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]

Originally Posted by pickled_heretic [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.