Ask Cryptic 5/2/2008

[Steve Long]

Cryptic's posted another great round of Q&A here:

 

http://www.champions-online.com/dev_blog/Ask_Cryptic_05-02-08

[sbarron]

Re: Ask Cryptic 5/2/2008

 

I like so much that Cryptic is using the traditional super-hero terms for archetypes like "bricks," "energy projector," "martial artists," etc. rather than the MMO terms of Tanks, DPS, healers, etc.

 

I think you have to get into the genre if you want to simulate the genre. And calling bricks "tanks" just totally does nothing to get me thinking like a super-hero. It feels like I'm playing fantasy in a modern setting...with brightly colored armor.

[mojo_bones]

Re: Ask Cryptic 5/2/2008

 

Yeah, so far I am pretty happy with most of the Q&A stuff. It seems like they are doing a lot of stuff quite a bit better this time around. I played CoH/CoV for a while, but it just did not have a very "superhero" feel to me.

[sbarron]

Re: Ask Cryptic 5/2/2008

 

I've never played an MMORPG. After spending just 10 minutes on the Champions Online MMO boards after this was first announced, I was surprised at the number of terms like those in my first post that seemed to be prevalent over there. My suggestion that the superheroic terms be adopted by board, in an effort to make it feel like supers, went over like a lead ballon.

 

It's a really interesting situation, I think. Most of the MMORPGers come from WoW or Everquest backgrounds, which means they bring their fantasy MMORPG preconceptions with them to games in other genres. The tabletop corillary to WoW and Everquest is obvioulsy D&D, with the same problems with players bringing D&D notions out into other games, settings, and genres.

 

I don't know what it all means, but I do think its interesting how being first and being successful can so shape everyone perceptions...

[fiducia]

Re: Ask Cryptic 5/2/2008

 

I don't know what it all means, but I do think its interesting how being first and being successful can so shape everyone perceptions...

 

I can see your point there. I'd put forth, though, that the players who are on City of Heroes might be a bit more receptive to using the more 'hero' genre of terminology as regards to an MMORPG. I'm surprised more of them aren't on the Champions Online boards.

[mojo_bones]

Re: Ask Cryptic 5/2/2008

 

I've never played an MMORPG. After spending just 10 minutes on the Champions Online MMO boards after this was first announced, I was surprised at the number of terms like those in my first post that seemed to be prevalent over there. My suggestion that the superheroic terms be adopted by board, in an effort to make it feel like supers, went over like a lead ballon.

 

It's a really interesting situation, I think. Most of the MMORPGers come from WoW or Everquest backgrounds, which means they bring their fantasy MMORPG preconceptions with them to games in other genres. The tabletop corillary to WoW and Everquest is obvioulsy D&D, with the same problems with players bringing D&D notions out into other games, settings, and genres.

 

I don't know what it all means, but I do think its interesting how being first and being successful can so shape everyone perceptions...

I think they don't even connect the terms to genre anymore. I think it has just become part of the "leet speak" lexicon. I am sure people will still yell "LFT (looking for tank)" in CO, just as they did in the other MMO's I have played in. Personally, I don't find the terms to really fit the WoW/EQ genre all that well either.

[Pattern Ghost]

Re: Ask Cryptic 5/2/2008

 

I like so much that Cryptic is using the traditional super-hero terms for archetypes like "bricks," "energy projector," "martial artists," etc. rather than the MMO terms of Tanks, DPS, healers, etc.

 

 

I find "traditional super-hero terms" to be an interesting expression. I'm not picking on this post particularly, sbarron, so sorry if it seems like I'm singling you out, but the terminology subject has popped up here and there since the Champs Online board went live.

 

As far as I know, the terms we Hero gamers use for describing superhero archetypes originated with Champions material, and have only been used to describe character types in regards to an RPG. I've never seen any literature about comics or from comics companies use this terminology, and don't recall any non-RPG playing comics fans using these terms.

 

I could be wrong, and would love to see examples of the terms outside of a Hero/Champions context, b/c I'm just curious about it.

 

But, given that it's just our terminology for breaking down archetypes -- and a good one in my opinion -- does that make it the default "correct" way to speak of characters?

 

I'd love to see a MMO successfully break away from the EQ trinity of tank/healer/dps, but that model has been copied so often precisely because it works. It makes it possible to design encounters that require a group to take down a single, impressive target.

 

Perhaps CO could move the emphasis of end game grouping away from that dragon slaying model and to more many on many encounters versus villain groups instead of a single archvillain, (while still having some AV or big monster content), or have more problem-solving or investigative missions, perhaps requiring a team to pool their non-combat resources.

 

If CO doesn't break the holy trinity of tank/heals/dps (and if they follow CoH's model, add in /debuffer), then yeah, you're going to be seeing people looking for a tank, heals, dps not a specific archetype.

 

It may not sound in-genre, but a group role does not necessarily have to be tied to one archetype. Sure, most Bricks will probably be tanks and most tanks will probably be Bricks, but there may be offensive brick builds who don't hold aggro so well, and defensive Energy Projector or Martial Artist builds that can hold aggro and take enough damage to tank certain content. You might build an Energy Projector with good healing capability, and be able to fill either a DPS role or a Healing role.

 

But, I wouldn't expect people to adopt archetypes over group roles in trying to fill groups. Archetypes define how you do stuff, group role labels define what you do.

[Steve Long]

Re: Ask Cryptic 5/2/2008

 

I'd love to see a MMO successfully break away from the EQ trinity of tank/healer/dps, but that model has been copied so often precisely because it works. It makes it possible to design encounters that require a group to take down a single, impressive target.

 

I would actually argue that in many cases it doesn't work. The need to get a specifically-aligned group of 5 characters together to run instances (or whatever) certainly does more to ruin my fun playing WoW than just about anything in the game. IMO it's poor game design, though I agree it's kind of ingrained in the designers' minds at this point.

 

One of the things that most intrigues me about COMMO is Jack's statement (I'm paraphrasing here) that "anyone will be able to tank." If Cryptic can pull that off, hopefully other MMO designers will follow suit. It will be groundbreaking, and every other MMO will need to follow suit. Sitting in the Looking For Group channel for hours listening to an endless litany of "looking for tank" and "looking for healer" will, thank the gods of gaming, become a thing of the past.

 

Even better would be scaleable instances/encounters that can be run with any number of people so I don't have to be so damn dependent on other people in my quest to get X item of loot to drop from Y boss. But sadly that's just a pipe dream of mine; AFAIK no one's even thinking about trying to program a game like that.

[Lightfinger]

Re: Ask Cryptic 5/2/2008

 

In the current MMOs, players are only concerned about defeating the enemy. Thus the tank/heal/dps model works.

 

In a role playing game, there are those who do things other than those three options. For example, the detective who finds clues. I hope CO tries to bring those kinds of elements into the game, so we're not stuck with the MMO model again.

[Pattern Ghost]

Re: Ask Cryptic 5/2/2008

 

I would actually argue that in many cases it doesn't work. The need to get a specifically-aligned group of 5 characters together to run instances (or whatever) certainly does more to ruin my fun playing WoW than just about anything in the game. IMO it's poor game design, though I agree it's kind of ingrained in the designers' minds at this point.

 

Well, it does work for boss encounters, from the design standpoint if not the social standpoint. It's just the easiest model to follow for doing them. That doesn't mean the end encounter of a scenario always has to be one big boss that can one shot everyone except the high mitigation guy with a healer on him, either. Why not track down a super group and take on a five vs five (or however many the group size is) fight instead? Having every group encounter use a boss mob is the bigger issue. Having a boss mob require a tank and healer to take down is the easiest design route.

 

If there were alternate means of taking down a boss type target, then people would simply find the most efficient group composition for that fight and demand only certain player types for missions. You'd have the same problem, it just may be a debuffer you're waiting on instead of a tank or healer, for example. If you make boss encounters that any group composition can handle, then you run the risk of watering things down. It's not easy to offer true flexibility in a large boss fight and keep the difficulty level high enough to present a challenge.

 

One of the things that most intrigues me about COMMO is Jack's statement (I'm paraphrasing here) that "anyone will be able to tank." If Cryptic can pull that off, hopefully other MMO designers will follow suit. It will be groundbreaking, and every other MMO will need to follow suit. Sitting in the Looking For Group channel for hours listening to an endless litany of "looking for tank" and "looking for healer" will, thank the gods of gaming, become a thing of the past.

 

Creating more tanks doesn't solve the tank problem. The job requires concentration, situational awareness, and the willingness to take a load of crap off of your group (at least in a pick up group) for any failure. It's a high stress job for many people. Even if everyone's a tank, you won't find many people willing to step up and fill the role in the group. You also still have the problem that some archetype or build is going to be recognized as the most optimal for the tanking role, and a lot of people will demand that character type over others.

 

Now, if he's talking about eliminating the need for tanks through some creative encounter design, then that's a different matter. I'm not sure what his statement will look like implemented, though. Too early to tell at this point.

 

Even better would be scaleable instances/encounters that can be run with any number of people so I don't have to be so damn dependent on other people in my quest to get X item of loot to drop from Y boss. But sadly that's just a pipe dream of mine; AFAIK no one's even thinking about trying to program a game like that.

 

EQ2 actually has scalable instances that can be done solo or with smaller groups. Tabula Rasa, I think, has scalable instances (saw mention of it in a beta tester's notes, but no idea of the live game).

 

If WoW took some of the grind out of alternate gear advancement, they'd have a good thing going. They need to lower the honor requirements on the PVP gear and the badge requirements on the badge gear a bit, IMO. They did a good job reducing the rep grind, now if they just reduced the other grinds by a bit, they'd be a lot more casual friendly.

 

Jack has said the game will be solo friendly in a couple of interviews now, so I'm holding out some hope for good solo or small group content.

[BobGreenwade]

Re: Ask Cryptic 5/2/2008

 

I like so much that Cryptic is using the traditional super-hero terms for archetypes like "bricks' date='" "energy projector," "martial artists," etc. rather than the MMO terms of Tanks, DPS, healers, etc. [/quote']

 

I find "traditional super-hero terms" to be an interesting expression. I'm not picking on this post particularly, sbarron, so sorry if it seems like I'm singling you out, but the terminology subject has popped up here and there since the Champs Online board went live.

 

As far as I know, the terms we Hero gamers use for describing superhero archetypes originated with Champions material, and have only been used to describe character types in regards to an RPG. I've never seen any literature about comics or from comics companies use this terminology, and don't recall any non-RPG playing comics fans using these terms.

 

I could be wrong, and would love to see examples of the terms outside of a Hero/Champions context, b/c I'm just curious about it.

In particular, I'm pretty sure "brick" is a Champions-specific term, after the character Brick who was a brick made of, well, brick. (He no longer exists in the Champions Universe... or, at least, he didn't the last I knew.) What we know as "bricks" are more often called "tanks," "strongmen," and other things.

 

I also have not seen "energy projector" outside a Champions context; not long ago I saw the term "energy-slinger," though.

[mayapuppies]

Re: Ask Cryptic 5/2/2008

 

I'll be happy when they stop trying to cater to "specific endgames" and "encounter levels". When game designers stop looking at MMO's as 'Games' but instead looking at them as 'Worlds' and develop accordingly.

 

That would be nice.

[Pattern Ghost]

Re: Ask Cryptic 5/2/2008

 

I'll be happy when they stop trying to cater to "specific endgames" and "encounter levels". When game designers stop looking at MMO's as 'Games' but instead looking at them as 'Worlds' and develop accordingly.

 

That would be nice.

 

Technically, I don't think they quite qualify for the status of "game" anyway. More like "toy," same as something like SimCity or the Sims.