MMO Development and the Future

[Some Rogue]

Come in, bad ties are welcome.

[Drew]

I don't understand what this thread is about.

http://i.imgur.com/13YgH.gif

[Some Rogue]

I don't understand what this thread is about.



So basically you agree that as it currently stands, CRZ is poorly implemented and full of issues, where Blizzard either needs to (a) kill off the CRZ idea (and consider server merges) or presumably (b) *fix* the inherent issues?
I thought that the OP in the thread I linked to on the WoW forums did a nice job of breaking down the issues and the pro's of CRZ. Only thing I've seen from Blizzard is that they are basically assessing the concerns/faults that the playerbase is bringing up about CRZ.
Personally, I never really understood why Battlegroups seem to be more or less random pairing of servers, when it would be *logical* to make a single Battlegroup of all RP-PvP servers, all PvP servers, all RP-PvE servers, etc ... as generally people pick a server based on what kind of rules/environment that they want to play in (aside from other factors such as where their friends are playing). I'd speculate that the CRZs are being applied to the Battlegroups as-is. Outright server mergers would be a better resolution IMO if for whatever technical reasons Blizzard cannot set up the BattleGroups and CRZs specifically by server types.
MMOs are clearly not developing or operating in a vacuum and are borrowing ideas from each other in implementing design changes. Presumably MMOs are learning from each other in 'what works' and 'what did not work' in attempting to improve their product to secure $revenue.
While I am no longer actively playing WoW, I still follow developments in the game for the potential future impact it could have on other MMOs. This CRZ design seems to be an intriguing idea (as all MMOs inevitably have the challenge of trying to keep the lower levels engaging and grouping-friendly, post the first year of launch/expansion) ... so I'm interested to see what Blizzard does with the CRZ going forward.
I recall articulating that I enjoyed early Cataclysm returning the difficulty scale back to the Heroics (but as you are aware, that eventually got nerfed not too long after launch). I thought the first-tier Raids were engaging as well.
I had not found much to cheer about since with WoW-Cataclysm, and you've already heard enough about my disgust with the implementations concerning the Dragon Soul tier.Hence my comment about CRZ being intriguing. The *world* experience in late Vanilla and the bulk of BC was engaging, so it would be nice to see that would be possible again.
I do wish that they would restructure the Battlegroups more along server-type lines however.
I have not yet had the opportunity to try the explorable modes for the dungeons yet. I can imagine them being significantly more challenging for most players considering that there is no 'Tank' or 'Healer' roles in GW2, and it will predominantly involve all 5 players coordinating well together to successfully get thru.
I pugged AC storymode, and it was a clusterfark ... but an organized guild run through was a much more polished experience.
I'd say that if an organized group of 5 (presumably all guild, or 5 people who are well-acquainted with each other and can communicate on ventrilo) can get thru explorer mode, then it is probably designed correctly.
Since ArenaNet's $revenue model does not factor in monthly subscriptions, they do not really need to appeal to the casual gamers (who are probably a good portion of the current GW2 population), as the GW2 game-design is centered around the dedicated player that will stick with GW2 and learn how to work through the challenges of explorer-mode, and presumably build a cooperative community to get thru such content. Also, with them being dedicated players, they'll be utilizing the cash-shop which will help support the game.
However, 'Nerfs' to explorer-mode may be required if such dedicated players (who are adhering to a more genuine sense of cooperative play than pug-ing in general) struggle to get thru explorer mode content, and it risks discouraging them from continue to play themselves.
ArenaNet has already gotten its $60 from casual players, and there is undoubtedly enough *content* for them from L0 to L80 with the storymode for all of the dungeons, and the server-based-PvP (that is a lot of gaming hours to get through it all, just the first time around).
Other games like WoW & Rift have a higher standard to meet for casual players as they must be able to keep them *engaged* on a month-to-month basis to maintain their subscription-based $revenue model.So basically you agree that as it currently stands, CRZ is poorly implemented and full of issues, where Blizzard either needs to (a) kill off the CRZ idea (and consider server merges) or presumably (b) *fix* the inherent issues?
I thought that the OP in the thread I linked to on the WoW forums did a nice job of breaking down the issues and the pro's of CRZ. Only thing I've seen from Blizzard is that they are basically assessing the concerns/faults that the playerbase is bringing up about CRZ.
Personally, I never really understood why Battlegroups seem to be more or less random pairing of servers, when it would be *logical* to make a single Battlegroup of all RP-PvP servers, all PvP servers, all RP-PvE servers, etc ... as generally people pick a server based on what kind of rules/environment that they want to play in (aside from other factors such as where their friends are playing). I'd speculate that the CRZs are being applied to the Battlegroups as-is. Outright server mergers would be a better resolution IMO if for whatever technical reasons Blizzard cannot set up the BattleGroups and CRZs specifically by server types.
MMOs are clearly not developing or operating in a vacuum and are borrowing ideas from each other in implementing design changes. Presumably MMOs are learning from each other in 'what works' and 'what did not work' in attempting to improve their product to secure $revenue.
While I am no longer actively playing WoW, I still follow developments in the game for the potential future impact it could have on other MMOs. This CRZ design seems to be an intriguing idea (as all MMOs inevitably have the challenge of trying to keep the lower levels engaging and grouping-friendly, post the first year of launch/expansion) ... so I'm interested to see what Blizzard does with the CRZ going forward.
I recall articulating that I enjoyed early Cataclysm returning the difficulty scale back to the Heroics (but as you are aware, that eventually got nerfed not too long after launch). I thought the first-tier Raids were engaging as well.
I had not found much to cheer about since with WoW-Cataclysm, and you've already heard enough about my disgust with the implementations concerning the Dragon Soul tier.Hence my comment about CRZ being intriguing. The *world* experience in late Vanilla and the bulk of BC was engaging, so it would be nice to see that would be possible again.
I do wish that they would restructure the Battlegroups more along server-type lines however.
I have not yet had the opportunity to try the explorable modes for the dungeons yet. I can imagine them being significantly more challenging for most players considering that there is no 'Tank' or 'Healer' roles in GW2, and it will predominantly involve all 5 players coordinating well together to successfully get thru.
I pugged AC storymode, and it was a clusterfark ... but an organized guild run through was a much more polished experience.
I'd say that if an organized group of 5 (presumably all guild, or 5 people who are well-acquainted with each other and can communicate on ventrilo) can get thru explorer mode, then it is probably designed correctly.
Since ArenaNet's $revenue model does not factor in monthly subscriptions, they do not really need to appeal to the casual gamers (who are probably a good portion of the current GW2 population), as the GW2 game-design is centered around the dedicated player that will stick with GW2 and learn how to work through the challenges of explorer-mode, and presumably build a cooperative community to get thru such content. Also, with them being dedicated players, they'll be utilizing the cash-shop which will help support the game.
However, 'Nerfs' to explorer-mode may be required if such dedicated players (who are adhering to a more genuine sense of cooperative play than pug-ing in general) struggle to get thru explorer mode content, and it risks discouraging them from continue to play themselves.
ArenaNet has already gotten its $60 from casual players, and there is undoubtedly enough *content* for them from L0 to L80 with the storymode for all of the dungeons, and the server-based-PvP (that is a lot of gaming hours to get through it all, just the first time around).
Other games like WoW & Rift have a higher standard to meet for casual players as they must be able to keep them *engaged* on a month-to-month basis to maintain their subscription-based $revenue model.

[g++]

I demand someone repost a random post from mmo-champion immediately.

[Some Rogue]

Those TV spots did not do the expansion justice at all. I would have thought that we wanted to encourage players to try out the new expansion not drive people away from it. That is the whole purpose of advertising isn't it, to get people to use your product or service?

While of the of feedback for the expansion is mostly positive, there are many and I mean may old players who have left and ("future") players who are turned away from the game because they think the game is Pandas and Pokemon which it simply is not.

I can't count how many times I have read forum posts and watched youtube videos about people saying they won't be buying the expansion because Kung Fu panda and Pokemon is ruining the franchise. It is not until people actually do their research and look into the expansion that they realize that this expansion is is bringing so much more. It is everything people liked from classic, BC, wrath and cata all rolled up into one expansion.

I'm not tell you guys how to run your company but this is just constructive feedback. Instead of blasting people heads with images of Chen stormstout (panda) why not take a different approach to the tv spots by showing off the actual game content instead of just a cinematic which does not provide any information at all except a release date. Provide the viewers with clips of new battlegrounds, raid content, scenarios etc.

While the purpose of the TV spots is mainly to hype of the game, these certainly did not do that, especially for those who have not played WoW before. We all know that you are trying to target a difference audience but I feel this will not do that.

[Taernath]

I have been playing wow all the way back to vanilla. I have watched Blizzard take a nicely challenging game that allowed players to build individual toons and play them were you had to learn how to overcome other players ability's and skills because every one was different, no two toons were the same and turn it into a cookie cutter game were everyone can do about the same thing. I will play out my 6 month subscription and then be done with it!

Blizzard, perhaps you should put out a game that isn't for the simple minded and or lazy people that do not or can not deal with the challenge of figuring it out.

Upgrading content and game challenge is a good thing, simplifying is not!








(we ARE just reposting from other boards, right?)