First, lets be honest; how many times did this happen? Now, in 1999 you might have been on a dial up, so this kind of thing was more common for you. But I was lucky enough to be in college in 2000 and on a T1 line, so Irarelydied without something being my fault (I can count them on one hand, literally). You're taking the absolute worst case scenario and trying to trump it as the norm.
Quite a few. While I admit that it wasn't necessarily the "norm", I didn't have the luxury of a T1 line, so it occurred often. Like I said, not often enough to be the "norm", but certainly often enough to be a glaring example of tedium under the guise of difficulty.
Also, if you were not bound in Freeport while going to befallen?Yes, that IS absolutely poor strategic planning on your part--part of having layered consequence is you can make sure players, you know, prepare to limit losses?
On this we agree, which is why I used Unrest as the dungeon and GFay/Kaladim as the nearest bindpoint. Even if I bound as closely as possible, it was still a pretty enduring trek back to my corpse.
rather it was a set risk per the dungeon and the only way to mediate it was to become tactically better in the fight. It was an an anemic attempt to extract the few good parts from EQ's CRs.)
And how can this not also be said of EQ's CRs? You said it yourself, CRs were much easier in Uguk than the crypt of Sebilis. How was it not a "set risk per the dungeon"?
You seem to be under this assumption that
allconsequences in EQ could be mediated. I just showed you a fairly frequent example of when they couldn't. You even set yourself up with another, by acknowledging that clerics were the only class with res.
Lithose_sl said:
BUT some of the mechanics of the CR? Certainly did have an intrinsic feel to them. You set your camp up in a bad area, your punishment got harder--you wanted to farm in a place that had higher rewards because no one went there? Your risk grew. These are all some small, and in my opinion, kind of cool "adaptable" punishments--they directly correlate to the players risk. And I think that's really missing in the modern MMO where the player doesn't get a choice about his risk; it's all binary. If I run naked up to Garrosh and spit on him--despite being in the "scariest" place in that expansion? My punishment for not even preparing with gear or a team of players, is the EXACT same as someone in a noobie dungeon.
The issue is, you seem to think that this was all some sort of grand design, laid forth by the developers. The vast, vast majority of that "layered difficulty" you covet was nearly entirely the result of accidents/unintended emergent gameplay. I just don't think it's possible for that to be recreated(at least, not purposely), without a massive undertaking that would likely dwarf the cost of SWTOR. You're cherry picking all these examples of "layered difficulty" and shouting..."SEE! INTELLIGENT DESIGN!". Not much different than a religious person pointing to a banana, saying that it fits "perfectly" in the hand of a human, and correlating that with "intelligent design!".
Lithose_sl said:
Garrosh is no more "risky" to face down than the Defias bortherhood was almost a decade ago. Does that feel like it has some fidelity to the world? Meh. There's something to be said about making consequence feel genuinely different as you get into the more rewarding parts of the game.
This is your most blatant "clouded by nostalgia" statement yet. You're under the assumption that "the big bad" always got exponentially riskier. Did you play EQ? Because facing down Trakanon at the end of Kunark was no more "difficult" or "risky" than facing down Vox at the end of launch. Hell, EQ only ever got
lessrisky as time went on, more tools to deal with CR tedium became more readily available, more players at level cap, etc. Not much different than WoW.
LadyVex_sl said:
The whole thing feels like that one friend who did drugs, claimed he was clean, asks you for a dubious pay day loan, then he just vanishes. Every once in awhile he'll call, ask you if anyone has been asking about him and if they do, to tell them "he's doing good, he's got some things planned, big things, it's gonna be big." You'll get in touch with him, ask him if he wants to hang, but he's always got something cooking that he needs to tend to.
Wow, you've described Brad pretty well. You even got the "drug addict" part right.
Mkopec_sl said:
If they keep the team small, why not? Its only when it gets bloated out of control when it starts to fall apart. But a small team of like 20 peeps? I have no doubts. But one thing they need is the engineering. That shit has to be nailed.
Because you can't undertake a massive project like an MMO with such a small team? Even a "small", in-house, kickstarter game like Kingdome Come: Deliverance has a team of 35.
which means other assholes will be lazy or their incompetence rewarded
So, just like EQ then? Sounds like EQN is really hitting it out of the ballpark on recreating the EQ experience.
The holy trinity was needed to make games playable
No, it was needed so that little Timmy could feel like he mattered, while he sat in the back casting mod rods, because he sucked ass at anything else.
The reason you and others get so up in arms over the prospect of individual skill mattering, is because it means that you can't be carried through content anymore. You're clamoring for "skill should matter!", a "return to consequences for poor play!", but when a game comes along that attempts to facilitate that? "WTF! This is just going to end up being dumbed down! We don't need this homogenization in our games! We played the trinity and we liked it!". So, either you don't really care about player skill mattering like you say you do, or you're nervous that it means you'll no longer be able to leech off of the work of the trinity. You're also likely of the ilk who denounce the use of DPS/Healing meters; it makes it obvious to others when you play poorly.
