1. #241
    Quote Originally Posted by bbr View Post
    Is anyone really waiting / wanting an MMO anymore at this point in time?

    They really aren't bringing anything innovative to the current market, so what do they hope to accomplish?
    What's WoW trying to accomplish besides hemorrhaging it's playerbase?

  2. #242
    Quote Originally Posted by Baconeggcheese View Post
    I feel like eve's combat is too slow and RTS-like to work well in an mmorpg that is going for action combat. You'd practically need to make it turn based to get the same effect.

    Definitely, every single one I've played, even failed ones, have had something they just do better than the others. I feel like they should be stealing that good from each other, but instead they end up falling into the same traps.

    I think a big part for games like new world is for some reason people get super hyped up when games advertise "sandbox" and "open world" without really thinking about how the focus on those things fails these games. I bet you'll see the same with ashes of creation which is what people are hyped up about now. Its gonna run into the same issues.

    Also doesn't help that every time they put out a gameplay or combat video there's almost no gameplay or combat in it.



    Their intention initially was to make this a pvp focused end game. I think they thought they were gonna have dark souls pvp~the mmo.

    During the last delay they started to shift more towards PvE though as I guess they realized that wasn't working. And so now they have this awkward in between that lacks direction because they flipped on what the game was committing to.
    From what I heard it doesn't work as a PvP game either because you can stunlock people to death.

    I'm astonished how many games fail at the most basic of consumer questions. Is the combat fun? Doesn't matter if its WoW, FF14, GW, Dark Souls or Mortal Kombat. If the basic gameplay action (often combat) is not fun, little else matters. How many dead MMO's are there that got some stuff right but failed to provide basic engaging gameplay.
    It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death

  3. #243
    Merely a Setback PACOX's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ██████
    Posts
    26,282
    Quote Originally Posted by Baconeggcheese View Post
    I feel like eve's combat is too slow and RTS-like to work well in an mmorpg that is going for action combat. You'd practically need to make it turn based to get the same effect.

    Definitely, every single one I've played, even failed ones, have had something they just do better than the others. I feel like they should be stealing that good from each other, but instead they end up falling into the same traps.

    I think a big part for games like new world is for some reason people get super hyped up when games advertise "sandbox" and "open world" without really thinking about how the focus on those things fails these games. I bet you'll see the same with ashes of creation which is what people are hyped up about now. Its gonna run into the same issues.

    Also doesn't help that every time they put out a gameplay or combat video there's almost no gameplay or combat in it.



    Their intention initially was to make this a pvp focused end game. I think they thought they were gonna have dark souls pvp~the mmo.

    During the last delay they started to shift more towards PvE though as I guess they realized that wasn't working. And so now they have this awkward in between that lacks direction because they flipped on what the game was committing to.
    I've tried to bring up similar concerns in game and people were like 'no it will be fine.'


    No no no no. Guys. Amazon what's your feedback. You've been through enough failed games to know what's just not going to keep you playing after week one or two. Get off the hype train for one second.

    The game has potential but in its current state it's very busted, that's why Amazon pushed it way back in the first place.

    People were going on how one weapon (life staff) is okay that they it's basically mandatory for anyone looking to pvp...and that it allows for you to just even a fight whenever. People were saying that it's okay that your able to spam LMB with hatchet and win. Those two things are not healthy for a pvp focused game, especially with a 'skill based' action combat system.

    Hypetrains kill games.

    Resident Cosplay Progressive

  4. #244
    Quote Originally Posted by Beazy View Post
    Yes and no. Yes I can buy a honda civic and put a corvette engine inside. Doesnt mean its going to EVER run like a corvette as the framework of the actual car cannot be changed. There is no way they are taking the cryengine and modifying processing pipelines, because if they were, they would simply be making their own engine.

    Which is why they forked cry and created their own tools in lumberyard. No dev house has gotten smooth, responsive combat out of a Cryengine multiplayer game. Not Cry team, the guys who made it, not CIG, and certainly not a Jr Game Dev studio at Amazon.

    I have no hope for multiplayer games made in Cry, Hero, or Gamebryo. Its time for these decade old engines to just die.
    Every big AAA game basically ends up having "its own engine". Depends on what you would call different enough. If you keep slowly changing different parts of your civic to corvette, it becomes more and more something else. With programs this can be very easy to do so - and many existing e.g. Unreal games prove just that.

    You are not exactly bound by anything but time investment. The engine has no limitations per-se, it's just about the need to change the particular things. Especially when you reference multiplayer games, like the networking layer is the EASIEST to replace, it's just about having an actual networking team that knows what they are doing, which, given Amazon's other ventures, shouldn't be a problem.

    There are a ton of Hero engine games that play like hot garbage, and although I think the engine doesn't offer great visuals (which can be due to numerous reasons, maybe it's just that all of the Hero games had rather uninspired artists, or that the devs never took time to properly optimize it for better effects, etc), the fact that they have terrible multiplayer has nothing to do with the engine itself. Same as the Indie games wave of like 2015, all with the same Unity engine look, because that's what they got out of the box and that's what they decided to work with.

  5. #245
    I don't get it.

    Are they withholding Mounts and jumping (that was so weird to type) because they plan for those to be huge features in a later release, or are they sincerely going to be making an MMORPG in 2020 that's without such basic concepts...?

    Is the game better without them? I haven't managed to snag a beta key...

  6. #246
    Void Lord Aeluron Lightsong's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    In some Sanctuaryesque place or a Haven
    Posts
    44,683
    Quote Originally Posted by Biggles Worth View Post
    What's WoW trying to accomplish besides hemorrhaging it's playerbase?
    It isn't, not in the way you're thinking. Guarentee if Wow tried the more survival and Dark souls esque elements...the reaction WOULD not be good. Comparatively to New World Wow is fine.
    #TeamLegion #UnderEarthofAzerothexpansion plz #Arathor4Alliance #TeamNoBlueHorde

    Warrior-Magi

  7. #247
    Quote Originally Posted by Baconeggcheese View Post
    Their intention initially was to make this a pvp focused end game. I think they thought they were gonna have dark souls pvp~the mmo.

    During the last delay they started to shift more towards PvE though as I guess they realized that wasn't working. And so now they have this awkward in between that lacks direction because they flipped on what the game was committing to.
    Yeah I feel like this too. Now game is neither pvp nor pve focused.

    As for engine, Ashes of creation uses unreal and they are updating it pretty often. IF they ever reach UE5, potential would be pretty great.

  8. #248
    Banned Beazy's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    8,459
    Quote Originally Posted by Cracked View Post
    Every big AAA game basically ends up having "its own engine". Depends on what you would call different enough. If you keep slowly changing different parts of your civic to corvette, it becomes more and more something else. With programs this can be very easy to do so - and many existing e.g. Unreal games prove just that.

    You are not exactly bound by anything but time investment. The engine has no limitations per-se, it's just about the need to change the particular things. Especially when you reference multiplayer games, like the networking layer is the EASIEST to replace, it's just about having an actual networking team that knows what they are doing, which, given Amazon's other ventures, shouldn't be a problem.

    There are a ton of Hero engine games that play like hot garbage, and although I think the engine doesn't offer great visuals (which can be due to numerous reasons, maybe it's just that all of the Hero games had rather uninspired artists, or that the devs never took time to properly optimize it for better effects, etc), the fact that they have terrible multiplayer has nothing to do with the engine itself. Same as the Indie games wave of like 2015, all with the same Unity engine look, because that's what they got out of the box and that's what they decided to work with.
    Using a pre built engine, locks you into constraints where your framework is bound by its limitations. Its not even an argument. The way the engine handles and shares net code with your framework is one of reasons Cryengine games always have shit multiplayer. Were not just talking about simple shitty servers that have more packet loss than Amazon. . . . It would require an entire rewrite of the engine with this in mind to ever reach prime time. You dont ask yourself why game devs havent figured this out with Cry/Hero/Gamebryo? Its not worth it. Thats why. The developers know this. Just look at CIG, they have spent 12 years with Cryengine and they still cant get more than 50 people on one server, server crashes if these 50 players get in the same area, etc etc. Im sure you've heard the horror stories of StarCitizen. Dude, FarCry Primal had a pretty awesome Co-Op experience in mind. . . and when the developers tried to get it to work, they gave up, and scrapped the multiplayer component all together. The guys who made FarCry have more exp with the CryEngine than any dev house, even CIG, and they said fuck this hot garbage.

    There is a reason. If people want to excuse away those reasons, fine. But dont be mad when you hit the 1 key on your keyboard in New World and it takes 1.2 seconds to register on your screen. Dont be mad when you land a killing blow, but for some odd reason, you're the one dead, and the guy you just killed is spray tagging your body.

  9. #249
    Quote Originally Posted by Queen of Hamsters View Post
    I don't get it.

    Are they withholding Mounts and jumping (that was so weird to type) because they plan for those to be huge features in a later release, or are they sincerely going to be making an MMORPG in 2020 that's without such basic concepts...?

    Is the game better without them? I haven't managed to snag a beta key...
    Mounts are probably coming but jumping is not really needed, they have climbing mechanics and most of the time jumping in games is pointless anyway, when you need to get over something you have the ability to vault or climb anyway so jump is not really needed.
    STAR-J4R9-YYK4 use this for 5000 credits in star citizen

  10. #250
    Quote Originally Posted by kenn9530 View Post
    Mounts are probably coming but jumping is not really needed, they have climbing mechanics and most of the time jumping in games is pointless anyway, when you need to get over something you have the ability to vault or climb anyway so jump is not really needed.
    Jumping, to me, always felt a lot more free form and responsive than the being grounded+vaulting systems. I haven't played this game, but vaulting and cover systems usually feel clunky to me because any time there's some kind of animation delay that is slower/less smooth than I could accomplish something in real life my brain rages at the avatar's ineptitude.
    Last edited by BeepBoo; 2020-09-02 at 03:43 PM.

  11. #251
    Quote Originally Posted by BeepBoo View Post
    Jumping, to me, always felt a lot more free form and responsive than the being grounded+vaulting systems. I haven't played this game, but vaulting and cover systems usually feel clunky to me because any time there's some kind of animation delay that is slower/less smooth than I could accomplish something in real life my brain rages at the avatar's ineptitude.
    In MMOs ppl are just used to the pointless jumping they do most of the time, and in new world jumping its not really needed since it has dodge/block mechanics and even in WoW most of the time jumping is pointless, you just vault over things in NW and can climb over certain things, they might be putting jumping in a some point just have to wait but its not something that is essential like endgame content.
    STAR-J4R9-YYK4 use this for 5000 credits in star citizen

  12. #252
    Quote Originally Posted by Baconeggcheese View Post
    Clunky, its been so overused that it has completely lost all meaning.
    Well, I don't know about that but it is the exact word I would describe this combat as. You move so slowly, turn like a tank and the animation locking and ability queuing gives the combat a heavy awkward feeling; clunky.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Gorsameth View Post
    From what I heard it doesn't work as a PvP game either because you can stunlock people to death.
    Yes. PVP and combat are super slow-paced as well. It's a slog to kill anyone.

    I was open-world PVPing as part of the Marauder's quests (you get PVE and PVP missions from them) and just south of Weaver's Fen. Gathering my stuff and this dude attacked from the Syndicate. We "dueled" for about 12 minutes solid; I ran a Hatchet/Life Staff build and the other guy was running Sword/Life Staff (listen, everyone is life staff/something in this game). I was the "DPS" one and neither of us could kill one another because we just traded stuns and dodges and circled each other.

    After about those 12 minutes, wordlessly, we both swapped to our life staff equip and teleported in opposite directions.

    Never once did I kill or was killed by anyone 1v1 in PVP. There is just nothing to it. You only have like 3 abilities and they all share the same cooldown.

    I was like level 42 by the end of yesterday and the only PVP victories I had were during war when 3-4 of us stunlocked a single person and beat on him.

  13. #253
    Quote Originally Posted by Queen of Hamsters View Post
    I don't get it.

    Are they withholding Mounts and jumping (that was so weird to type) because they plan for those to be huge features in a later release, or are they sincerely going to be making an MMORPG in 2020 that's without such basic concepts...?

    Is the game better without them? I haven't managed to snag a beta key...
    Why do they need to have those? Not trying to be sarcastic or take a jab at your question, but why do they HAVE to have those elements? Because people are familiar with those from other MMOs?

    Yeah, the jumping is a bit odd, and maybe the feedback will make them rethink that. It personally doesn't bother me that there isn't jumping. You're able to climb and scale objects though, so I'm not sure jumping is a VITAL part of the game or even add that much.

    Mounts are whatever though. Yeah, they're fun to collect and something to achieve, but do you really HAVE to have mounts? I'd venture to say no. They're essentially a dressed up form of perma-sprint you can collect. Nothing that really adds or takes away from the core function of the game.

    The reason I ask is because I've seen people use these as big negatives to the game when it really doesn't have to have those components to be good. People just see MMO and assume it will have mounts and when it doesn't it's like "Oh, that's a bad thing then." or "Lazy devs didn't add mounts."

  14. #254
    They absolutely should have mounts or allow waypoints to nearby landmarks. The amount of overland travel you do to the same areas again & again is super tedious. It's just a waste of the player's time.

    Jumping has no relevance to the game. That is, frankly, the wrong and stupid thing to think about as being an issue vis-a-vis other gameplay mechanics and points of design. Ignorance.

  15. #255
    Quote Originally Posted by Araxie View Post
    Why do they need to have those? Not trying to be sarcastic or take a jab at your question, but why do they HAVE to have those elements? Because people are familiar with those from other MMOs?

    Yeah, the jumping is a bit odd, and maybe the feedback will make them rethink that. It personally doesn't bother me that there isn't jumping. You're able to climb and scale objects though, so I'm not sure jumping is a VITAL part of the game or even add that much.

    Mounts are whatever though. Yeah, they're fun to collect and something to achieve, but do you really HAVE to have mounts? I'd venture to say no. They're essentially a dressed up form of perma-sprint you can collect. Nothing that really adds or takes away from the core function of the game.

    The reason I ask is because I've seen people use these as big negatives to the game when it really doesn't have to have those components to be good. People just see MMO and assume it will have mounts and when it doesn't it's like "Oh, that's a bad thing then." or "Lazy devs didn't add mounts."
    Mounts are entirely optional, but jumping really isn't. It's a huge drawback for the division 2 for me, that I have to go to these specific defined locations to climb over a chain fence. Just let me use my monkey brain to find something I can jump over, then jump over it.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Fencers View Post
    They absolutely should have mounts or allow waypoints to nearby landmarks. The amount of overland travel you do to the same areas again & again is super tedious. It's just a waste of the player's time.

    Jumping has no relevance to the game. That is, frankly, the wrong and stupid thing to think about as being an issue vis-a-vis other gameplay mechanics and points of design. Ignorance.
    Lol, just goes to show how different players can be. You're looking for convenience and I'm looking for immersion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaleredar View Post
    Nah nah, see... I live by one simple creed: You might catch more flies with honey, but to catch honeys you gotta be fly.

  16. #256
    Quote Originally Posted by oplawlz View Post
    You're looking for convenience and I'm looking for immersion.
    I like immersion and all, but I also like when games respect my time. There's nothing immersion breaking about adding travel options that fit with the game or reducing the number of quests where you need to spend 10 minutes running down a road to turn something in. Even if fast travel were an option, if it felt immersion breaking to you there's nothing stopping you from making the run on foot and ignoring fast travel, yourself.

    But a boring 10 minute hike to go talk to a dude, with no reason for it other than to waste time - no side activities you can stumble across en-route, no neat things begging to be explored with cool stuff inside etc. - then all they've done is design a really bad, lazy, boring time sink quest.

  17. #257
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    I like immersion and all, but I also like when games respect my time. There's nothing immersion breaking about adding travel options that fit with the game or reducing the number of quests where you need to spend 10 minutes running down a road to turn something in. Even if fast travel were an option, if it felt immersion breaking to you there's nothing stopping you from making the run on foot and ignoring fast travel, yourself.

    But a boring 10 minute hike to go talk to a dude, with no reason for it other than to waste time - no side activities you can stumble across en-route, no neat things begging to be explored with cool stuff inside etc. - then all they've done is design a really bad, lazy, boring time sink quest.
    Oh, I'm not arguing against mounts for immersion sake - I'm arguing for jumping. I agree there is nothing immersion breaking about mounts, I just don't care one way or the other about them as long as everyone is on the same footing. They could add a sprint feature instead of mounts and accomplish the same thing from a convenience standpoint, or just bump up everyone's movement speed out of combat by a flat % .
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaleredar View Post
    Nah nah, see... I live by one simple creed: You might catch more flies with honey, but to catch honeys you gotta be fly.

  18. #258
    The Unstoppable Force Gaidax's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    20,781
    I just don't understand why MMOs still try to do this action combat crap, let alone one that locks you into animation. This concept has failed so many time, that you'd think they learn by now.

  19. #259
    Quote Originally Posted by oplawlz View Post
    Oh, I'm not arguing against mounts for immersion sake - I'm arguing for jumping. I agree there is nothing immersion breaking about mounts, I just don't care one way or the other about them as long as everyone is on the same footing. They could add a sprint feature instead of mounts and accomplish the same thing from a convenience standpoint, or just bump up everyone's movement speed out of combat by a flat % .
    Or come up with methods of fast travel, or automated travel (a la horserides in MMO's or gryphons in WoW) to take you from one area to another via a system of stables with rentable horses that travel pre-determined paths.

    They have a ton of options.

    And I agree on jumping, though less from an immersion standpoint and more a purely emotional one. I like jumping, even if it has no purpose, and so do a lot of other folks. Sometimes I just want to spend 10 minutes in the game jumping around in circles in town just because.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaidax View Post
    I just don't understand why MMOs still try to do this action combat crap, let alone one that locks you into animation. This concept has failed so many time, that you'd think they learn by now.
    Action combat by definition usually has animation locks, that's part of what makes it "action" based. Each ability/attack has an opportunity cost, so with a smaller set of skills than your piano-hotkeys on many MMO's where they ramp up combat complexity with juggling multiple abilities/procs/etc., players instead have to make calculated decisions on which attack to use given its damage and the danger they put themselves in.

    And it's hardly failed, even though some of the games haven't taken off for reasons wholly unrelated to their combat. Vindictus and Tera are two games that are pretty universally praised for their takes on action combat, and I'll back up that they're both bloody great and very functional systems. It's just the rest of the games that are the issue. Psuedo-MMO's like Dauntless are literally just a whole bunch of action combat boss fights a la Monster Hunter and are pretty damned successful as well.

    Then you've got a whole slew of "fake" action combat games like ESO or GW2, where they take aspects of it but don't go all the way (no real animation locking, soft targeting locks etc.) but are more "action" than "static" combat and are successful as well.

    I genuinely can't think of a MMO that failed specifically because it went with action combat. WildStar sure didn't, its combat was pretty highly praised IIRC, but as with the games mentioned above its problems were elsewhere.

  20. #260
    Quote Originally Posted by Advent View Post
    Why can't you? Apparently it's easier than ever to learn how to use game engines.
    MMOs require tens/hundreds of thousands of hours of working-hours, minimum, before they are ready to go to market. A small team is not capable of creating an MMO, let alone a single person.

    Assuming 261 work days per year, 8 hours of work per day (which, in game development, is not enough, but I'll use it for the sake of this post), and 2 years of development equals 4,176 hours... for a single employee. Multiply that by 50 (which is, once again, probably nowhere near enough) adds up to 208,800 hours of work.

    Realistically speaking, the number of hours required to launch an MMO is probably closer to 500,000 than 200,000 and, in all honesty, might actually be in the millions.

    Star Wars: The Old Republic, for instance, cost $200,000,000 and took 5 years to develop.

    Realistically speaking: You could gather every programmer on this forum and they still wouldn't be able to put out an MMO within the next few years.

    Everything I said above is why Unholyground can't bring his idea to life, regardless of how easy it might be to use a game engine (and it's really not as easy as you're suggesting).
    Grand Crusader Belloc <-- 6608 Endless Tank Proving Grounds score! (
    Dragonslayer Kooqu

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •