Originally Posted by MMO-Champion
in retrospect, was it really worth diluting gameplay quality so that more could participate?
I still struggle with that question. Is it better to have a good experience for few classes or viability for all of them?
giving melee+range comps less DR category overlap is another way.
You can get more class representation by letting multiple classes bring X but then you risk losing class distinction. At the end of the day, supporting multiple diverse classes as equals is almost impossible. My suggestion for any aspiring RPG designers out there is have only a few classes if balance is a goal. (OccupyGStreet
Must all new classes in WoW be hybrids? Is it bad for the game (LFG queues) to add another pure dps class?
I think the game can support pures, so long as the hybrids are satisfied doing less DPS, which is a hot button topic.
Do you think it's possible to add a 4th role? Could it be done by adding it to the next new class, and only to that class?
You would make that class mandatory for every raid group. If you could live with that decision, then sure. (OccupyGStreet
I think I transmogged one item, and I was largely the designer of the system. And I found a bug with that one item... I think it was a fan. (OccupyGStreet
what was wow's biggest problem/headache that you can recall during WotLK?
I don't know if this is the biggest problem, but creating a niche and need for the DK was a challenge.
interesting. not what i expected.
There were more. Naxx being easy followed by Ulduar being hard was challenging.
I got the feeling Ulduar was not as well received at the time as some portray. The next tier seemed rushed out.
Ulduar was popular for the tiny percent of players who saw it. Flex mode normal would have helped it a ton. (OccupyGStreet
No idea how to solve a fundamental game design problem: optional content must be interesting but not so interesting that you're compelled. I see this is a lot in DA:I and WoW. If optional content is too boring, nobody will do it. Too interesting and it feels no longer optional. (OccupyGStreet
A lot of the optional-turned-mandatory content feels that way because of the presence of overly compelling rewards.
I agree, but it's not just rewards though. AC and DA:I offer a lot of low reward content that is still hard to skip over.
At some point (was it achievements?) we became programmed to hate skipping over optional activities (frequently collections). (OccupyGStreet
I would say it all depends on your definition of 'interesting'
There is a ton of collection in the new Dragon Age, but many clearly feel bad about not doing it (which is the entire point!). (OccupyGStreet
Being compelled because it is interesting is awesome. Being compelled to do something optional strictly for reward is no fun
I agree, but there is also a trend of optional never feeling optional no matter how lame or non-rewarding it really is. I am *not* an achievement-focused player, but I still picked up a lot of freaking feathers and posters in Assassins Creed games (OccupyGStreet
It can be frustrating if it's presented as optional but is important. It isn't optional at that point.
Right. Devs are clearly trying to present bonus content for completionists, but then we feel bad skipping it. (OccupyGStreet
I can make a game with 1000 quests that feel mandatory. That's easy (but a lot of work). Having 100 mandatory and 900 optional is harder. (OccupyGStreet
there's a bigger issue - artists want their art to be seen.
That's always a concern (and using art = craft) but in this case I believe the devs *want* the content to be optional. (OccupyGStreet
I will never play DA:I again because of this and I really wanted to
Exactly. Bioware wanted shards and other collections to feel optional for folks who wanted a 200h game. But I think it backfired. You hear complaints of too much content, even from crazy gamers like us. (OccupyGStreet
But what if you want to offer 100h to one type of player and 40h to another? How to make *some* content feel optional? (OccupyGStreet
WoW had TONS of working optional content. you could do pet battles. or start doing dailies to get the squirre pony from TotC
WoW pets are a great example. They went from rare rewards for a few to something many had the expectation they were going to get. (OccupyGStreet
I'd prefer if games were made directed at a specific audience. People would enjoy them more. Even if it was less people
Budgets can be a challenge there. Unless your specific audience will pay a premium for the game, you have to make it smaller. (OccupyGStreet
IMO, if you make content interesting, people will feel compelled to complete it, "optional" or no.
But what if it is not? What if it is an awful grind? I assert many will still do it (and be mad). (OccupyGStreet
devs seem to think "it's optional but we'd still like EVERYONE to do it". "Optional" means many ppl WONT do it- AND THAT'S OK
Yes, that is my point. It is good to have optional content. Keeping it optional is surprisingly hard to design. You almost find yourself trying to design somewhat shitty content for fear that everyone will do it (meaning now non-optional). (OccupyGStreet
Isn't this solved via multiple possible paths? You get one option, and you have to play again to explore other options?
I like that the best, though it is strictly more work/content than the main+optional model. (OccupyGStreet
But is that not the purpose of all gaming companies. To hook the gamer in and keep them coming in.
Ultimately, but you do risk driving players away if they are overwhelmed. It's a big ask to say "Trust me. The 100 hours you are about to spend will be worth it." (OccupyGStreet
that's the problem with you people. You have to always overcomplicate things. I bet none of this was important on vanilla WoW
Leveling to 60 was the entire game for most players and they didn't rush through it. Player behavior changes in 10 years. (OccupyGStreet