or the paladin lay on hands, which we have on p1999.

I like these kind of reactive, circumstantial abilities. They're not something you do repetitiously every 15 second interval. In fact, my ranger on live would rarely use his full range of abilities and instead saved them for those situations where the group (or I) was in peril. Having them be only available every 15 min or 30 or 60 encourages you to use them well and not waste them on trivial situations. It hones you into becoming a smart player.

I think this type of gameplay isn't just about exploiting weaknesses, as I already stated in a different post, it's about having an answer for most everything. In EQ, there're a lot of times when there's no answer. If you fail to prevent the circumstance then you simply die honorably or die angry. If you fail to spot the red thing then it swats you like a fly. If you fail to see the add then you're toast. If you fail to see the cliff, then your coffin is a pancake.

The key problem isn't that there's a red thing or that there're too many adds. Too often people see it that way, so the developers remove red things and adds. This fixes the problem, doesn't it? No, because it oversimplifies the game. That's not what should be done. the problem is that, too often, there's no answer to these problems AFTER they happen. This isn't how it should be. When I die, I should be able to blame myself and not the game. It shouldn't just be about preventing mortal affliction, it should also be about the choices you make in between affliction and total loss. There should be a string of choices between "There's a red thing on us!" and Loading, Please Wait...

I've been frowned on for thinking it would be cool to combine every class in the game into one. What would it be like to be EVERY class at once? For one, you'd have an answer for most everything. YOu would have abundant tools at your disposal. You could pause the game by feign deathing. You could rez your corpse. There's a lot. You'd be a very busy player keeping on top of it all. It would be a lot more challenging that it seems from the outside. Juggling all of these abilities is not easy. Power of this magnitude means nothing if you don't know how to use it. Imagine having to know how to be a warrior, a cleric, a ranger, a bard, a chanter, a druid and all the other classes: all at once? A challenge! The key thing here is that you can't just rush into things. You have to know what you're doing. But instead of just having to know one or two things, you have to know how to do lots and lots of things. You have an answer for almost everything.

And that's hte problem. In EQ, there's not enough answers. Too often, the answer is to have a rogue in your group (or a cleric, or a...). Or the answer is to have 2000 ac instead of 1500. But that's not how it should be. Answers should be less based on numbers and more based on circumstance. And less based on hard restrictions, like player population. That doesn't mean you throw out numbers and restrictions. It means that you simply up the meaningfulness of choices. That's all. Weapons SHOULD have stats. There should be numbers. There should be people that specialize and are better than others. I'm not denying any of that. Just don't make HARD walls, but fluid, changing walls that still retain their character. For example, if I'm in a dungeon and a door is locked, my first thought is to grab a rogue friend to lock pick it. But I should also have the option to break the door down. Maybe if I hit it long enough it will. A rogue would certainly make it easier.

Am I saying EQ should be easier? No. I'm saying it should have more choices in it. Staring blankly ahead because you cannot find a rogue to pick the lock, is not a choice: it's the lack thereof. This is just one example.

I don't want a dumbed down game. I don't want things handed to me. I hate with a fury passion when I walk up to a supposed violent creature in a game and it sits there until I hit it. I hate when I jump off a cliff in a game and receive no damage when I hit the ground. I hate when I can swim forever without needing air. I hate when creatures don't help each other to thwart my efforts. I hate when a game is too simple and painless. I hate when developers fix the wrong thing. Give me all of it! Give me cliffs that can kill me. Give me creatures that help each other because they want to kill me. Give me water that I can't breath in forever. Give me a world that will kill me when I fail to make the right choices. But don't give me a world where I cannot overcome those things. Don't give me a world where I feel like it's the game, not the creatures, that I'm fighting. Try to have an answer for everything that doesn't have hard restrictions.

Restrictions should be permeable. Kind of like how a weapon wears thin with repeated use.

Hard restrictions = linear. And that's what I hate most. We need non-linear gameplay.

[stormlord]

And, more importantly, communicating with your group. Voice chat was rare, as were high speed internet connections. You need those six seconds between kicks in order to type.

One of the wow-style mmo's I played, there was no time in between mashing hotkeys. The amount of time between pressing "1" and then pressing "2" was at most a second. And you had at least 12 different things to press in the right order. And you often needed to move around at the same time. The game was almost entirely silent. See a PC, click join, wordlessly kill 8 giant rats, disband, go turn in quest.

Even Vanguard was keeping my fingers busy enough that if my group wasn't in the same room as I was, I wouldn't be able to say anything at all.
You make an excellent point here. Well said.

[Galacticus]

Lets say that tomorrow Sony released a new feature for their EQ1 and EQ2 games and they call it Autoattack 2.0. This feature set makes your player a bot and it plays at 95% of the efficiency of an actual player. So if you decided to play yourself then you would gain a 5% total improvement in your game. The improvement is a result of clicking kick every 5 second interval. They improved the game because they received too many complaints from people who like to watch football, make dinner, clean the diapers, take out the garbage AND play EQ all at the same time.

Autoattack 2.0 is the latest example of the recent streamlining enhancements being applied to Sony's flagship games. A second installment of streamlining enhancements are expected in the coming months. Additionally, Sony expects significant other complimentary features to come into the game over the next year to make your game even better.

Helpful advice: Remember, don't do more than you can handle. Clicking the kick button requires lots of concentration and skill. Playing manually is only recommended for experienced players only. GM's are available for help.

Sorry about this. I know EQ isn't this bad. But with all the potential out there, why do games recycle the same sh** over and over? Why don't they improve on the mechanics to make it more involved and responsive?

Autoattack in EQ is nice, I suppose. Gives you time to think about aggro management and pathers and buffs and various other issues. Perhaps it needs to be simple, for these reasons. But combat, when you remove everything except the essentials, can be overly simplistic. I really do not like clicking kick over and over, for example. Aside from /autoattack, combat amounts to clicking the same buttons most of the time, except when intangibles happen; like you get an add.

What about those 'other' things? They would tend to be circumstantial. When I stand behind a mob, I don't notice a increase in my DPS (as I probably should). Rogue backstabs make sense for their class, but I've always thought that every class should see criticals or backstabs when they're behind an opponent. And the more players there're on a mob, the more vulnerable it should probably be. Shooting a mob with a bow from a distance makes sense and is nice to have, but I'd be lying if I didn't admit that I wish there was more skill in aiming. What about when a mob flees on low health? You stand behind and hit it. But it doesn't make sense to miss. The mob is weak and panicing - it should get hit HARD. There's not nearly as much circumstantial choices as I think there should be. I like to make choices, so sue me? I look forward to the day when reading your opponent to anticipate your next move is more important.

There needs to be more unique situations, not less, to yield this result. The predictable outcome is noobs will not know what to do. Even a veteran could get confused easily on a new opponent. But if games are never going to get better than they're today then WTF is wrong with us? Are we mindless rodents on a hamster wheel? Are we forsaken?

You see, I think most gamers want a responsive game that requires some skill. But developers, by and large, never meet expectations. They keep pumping out simplistic games over and over. There's an amount of mediocrity or incompetence. So when people get sick of this sh**, developers mistake it for meaning that they want overly simplistic games. The mistake is that developers assumed the game was too complicated to begin with. And tha'ts just not true. Most games are too simple, not too complicated. It's an error to make them even simpler. But, I guess, if you really are watching football, cleaning house, cooking dinner, doing bills, disciplining the kids AND playing EQ, maybe you want it simple.

Good try bro. The problem is that people buy what they want. Its not that games are more simple, its that you are simple and don't understand the complexity behind the button you are pushing.

Try being more descriptive with solutions instead of acting like there is a better way to do things that you figured out.

If you were criticizing cars you would say: I dream of the day when one day my car just knows where I want to go. Putting in directions? I guess thats ok. But I want my car to read my thought patterns and take me there. I cant believe people actually ride these stupid cars we got, you gotta turn the wheel and push the gas and break. You would think they would be smart enough then to just have TWO pedals to control the speed. You have to physically move the wheel in the direction you want to go? Realistically I could want to go up or down or backwards, this wheel is the same recycled shit since cars were made. To top it all off, can you believe you have to actually check your cars fluids and put gas in it? What do car companies make billions of dollars for?

Yea, you sound that dumb.

[Kika Maslyaka]

stormlord,
I agree with most of you say, just wanted to say, useful abilities with a decently long re-use time are good, when the reuse time is manageable.

Think - Lay Hands - yes, great ability that can nearly full heal you, but useable once in 2 hours??? I played paladin before, and I ended up NEVER using it cause I kept saving it for that one special moment when it will be truly helpful... while I kept getting killed over and over cause I kept forgetting I even hay LH, cause I always keep telling myself - "no don't use it! save it for emergency!" And when emergency comes, I totally forget that I actually have this ability, cause I never use it

As a person who just recently played WoW, I am also not a fan of a button-mash-fest. yes I like pro-active ability use combat, but not to the point where MMO becomes Diablo 1 where you had to keep clicking the mouse to keep shooting

To me, is true balance in somewhere in the middle between the 2.
Lay hands would have better if would heal for decent enough amount, but be re-use able once in say 15 min, rather than 2 hours. Some goes for rangers Weaponshield disc - yes uber, but when? Once in 2 hours for 30 seconds? I would prefer if it would only half as good, but actually useable every 10-15 min instead. So not just when go a raid once a day, but more close to casual groping

WoW/EQ2, on other hand could have benefited in its encounter were a bit longer, where your good spells have a cool down of say 2-3 min, rather than 15-20 sec, so you can only use your good spells once per fight, rather than BOOM-boom-BOOM-boom-BOOM-combat over (where BOOM is your good nuke and boom is the spam nuke)

EQ2 system, while also a bit too fast paced, little bit better, where you WANT to use different spells in order to complete your "combo circle"

Disclaimer: i am only talking about how combat system works, how easy or how hard the game is not a subject of discussion here. But as stormlord pointed out, I agree that problem with EQ is not that its "too hard", but rather than "it has to few choices to pick from to beat it"

On the topic of "talking while in group". When I played a bard, the first and ONLY thing I ever told my group was "DO NOT TALK TO ME!" :D

[Kika Maslyaka]

Good try bro. The problem is that people buy what they want. Its not that games are more simple, its that you are simple and don't understand the complexity behind the button you are pushing.

Try being more descriptive with solutions instead of acting like there is a better way to do things that you figured out.

If you were criticizing cars you would say: I dream of the day when one day my car just knows where I want to go. Putting in directions? I guess thats ok. But I want my car to read my thought patterns and take me there. I cant believe people actually ride these stupid cars we got, you gotta turn the wheel and push the gas and break. You would think they would be smart enough then to just have TWO pedals to control the speed. You have to physically move the wheel in the direction you want to go? Realistically I could want to go up or down or backwards, this wheel is the same recycled shit since cars were made. To top it all off, can you believe you have to actually check your cars fluids and put gas in it? What do car companies make billions of dollars for?

Yea, you sound that dumb.

Just because he talks about LOGICAL game shortcoming, and wants a BETTER gameplay in general, doesn't make him in anyway dumb.
yes, we all know, that corporations ONLY care for CASH. The world however is not without altruists ;)

BTW, I drive stick-shift, and the only upgrade for me would be teleport :D

[Galacticus]

I think you got the important parts.

Exploiting unique situations is the hallmark of this kind of gameplay. There's no ONE answer. Having good armor and good weapons, which are basically STATS, helps a lot, but it should not be the sole reason you win a fight!!! It shouldn't be so important. It should be about your choices during the fight. Maybe aim for a balance of 60/40; choices/stats.

You're right. Simple games are easier to make bots for.

My reference(s) to kick (the button) was really a jab at what games consider to be involved gameplay.

(involved = at your keyboard)

But like I already stated, putting attention on aggro management, spawn placement, pathing, buffs, debuffs and so on, is a big part of the involved gameplay. Those things are not explicitly a part of combat, but they're integral to your success in combat. Maybe /autoattack (combat, in general) needs to be simple so that we can focus on those other things. But the thing is, not all members of a group need worry about the larger concerns. A warrior, for example, shouldn't be worrying too much about pathing and buffs and debuffs and other side-issues; casters and cc people should be. A warrior should be consumed by his opponent(s). My argument was that combat itself, in its current state, is not very impressive.

But having to leanr more things to play would be exhausting for noobs. But it could come in phases. As you level up or change scenery, you meet more kinds of situations that challenge your skill set. It shouldn't happen all at once.

I think it's easy to be too cautious. There's a tendency to think players are dumb so we must make dumb games. It stems from this idea that we should code programs for the lowest common denominator so no one is excluded. For example, if I click the delete button - after changing something - then a window pops up that asks me "Do you really want to delete this?" This is built-in protection against users who mistakenly click it. But it can easily go too far. What if I accidentally click Yes but intended to click No? Maybe the delete button shouldn't even be offered? Heh, it could be too dangerous. Maybe it should be hidden? Or maybe only certain people can use delete? All sorts of questions pop into your head when you're making a program. It's all magnified 3x when a manager expects there to be no complaints.

So my argument here is that games are too conservative and bloated by worrying. Especially the marketing heads. But maybe I'm looking at this all wrong. Maybe MOST people are too inattentive for this. They WANT simplicity.

I myself have pointed to necromancers and other feign deathers to suggest that they're great classes to play for busy people. Got yourself in a pinch? Then click Feign Death. Now you can take care of the baby, or wash the dishes, or go to the shop, or whatever. If you don't got much time, the necro offers you a lot of bang for your buck. You don't have to run around looking for a group. It's very convenient and probably one of my favorite classes. They don't just feign death, either. They can do so much more. They keep you busy. They have power, but it's diverse.

In fact, I think all classes could use feign death. I know real life can get bad quick. Games should allow us to pause them, but they shouldn't at the same time allow us to play them AND do a dozen other things. My opinion.


If we are talking specifically about everquest, then take it for what it is. The first 3d first person mmo that ever existed. It was a huge concept that more then 30 people could be playing one game on one server at one time.

With a game like that, something no one had ever played before, it was a smart move to make it simple on the user end.

You are expected to spend countless hours killing monsters. You want to be pressing taunt and kick or a complicated set of combos of buttons for hours upon hours upon hours.

The game is very complex, but not to the average user. There is a lot of math that goes into the writing of the engine and how the many different systems work well together and then sync up across hundreds of computers in a time where people were using dial up in the majority.

If we are talking about games today, the industries are focused at getting more people gaming, more people buying their products = more money for them for more development and to buy their kids X-mas presents. Not the same people who buy call of duty every time a new one comes out, but the people who didn't buy it last time it came out. They do this by appealing to a wider audience by including what that wider audience wants, more simplicity.

Game developers aren't stupid.

Take a wide look at the games that are out there. Look at the ones that make money. That's what investors want to invest in, the things that make money.

Complex ideas and great games are made by companies that have two things.

Time and Money.

Time is the biggest issue. Why take 5 years to make a really good game that makes 5 billion dollars , when you can just put out an average one every year for 3 billion and make 15 billion in those 5 years.

It's the same reason B movies are made, its the same reason we see so much garbage in movie theaters and on television.

That's how the world works.

[Galacticus]

Just because he talks about LOGICAL game shortcoming, and wants a BETTER gameplay in general, doesn't make him in anyway dumb.
yes, we all know, that corporations ONLY care for CASH. The world however is not without altruists ;)

BTW, I drive stick-shift, and the only upgrade for me would be teleport :D

Talking about a game over 10 years old that was the first of its kind and its flaws just seems like captain obvious is trying to sound original.

The thread is called AutoPlay Button, a hypothetical button that does 95% of everything. Because we play games for only 5% of its value?

He said people who are busy should play a feign death class because its like a pause button. Really?




Really?

[Kika Maslyaka]

Talking about a game over 10 years old that was the first of its kind and its flaws just seems like captain obvious is trying to sound original.

The thread is called AutoPlay Button, a hypothetical button that does 95% of everything. Because we play games for only 5% of its value?

He said people who are busy should play a feign death class because its like a pause button. Really?




Really?

These are eq1 forums. Would be strange if he started talking about how to improve Master of Orion here. He talks about EQ, cause he loves it. But at the same time hi wishes it could have better.
Same as I.
I understand this concept perfectly.

I have a good friend, who, when he played EQ back in 2001-2004 was an amazing enchanter. Top Raid guilds fought over to get him to join them.
Yet, he stopped playing eq and went back to Diablo-2/Balder's Gates. I asked him why. His answer was "No Pause button"

[stormlord]

It may not be an mmo, but there are games out there that cater to this kind of mentality.

Buy a PS3 and pick up a copy of Demon's/Dark Souls. Play through those a couple times, and then pvp in them a couple of times. These games will give you what you're looking for in terms of combat.

~O~
I commented about this game in another thread.

Here're some links about it:

A youtube video review by gamespot:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ach_m3-cKVg&noredirect=1

A written review:
http://www.azcentral.com/business/consumer/articles/2011/10/03/20111003dark-souls-preview.html

I like how players have to be aware of their environment AND their opponent. It's not just a game of "I have a better weapon and armor and satisfactory level: so I win." This caught my eye about the game and even though I haven't played it, I think I would probably like it, for these stated reasons.

A lot of games remove the danger in their rush to fix complaints, not realizing that it's the dullness of the gameplay that's to blame, not the dangers themselves. This is one of my primary points that I, unabashedly, will restate over and over.

[stormlord]

You might be interested in GW2. Who knows if the game will flop or not. I have pretty high expectations for the game but I have for other games in the past, just to be sorely disappointed, and not always only to the MMORPG genre. There obviously is a massive hole in the gaming market out there these days, or at least the online gaming market. I've been MMOing since EQlive back in 2000, when I was 12. I've played most every major MMO title since then and none of them are good enough to keep me from wanting to play a game that is over 10 years old?

I'm a PvP junkie for the most part, except for in EQ, because, really... ? GW2 is supposed to try to do a lot of what you are asking for, more involved combat with active dodging, no auto attacks, aiming skills, or being positioned for those skills at least. But again, its silly to get hyped for games these days... like was already mentioned, the publishers want your initial game purchase and for the most part they are happy with that and don't care if you like their game or not. I hope GW2 isn't this way, and they can't really afford to do this since they have no monthly sub and rely on their game quality to convince you to buy their expansion packs.
Thing is, is the environment as interesting as the combat will be? In EQ, we have to watch spawn placement and pathing because non-players will attack us and add as well. We have to be careful where we walk or we could fall and even die. In a lot of games, these things don't happen. We need lots of CC abilities because we have to control for adds that might come and for potential wanderers that get in on the action. I've said a couple times that maybe basic combat needs to be simple so that we can keep our minds on all of these other things. But it's not a done deal. I'm not convinced that we're exhausted and cannot have a more involved combat system. But anyway, I'm not saying EQ isn't an involved game, I'm merely assessing its combat system, and explaining that it's not very involved or fun, in my view. KEEPING IN MIND, the basic combat system is just the fundamentals: it does not include cc or spawn awareness or other concerns.

Basic combat is when you walk up to a creature and target it and /autoattack. You trade blows automatically. If you're a melee, there's not much more to it than just clicking kick every 6 seconds. I know and you know, that combat is more complicated with everything else included. But I'm trying to avoid over complicating this.

I would like to see more conditions so that there're more unique situations. For example, if blunt weapons stunned non-players automatically then players might save a blunt weapon for the last 20% when a creature attempts to escape. Or they'd use for casting opponents. If slashing weapons created bleeding on the opponent then you might use them at the start of the encounter to 'dot' it. If more players attacking a opponent decreased its defense then having your group members on one creature would be a good strategy, but you'd have to weigh this with all of your other concerns, like adds (hey, we have off tanks for a reason). If we could aim our weapons to target an opponent's legs or whatever it uses to move then this might allow us to 'snare' it. Then we'd switch to more critical body parts. If everyone could 'backstab' because hitting a creature from behind increases your dps then this would at least make the fighting seem more believable. Flanking would get a bonus too. I'm not sure how that would markedly CHANGE the strategy, though. (I mean, most players in EQ are on an opponent's back anyway because they're trying to avoid ripostes and don't like to get mixed up with the tank.) Maybe if a creature tries to run away and changes direction then you have to make sure you stay on its back. The game should reward players AT THEIR KEYBOARD. But other than that, it's more about the believability. Remember how in battles we flank the enemy? We do this because they have exposed a weakness. It doesn't make sense for a creature to not expose itself when it focuses its attention on one player or turns its back to you. It doesn't make sense that a creature has the same defense no matter how many foes it has actively attacking it. Believability is not as important, though, as encouraging strategic, choice-oriented gameplay. But it's still important.

More abilities, like hte AA abilities on live, would be welcomed by me. In fact, the rest of the game could probably use more things like this as well, not just basic combat or combat-related activities. For example, a 1 hour recast-time Sprint ability that gives you a 30% boost to runspeed for 1 minute would be a great way to outrun a non-player if things go bad. This would have the effect of allowing you to avoid certain death, but it comes with its share of responsibilities: you must use it wisely, and know WHEN to use it. Even the placement of guards in a zone is somewhat similar to this mechanic. Instead of outrunning your enemy, you're running to a guard for self-defence. You have to know where the guard is, and you have to gauge your chances of getting there in time. Sadly, a lot of games don't use guards effectively or even at all. But a good balanced use of guards both improves the believability of the world and also gives you a CHOICE when things go bad. Too often, games just remove bad things so that they never happen. But in the process of doing that, they remove choice and danger from the game. Not only that, it feels a lot less believable; aka. candyland.

The other day I was thinking a nice ability to have would be "Concentrate". Basically, it would allow me to cast on a non-player much higher level than me. If I was trying to escape from something, I could use it and then snare the bad guy so that I can escape. This is just another way to do the same thing: control bad things, rather than removing them.

[stormlord]

These are eq1 forums. Would be strange if he started talking about how to improve Master of Orion here. He talks about EQ, cause he loves it. But at the same time hi wishes it could have better.
Same as I.
I understand this concept perfectly.

I have a good friend, who, when he played EQ back in 2001-2004 was an amazing enchanter. Top Raid guilds fought over to get him to join them.
Yet, he stopped playing eq and went back to Diablo-2/Balder's Gates. I asked him why. His answer was "No Pause button"
http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=36164&highlight=star+lords

I like most of the changes from Star Lords to Master of Orion, but not every last one. MOST. I don't think that every change in the past 20 years to games has been good. Games are a lot more like art than a machine. Or, they're more like a trend in what clothes we wear than they're like solving for a mathematical equation. The truth is, there's a technical and an intangible side to games. You can improve on the technical side, but the intangible side will always be in the eye of the beholder. In brief: a game can please a lot of people, but it can't please em all. There's no final solution.

If I've led anyone here into believing that the things I post here are a final solution, I am sorry. These are my opinions. A few people might agree. Others don't. I am just a player, like you. I like to write these things down.