steven, is this you?

Depraved

found this old video. i think this was your clan xD funny music haha

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6kPM9T16VI&t=1s&ab_channel=Sharlanna

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Depraved

Jam21 wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

now when is the game dead, when it has a million players and doesn't generate a lot of money per year, or when it has 10,000 players but generates a billion per year? just a question, how do you consider a game dead, revenue or amount of players?

For players revenue doesn't matter. Game is dead when there are not enough people to fill it. Even if it generates some money off the weirdos who still stick to it.

The big flaw of La2 was the fact that it was run by the players. When there were people everywhere, random fights, random boss farms, doing obscure quests, spoil expeditions, small fort sieges, minor fights between midwar clans for spots/bosses (and not just the top ones) etc etc - this was the best game.
But when people are not enough it is lacking sadly.

Lineage 2 was perhaps the best defitinition of MMO - by the people, for the people. You cannot play it solo, literally (well in late chronicles you can but thats another story - for me La2 died with GoD).

While La2 lore was deep it had no real story, basically the stories of that game were written by players There is literally nothing to do solo or if you play with only few people on server. That is very different from other modern games- e.g. Newerwinter of TESO. There might be 100 people playing on server or 10000 - you will never be able to tell. And honestly you won't even need those people for most content.
In La2 you literally -=FEEL=- when server is full, when it is half empty, and when it is dead/semi-dead.

I agree with the story part and all that, but a game is dead when the servers shut down.
l2 still has about a million players spread all over all offi servers in different regions (which is about the same as most other mmorpg) and in the different patches (god and beyond, classic and essence).
just because you don't like the game after GoD(and lots of people don't but lots do) doesn't mean the game is dead xD

last time I logged in, there were 1-2k players and 3-4 for siege (few years ago). according to this website https://www.playerauctions.com/player-count/everquest/ eq has 300 player daily (lol). new world is more alive than eq...

Ludullu

Depraved wrote: »

eq has 300 player daily (lol). new world is more alive than eq...

That's steam charts. They never matter for any game that wasn't launched on steam first, let alone ones that were launched before it even existed.

Noaani

Depraved wrote: »

new world is more alive than eq...

I mean, as a statement, this just amuses me.

"That 25 year old game is so shit that a game 2 years old has more players than it does" is a really odd thing to say. How valid a statement it is really doesn't matter - it is just an amusing thing to think.

With that out of the way, as a metric to assess how well a game is going, the number of players on Steam is about as valid for EQ and EQ2 as it is for L2.

Noaani

NiKr wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

In a PvP game, if you lose 75% of the population, you lose 75% of your content. The game feels dead, feels boring.

This depends on the design of the game. I've played on servers with about 100 people on them, but they were split into 2 guilds and were fighting constantly. All bosses, all sieges, all farming spots - everything was contested. It was really fun.

I expect Ashes to be somewhat similar, because people's activity will siphon them all into 1-2 places and they'll be playing with each other at all times (either with or w/o competition).

That last statement is why I have long since said there is very little variation in PvP - you tend to be fighting the same people over and over again.

With that said, in my experience, when a server has 2 sides like this, as soon as one starts having a fairly consistant edge, the whole thing unravels down to nothing fairly fast.

You may have different experiences, but I have seen it happen a number of times.

Ludullu

Noaani wrote: »

That last statement is why I have long since said there is very little variation in PvP - you tend to be fighting the same people over and over again.

I'm not saying that having a full 10k server fighting each other would be more fun. I'm saying that fun can be had even if it's not a full server. Just as you could have fun with your guild and mobs, I could have fun with my guild against another guild (and mobs

Noaani wrote: »

With that said, in my experience, when a server has 2 sides like this, as soon as one starts having a fairly consistant edge, the whole thing unravels down to nothing fairly fast.

You may have different experiences, but I have seen it happen a number of times.

This also comes down to design, which can be then used by players in different ways. Boss respawns with floating timers (or however you call a +-few hours ones), combined with a varied environment layout, let a group, that might've lost a few previous battles, win the current fight because the boss spawned slightly sooner and this "loser" group was gathered in just the right time, or managed to repel an attack from their opponents just in time for the spawn.

The loot value, quantity and scaling also matters, because if all of that stuff is tightly balanced - even a few wins won't immediately put you way above your enemies in power.

Mob farming pvp always comes down to player availability and personal approaches to each fight. Sieges come down to leader strats, at which point playing against the same group could be seen as beneficial cause you'd know their usual strats better and would try to use them to your benefit.

Those kinds of pvp servers usually become big families that just like playing the game together (while also competing). I've heard a ton of stories from people who played on a non-progressing server (as opposed to those who go through several versions of the game, like the official one did) for years, with the same people - and loved it all the way through.

It's simply a different mentality to what you're used to, where you want constant new content to consume to be happy with the game.

Depraved

Noaani wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

new world is more alive than eq...

I mean, as a statement, this just amuses me.

"That 25 year old game is so shit that a game 2 years old has more players than it does" is a really odd thing to say. How valid a statement it is really doesn't matter - it is just an amusing thing to think.

With that out of the way, as a metric to assess how well a game is going, the number of players on Steam is about as valid for EQ and EQ2 as it is for L2.

didn't say it was shit. i just said its dead. lts of games from back then arent
also, FYI, l2 is harder than eq, and that's absent pvp (by ur metrics, harder = better, somehow). i was gonna reply on the other thread but I was like nah I keep taking the bait, and I just did now fml

Ludullu

Depraved wrote: »

didn't say it was shit. i just said its dead. lts of games from back then arent
also, FYI, l2 is harder than eq, and that's absent pvp (by ur metrics, harder = better, somehow). i was gonna reply on the other thread but I was like nah I keep taking the bait, and I just did now fml

I think Noaani's "harder" means "more complex". L2 was definitely really straightforward when it came to pve. Tbh pvp as well, but the beauty of pvp was that it was usually 9 people with 9 different classes as a unit, which meant that when a unit fought a unit - it was a whole lot of different skills that all provided something to the fight and had to be accounted for and considered.

From Noaani's explanations of EQ2's skill trees and all that shit, I'd imagine it's waaay more complex, so if it had group pvp akin to L2's - it'd have infinite potential.

L2 only began to have somewhat complex pve once it introduced more instanced and semi-instanced content.

Noaani

Depraved wrote: »

didn't say it was shit. i just said its dead.

Depraved wrote: »

a game is dead when the servers shut down.

Your head must be an interesting place to be.

Noaani

NiKr wrote: »

It's simply a different mentality to what you're used to, where you want constant new content to consume to be happy with the game.

For sure, I don't doubt that.

I'm mostly pulling from my experience in Archeage in relation to this. The game had set events that were listed on the in game calendar, so people knew exactly what was happening, exactly when and exactly where.

I don't doubt at all that having non-static spawn timers on mobs would slow down the attrition I have seen happen, but I can't see how it would do anything other than slow it down.

I'm not saying that having a full 10k server fighting each other would be more fun. I'm saying that fun can be had even if it's not a full server. Just as you could have fun with your guild and mobs, I could have fun with my guild against another guild (and mobs ).

The point I was making is that a PvE game is still 100% as much fun with 25% of the population, where as a PvP game is less fun with less population. It may still be some fun, but it is less fun. In order to be as fun as it's design intended it to be, it needs that population, where as in order for a PvE game to be as fun as was intended, you just need your group or raid.

Ludullu

Noaani wrote: »

I don't doubt at all that having non-static spawn timers on mobs would slow down the attrition I have seen happen, but I can't see how it would do anything other than slow it down.

Imo it slows it down enough for politics and time to matter more. If one side wins out by a ton and others see that - there's a higher chance that small guilds or newcomers would be more interested in joining this super strong side. But if the powerbalance is visibly closer (mainly shown through pvp encounter reports and big boss farms) - there's a higher chance that a small guild might through their people behind the opposition, because helping them win more often would ensure more loot for this small guild (usually negotiated during the alliance talks), while joining a strong group usually means "you get almost nothing, because your negotiating power is negligible".

Well, at least in my old experience. Maybe these days everyone's a fucking suck-up that can't even imagine themselves opposing someone (as a ton of people keeps saying).

Noaani wrote: »

The point I was making is that a PvE game is still 100% as much fun with 25% of the population, where as a PvP game is less fun with less population. It may still be some fun, but it is less fun. In order to be as fun as it's design intended it to be, it needs that population, where as in order for a PvE game to be as fun as was intended, you just need your group or raid.

But it's inverse on the other side. If you have the people but don't have the content in a pve game - the game dies almost immediately. If you have the people but don't have the content in a pvp game - the game can live for years and years w/o any real issues.

This is why I hope that Ashes manages to combine the two, cause then we'd have a game that can live for a long time and be good for both sides of the spectrum (even if these sides are closer to the middle than in other games).

Otr

NiKr wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

In a PvP game, if you lose 75% of the population, you lose 75% of your content. The game feels dead, feels boring.

This depends on the design of the game. I've played on servers with about 100 people on them, but they were split into 2 guilds and were fighting constantly. All bosses, all sieges, all farming spots - everything was contested. It was really fun.

I expect Ashes to be somewhat similar, because people's activity will siphon them all into 1-2 places and they'll be playing with each other at all times (either with or w/o competition).

Each player will have it's own node where he would be mayor and have a very hungry dragon.

Ludullu

Otr wrote: »

Each player will have it's own node where he would be mayor and have a very hungry dragon.

I know you're most likely joking, but in case anyone who doesn't know the node system all that well - the system doesn't support this at all. You need people to prevent node decay, so Ashes will always pool people together, because that's the only way to create content in the game.

Otr

NiKr wrote: »

Otr wrote: »

Each player will have it's own node where he would be mayor and have a very hungry dragon.

I know you're most likely joking, but in case anyone who doesn't know the node system all that well - the system doesn't support this at all. You need people to prevent node decay, so Ashes will always pool people together, because that's the only way to create content in the game.

Half joking also thinking if players have to join into one node, then it becomes the cult of the hungry dragon.
I doubt AoC can function well with low population. Which reminded me which question I have to ask for the Q&A

Noaani

NiKr wrote: »

If you have the people but don't have the content in a pve game

I would rather it be on the developers than on the players - if given the choice.

As games like EQ and EQ2 have shown, it is a reasonable expect a game to get full new expansions every year for decades, even at populations that some people seem to find low enough to consider "dead".

Between the two EQ games, at the end of this year there will be a combined 52 full expansions. Other developers really have no excuses.

Some may want to argue that games today take more time to make more content for - but with the tools available to developers today, I would disagree with that argument.

Edit to add; in relation to our discussion about EQ being larger than EQ2, it is also worth pointing out that 80%+ of EQ2's population is considered long term (defined as 3 or more years continuous subscription), while EQ only has 65% long term.

My understanding (talking to people in the industry) is that 80%+ of your players being continuously subscribed for 3 or more years is basically a wet dream for every other MMO on the market - it just doesn't happen.

Ludullu

Noaani wrote: »

Some may want to argue that games today take more time to make more content for - but with the tools available to developers today, I would disagree with that argument.

But the current tech is just that - current. It's been only a few years since pumping out content has become semi-"easy".

Though even then, as we've discussed before, your definition of what's "good content" is different from the majority's. You're fine with invisible animations, hidden mechanics, huge complexities - all on mobs that are quite similar in their looks.

From everything that I've seen of the "majority's" feedback - none of those things are attractive or interesting to them. People want bright, flashy, dumb-easy to understand, completely visually unique content. You have a few mobs that look/function similarly? - you're a lazy fucking dev that should die. You make a complex and intricate combat system? - too fucking hard, I'm leaving. You hide some mechanics or make them not super obvious? - wtf is this, I need 20 addons to even know what to do.

We're still heading into a, seemingly, mmo renaissance. We're getting several titles from several different big and not-so-big companies, quite of few of which are supposedly using the tech you mentioned. There's a chance that we'll have at least a few amazing mmo by the late 20s. I just hope that world economy doesn't collapse by that point

Otr

NiKr wrote: »

There's a chance that we'll have at least a few amazing mmo by the late 20s. I just hope that world economy doesn't collapse by that point

We could have a post apocalyptic real life game.

Otr

NiKr wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

From the perspective of a PvE game, there is always going to be a desire to have progression servers after a few years of your game being live. This isn't necessarily due to any changes to the game (although in some cases it is), it is because PvE obsoletes content to the point where it isn't viable to go back and run it - not even on a new character. The only way to run the content is to be at the appropriate level, and unable to level further.

I'd say that in recent years Genshin seemingly succeeded at "increasing the sub cost".

Here I found one more for you

https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561199146215646/recommended/2325290/

Ludullu

Otr wrote: »

We could have a post apocalyptic real life game.

I already have that just a few hours of driving to the east from me. I'd prefer if that didn't spread too much further, let alone to the globe.

Otr wrote: »

Here I found one more for you

They have a sub that went up in price? What does it provide for the players?

Noaani

NiKr wrote: »

From everything that I've seen of the "majority's" feedback - none of those things are attractive or interesting to them. People want bright, flashy, dumb-easy to understand, completely unique visually content.

In my expereince, people that are likely to stay in an MMO for multiple years are concerned with gameplay more than anything else.

Most people turn spell effects and such down while playing.

And it isn't as if EQ and EQ2 expansions don't contain new, unique and visualyl interesting content every expansion - they just don't *require* it for *every* raid encounter.

That said,

But the current tech is just that - current. It's been only a few years since pumping out content has become semi-"easy".

If EQ is on it's 30th expansion in 25 years, with the next well in to development, and are only able to really use the tools they have developed in house, what excuses do other developers have that have access to those newer tools?

Even if we were to assume the developer wanted unique models for all bosses, and wanted flashy shit that people were going to turn off to be redone for every expansion, the tools at developers disposal more than make up for that additional effort.

There really is no reason at all for a modern MMORPG to not be releasing a full expansion every year - one that is worth paying $40 for. Players should be able to expect enough content to keep them entertained.

Otr

NiKr wrote: »

Otr wrote: »

Here I found one more for you

They have a sub that went up in price? What does it provide for the players?

I found that review funny and wanted to share it.
I should have found another way / other post to quote.
Sorry.

Child Item