I said skill OR effort. And, surprisingly, there are many quests in WoW that require skill. Most instances require skills. Solo'ing elites requires skill.

With a pay-for-perks system, there would be many more clueless level 70's then there are now. I wouldn't like to team up with them to do difficult quests, the population of WoW idiots as-is is large enough.

Also, what EXACTLY would be the pay-for-perks element in WoW? Levels? I hope you didn't think of that. Items? I'll laugh to death anyone who suggests that epic-class items, which are obtainable (and Bind on Pickup, too) only after defeating the most challenging, skill-wise, bosses of Karahzan or any other place, would be buyable by RL cash. "Rested" status? (don't know what it is, check WoW's website) Blizzard would go bankrupt. Gold? Sure, and let's remove normal drops while we're at it!

Lusternia's pay-to-perks system works because it's a MUD where:
1. not everyone is interested in PvP, and you do not need that huge a credit investment to be a non-PvPer
2. the currency dualism (gold/credits) allows one currency to be traded for another, as such allowing people who have no access to OOC credits to obtain them ICly
3. has an oversophisticated PvP battle system which means that getting every skill/artie that is still does not guarantee victory, as you need player skill. While in WoW, although a battle between two equally-geared characters is still a battle of talent, you have no chance to win against a significantly higher levelled or better geared character, unless they're played by a total newbie.

Gold and rested status are just fine to be able to buy, though the business model which we are talking about here, would be that they sell something similar to credits, which allows you to buy things.

I hope that your definition of skill is more than "knowing somebody who allready figured out the quest, and does it for you, thus giving you said items." because thats what all the clans do, and thats what all the guys at my office do, and offer to me.

Awseom, thank you. That is exactly the article I was thinking of.

Being able to buy gold would ruin the economy. It doesn't affect Lusternia much because our economy is totally different. Many classes can get by without buying anything except herbs and potions and enchants, none of which are particularly rare or hard to get.

In WoW, gear difference can be huge. Unless you truly suck, you should never lose to someone you vastly outgear. If you outlevel them, it can be almost physically impossible for you to lose the fight. I could probably kill a level 50 rogue while afk, if I had Molten Armor up, and I can two shot level 60s without much trouble.

And people who ebayed their characters, well, I have a nice macro for them: /rw GTFO, /gremove, /kick.

My only responce is that you read the Article that Shiri found.

That article is ludicrous. It's like someone writing an article about how Lusternia is crap because it focuses too much on text. It takes core game concepts and trashes them.

If you don't like WoW, don't play it. You can write an article bashing how they do things if you want, but it still comes down to whether you want to play that game or not. If you don't like a group emphasis and having to invest some effort/time into getting decent gear, play a different game.

You're saying two different things there and only one is right. It isn't ludicrous just because it ignores the (fairly sensible) advice of "it comes down to whether you want to play that game or not."

Well, what was the point of the article? It seemed to be presented as things Blizzard should have done differently or should fix now. If they had done things the way the author seems to want, I doubt they'd have nearly the number of subscribers they do now. It would be an entirely different game. I mean, look at his first point: It's a CRPG, it's almost a given that time = power, that's a very basic concept of the entire genre. IRE games are the only ones I can think of off the top of my head where you can overcome a massive level difference with skill.

His idea of the point of a game is that through "effortful study" (not a term he uses but I've found it elsewhere) you learn how the game works and how to put that to your advantage; he dislikes the "scrubbiness" of the WoW community, which is encouraged by Blizzard who - as it says in the article - do thing like punish players from abusing terrain, fighting on the roofs and whatever else. He also sounds off about the "life lessons" WoW seems to teach, since he's an advocate of learning from games, but I find that part a bit cheesier. Sucks for him and for me, but there you go. Just because the entire MMORPG "time > skill" thing appeals to enough people to sell well doesn't mean it's good game design or that it does any favours to the community or players outside of appealing to scrubs with lots of time to spare.

Side note - We have a pretty similar "scrubby" community here - we don't play to win in some ways, and complain whenever something happens like cannibalise-toadcurse abuse, theft, and so on. This is a different kind of game though, where you invest yourself in an alternate personality, so it's not as bad here, and even in a way a good thing.

Oh please! Of course not! (besides, who needs to ask friends when you can check allakhazam...)

What I mean are things like: Karahzan, Zul Gurub, or even Molten Core, where most bosses are still killed by a basic tank'n'spank. Also, arena PvP - heck, even battleground PvP requires skill (although advantage in numbers helps too, when you play 15vs9 on Arathi Basin).
Did you try any of these?

Fighting on rooftops and abusing terrain is essentially cheating. If you play to 'win' then sure, it's semi valid, I suppose, since you figured out how to gank someone without them having a shot in hell of fighting back. But to continue his Street Fightrer Rreferences, it'd be like fighting someone with a broken joystick. It's against the rules because they haven't fixed it yet, and in case they can't fix it. They put guards on the roofs, and those goblin snipers freaking hurt. However, there're still ways around it; I can open a portal, one shot a lowbie, and then port out instantly before the guards rape me, rogues can still vanish, hunters can feign death, etc.

I"m not sure how you can say it's not good game design because it doesn't teach life lessons and so on. A lot of people like it. They play it to have fun, and that's what a game is for. If you learn, great, if you don't, oh well. Because of the group emphasis, I've made a ton of friends; hell, when I got fired, I called Taifeng first, because I knew she wasn't at work like everyone else. What about games like Final Fantasy or other CRPGs? They're basically just time sinks where you don't need skill if you can level far enough up, and can have the opposite problem in that they have no multiplayer at all really. It really almost sounds like he hates the genre in general.

You are completely missing his point.

It DOES teach life lessons, and the life lesson it teaches are dangerous.

Finaly Fantasy is different for 3 main reasons. 1. They don't try to use "law" to enforce what can and can not be done in the game. 2. Investing a lot of time in something is NOT worth more than actual skill. Actual skill in Final Fantasy comes down to knowing your different charachters, how they work well together, and "collecting the right stuff." 3. It doesn't create an Us vs Them mentality between Actual real life players.

In MOST competitive games, whether its racing, Street fighter, sports, Counter strike, Command and Conqure, Warcraft 3, etc, it is theoretichally possible, for somebody who nobody has ever seen before, to come out of the basement and beat everyone else.

In WoW and most other subscription based, MMOs this is not even theoretically possible.


For most good games the formula is Time + (SKill * 5) = power
for most mmos the forumula is (Time * 5) + Skill = power

IRE, and Evaryn are Time + (Skill * 5) = power, proving that MMO's COULD fit the formula of most good games, and even without knowing about IRE, that is what the author is ranting about.

I remember one of my most favorite things that I saw in WoW was the idea that the longer you played the game, the more diminishing returns you received. When the game opened, that seemed like a good precedence to suggest that they were going to try to not have the Time = power formula.

1. Other games have rules too, I'm sorry the fact that it's a computer game makes you think you should be able to do whatever is theoretically possible in it.
2. Final Fantasy takes next to no skill, especially the newer ones (besides XII, which I haven't played).
3. It's not like religion and nationalism and anything else do this, or any competitive sport.

WTF?

Show me another game that has has rules of engagement for an aspect of the game.

Quoted from the article:



Notice, he isn't talking about only being in the Horde or only being in the Alliance, but rather the player community created aspects of the game, that don't affect the gameworld itself. Imagine only being allowed to join one clan in Lusternia.

Newton. :)

And seriously, people, think before you praise IRE. Lusternia is not about skill. It's about time and money. Why, you ask? Time to get to a suitable PvP level where you won't be utterly destroyed in a few seconds, and time to get the advantages of Titan and Demi. Money to get a system to survive, and money to buy credits to even use skills. And hey! If you don't use OOC money for credits, you need to bash for gold in the game, which takes time. Where is skill involved in that? Making your own system: very few people do, because combat is so complex. Thinking of new ways to kill: again, very few people do that, because there are tried and true ways, and everyone starts using the new way once one of the very few people starts using it.

Or one guild or one city? Or one clan in MTGO? Or pick a team to play for when you try out for soccer or baseball? Why would you need more than one guild at time? I do fine with my friends list, people hopping on Vent, or simply calling me. I may as well have two/three guilds.

IRE has always had what amounts to a TOS. In Achaea, you can kill whoever, whenever, but expect to be issued for it and have the admin stomp on you. How is that different? Should you be allowed to abuse bugs until they're fixed? Your "example" is ridiculous: it being against the rules to gank someone from a roof (where you avoid the mechanisms in place to ensure neutral territory) is pretty much the same as a casino asking you to leave if you're caught counting cards--it's not illegal (or in a computer game, impossible), but it's not tolerated either. If I want, though, I can raid most pre-60 dungeons and make them trivially easy, or I can bring my 70 mage and solo content designed for groups. It's rather hard to comment on things like this unless you've played the game a while.

Also, for the time = power argument; level based games that favor skill have horrid PvE. IRE and Guildwars are the two I have the most experience with; both of them have horrid PvE in the name of balance/skill.

Daganev: I'm not going to argue with you, or present any arguments, or say anything that adds to the conversation. I'm just going to point out that you know next-to-nothing about game design theory, and should stop posting opinions about it,

Also, your notion that rules of engagement in online games are bad is hopelessly naïve. You seem to imagine that a fully automated single-player environment is comparable to a massively multiplayer one which is filled with human elements, and thus you believe human behaviour can be reduced to the point of fitting within the box of a game's coding. Your idea that humans are so simple as to be wholly controllable by automated systems are not just wrong, but also frighteningly orwellian.

Win.