M0N079 wrote: I appreciate you outlining your ideas behind the design decisions that were being made that led up to the NGE. However, I have a few comments to add:
You are trying to imply that not a lot has changed between pre-NGE and NGE. We had a persistent game world, and we still have a persistent game world - we just have less simulation and more "game" now. This is true from a certain point of view.
As far as I can tell, the following also holds true, though:
- Pre-CU and to a lesser extent CU SWG were sandbox games. Per definition this means less directed content than can usually be found in mainstream MMOGs. You rightfully saw the problems associated with this: Complex systems giving players enough freedom to set their personal goals in-game in as much varying ways as possible, but in return leading to a steep learning curve and a high entrance barrier for casual players therefore.
- Post-NGE SWG is not a sandbox game anymore, its a game offering a directed line of content (questing). The game holds the players hand and makes the decisions of what to do next for the players. This means a lower entrance barrier, and players dont feel lost and overwhelmed by not knowing which things to do first. They can jump right into the action.
The above is very significant since it shows that the innermost core design of the game was changed.
The original SWG design (as most other MMORPG design also) was built around community building and sense of ownership. People were expected to start playing "for the game", then the design focussed on making those new players interact with others so they could build or become part of a community. Alongside of this mechanic, the game also tried to create a sense of ownership (meaning players own and value something in-game that they cannot take with them should they quit the game) so they could not just leave the game. Raph Koster does a much better job of explaining this, but its really the core design of most MMORPGs, aimed at building a long-term customer base.
As a further point, I just state without evidence: A sandbox game can contain lots of directed content without losing the sandbox part of gameplay, while a game that is built around directed content only cannot be a sandbox game. Directed content is a subset of the sandbox.
What I dont understand from a business point of view, taking into account the points I outlined above:
1.) The game was narrowed down from being a sandbox game to being the directed part of the sandbox only. Less variety of gameplay, which means a smaller market - female players generally need more than "just" directed combat quests, you cut your potential customer base roughly in half.
2.) The conversions of CU and NGE directly violated the sense of ownership. Items people valued became worthless over night. You tore down the barrier of exit, and you took something away from the vets - this in effect turned your veteran players into an angry mob. And this is the main reason why the NGE is failing: SOE earned a lot of mistrust by taking away things up to the point that it was not much short of a complete character wipe.
3.) You are focussing on combat only. You are aiming at the same market that WoW is aiming at. Something I seriously fail to understand - you cannot win over players by trying to be like WoW, players who are playing WoW are happy playing WoW (or they wouldnt be playing), and WoW also creates an exit barrier using the sense-of-ownership-principle. Why would anybody leave developed toons for a new game that is just like the old game? If you want to tackle WoW, you have to offer more than WoW. Seriously, with the current implementation quality, content quantity, word-of-mouth marketing quality (and quantity) and customer trust quality, I dont see SWG ever catching up or beating WoW in WoW territory. Blizzards developers dont sleep while you are trying to fix the NGE.
So you are right when you say we had a persistent world before, and we have a persistent world now. But the two persistent worlds are vastly different. And if you change one persistent world into another persistent world it is not really persistent, is it? Now let me ask you one central question:
If SOE does not want to commit to long-term stability of the game (as you have shown by CU and NGE), why should I commit to paying SOE to be able to start long-term character development?
If I had been in your position, I would have added the directed content needed to lower the entrance barrier (tutorial, legacy quest, ...) without sacrificing the sandbox, preventing the backslash the NGE had while keeping an appeal to a broader audience than WoW. The new combat system certainly was not needed, nor was the profession culling, and both created more backslash than benefit.
Best regards Eskie
This sums up my thoughts on the subject perfectly. Great post.. /salute
What is the difference between genius and stupidity? Genius has limits. - Albert Einstein
So, the question "what should be more like a game" arises. The specific example that started this discussion was that a Politician skill shouldn't be required to place and/or manage player structures. That's a perfect example of how trying to retain the idea of a world simulation or "sand box" makes gameplay more opaque than it needs to be. In fact, improving overall player ability to manipulate world structures in a cohesive manner would be an enhancement to the community. Over-complicating things for the sake of simulation detracts rather than adds to gameplay in many instances.
This is not to imply, however, that over-simplification is desirable. Ideally, you would make a game like Chess vs. a game of Checkers. Both have fairly simply rules for engagement. When you look at the whole thing, however, Chess is infinitely more strategic because of how it's set up. It's easy to grasp the basic concept, but once you understand those basics you can take the same building blocks to make something much more interesting and diverse.
As a case study I give you the pre-NGE skill system. While most seasoned SWG vets enjoyed the flexibility, the system did arguably have a relatively high learning curve (in relation to comparable games on the market). With the NGE the system was over-simplified. We have recognized the deficiency in the NGE skill system and are introducing an expertise system that gives you the customization of the previous system without the complexities it's predecessor suffered.
M0N079 wrote: I appreciate you outlining your ideas behind the design decisions that were being made that led up to the NGE. However, I have a few comments to add:
You are trying to imply that not a lot has changed between pre-NGE and NGE. We had a persistent game world, and we still have a persistent game world - we just have less simulation and more "game" now. This is true from a certain point of view.
As far as I can tell, the following also holds true, though:
- Pre-CU and to a lesser extent CU SWG were sandbox games. Per definition this means less directed content than can usually be found in mainstream MMOGs. You rightfully saw the problems associated with this: Complex systems giving players enough freedom to set their personal goals in-game in as much varying ways as possible, but in return leading to a steep learning curve and a high entrance barrier for casual players therefore.
- Post-NGE SWG is not a sandbox game anymore, its a game offering a directed line of content (questing). The game holds the players hand and makes the decisions of what to do next for the players. This means a lower entrance barrier, and players dont feel lost and overwhelmed by not knowing which things to do first. They can jump right into the action.
The above is very significant since it shows that the innermost core design of the game was changed.
The original SWG design (as most other MMORPG design also) was built around community building and sense of ownership. People were expected to start playing "for the game", then the design focussed on making those new players interact with others so they could build or become part of a community. Alongside of this mechanic, the game also tried to create a sense of ownership (meaning players own and value something in-game that they cannot take with them should they quit the game) so they could not just leave the game. Raph Koster does a much better job of explaining this, but its really the core design of most MMORPGs, aimed at building a long-term customer base.
As a further point, I just state without evidence: A sandbox game can contain lots of directed content without losing the sandbox part of gameplay, while a game that is built around directed content only cannot be a sandbox game. Directed content is a subset of the sandbox.
What I dont understand from a business point of view, taking into account the points I outlined above:
1.) The game was narrowed down from being a sandbox game to being the directed part of the sandbox only. Less variety of gameplay, which means a smaller market - female players generally need more than "just" directed combat quests, you cut your potential customer base roughly in half.
2.) The conversions of CU and NGE directly violated the sense of ownership. Items people valued became worthless over night. You tore down the barrier of exit, and you took something away from the vets - this in effect turned your veteran players into an angry mob. And this is the main reason why the NGE is failing: SOE earned a lot of mistrust by taking away things up to the point that it was not much short of a complete character wipe.
3.) You are focussing on combat only. You are aiming at the same market that WoW is aiming at. Something I seriously fail to understand - you cannot win over players by trying to be like WoW, players who are playing WoW are happy playing WoW (or they wouldnt be playing), and WoW also creates an exit barrier using the sense-of-ownership-principle. Why would anybody leave developed toons for a new game that is just like the old game? If you want to tackle WoW, you have to offer more than WoW. Seriously, with the current implementation quality, content quantity, word-of-mouth marketing quality (and quantity) and customer trust quality, I dont see SWG ever catching up or beating WoW in WoW territory. Blizzards developers dont sleep while you are trying to fix the NGE.
So you are right when you say we had a persistent world before, and we have a persistent world now. But the two persistent worlds are vastly different. And if you change one persistent world into another persistent world it is not really persistent, is it? Now let me ask you one central question:
If SOE does not want to commit to long-term stability of the game (as you have shown by CU and NGE), why should I commit to paying SOE to be able to start long-term character development?
If I had been in your position, I would have added the directed content needed to lower the entrance barrier (tutorial, legacy quest, ...) without sacrificing the sandbox, preventing the backslash the NGE had while keeping an appeal to a broader audience than WoW. The new combat system certainly was not needed, nor was the profession culling, and both created more backslash than benefit.
Best regards Eskie
i agree with everything except what is highlighted above...if this huge unsubstantiated generalization was true, then you would have seen significantly more female players quit with the nge then male players. There is no evidence to support that.
no need to turn any of this discussion into a gender bias issue
TGiamai Oewai (Elder Jedi without a clue)T
T Giaman Srawhe, 12 pt MWS [GS] Weapons, near Theed -3955, 3322T
a large number of inconsistencies (light sabers in SWG have never carried the danger of chopping off a limb, for instance).
Not to pick your words apart here, but not only do the lightsabers not cut off limbs, but they are the weakest weapon (lowest damage) and easiest to defend against (just energy as elemental damgaes are to low to even consider a threat). We are not asking for Wold Simulation here, we already know its not gonna happen, just look at how the gcw currently works. I kill a binch of rebs in theed and then low (laughable) level imp npcs start posiioning themselves in the city. What we are asking though is to make it appear more at it should in the movies and expanded universe, that in my mind is where you guys have missed the mark thus far.
I just hit a bunch of buttons and hope everything works out.
So, the question "what should be more like a game" arises. The specific example that started this discussion was that a Politician skill shouldn't be required to place and/or manage player structures. That's a perfect example of how trying to retain the idea of a world simulation or "sand box" makes gameplay more opaque than it needs to be. In fact, improving overall player ability to manipulate world structures in a cohesive manner would be an enhancement to the community. Over-complicating things for the sake of simulation detracts rather than adds to gameplay in many instances.
This is not to imply, however, that over-simplification is desirable. Ideally, you would make a game like Chess vs. a game of Checkers. Both have fairly simply rules for engagement. When you look at the whole thing, however, Chess is infinitely more strategic because of how it's set up. It's easy to grasp the basic concept, but once you understand those basics you can take the same building blocks to make something much more interesting and diverse.
As a case study I give you the pre-NGE skill system. While most seasoned SWG vets enjoyed the flexibility, the system did arguably have a relatively high learning curve (in relation to comparable games on the market). With the NGE the system was over-simplified. We have recognized the deficiency in the NGE skill system and are introducing an expertise system that gives you the customization of the previous system without the complexities it's predecessor suffered.
What? You guys really thought that changing the game to have 9 classes was going to make SWG #1? It took you until just recently to figure out that having 9 classes and no diversity SUCKS?
Fishermagi:
"...the Sons of Smedley are legion, and need to protect big daddy at all costs, and I enjoy taunting them, since they are bad people who want to impress a bad person by kissing his butt. There are no such critters for LEC on these boards. WE may attack Julio with impugnity, or Nancy McIntyre. That just ain't fair."
So I made a comment about SWG moving away from being mostly a world simulation towards being more of a game. As there may have been some misunderstanding, I'll take a minute to clarify.
World simulations are difficult to maintain because of their inherent lack of precision - there are no truly self governing systems. In addition, while extremely accurate world simulations may not be feasible with today's technology, world simulations with a dizzying number of rules, causes and effects certainly are. Such world simulation games typically suffer from an extreme learning curve and tend to foster unnatural and repetitive game play. I'm not saying that such undesireable gameplay is the result of the world simulation itself - no - it is instead a direct result of our inability to create extremely accurate world simulations. Everything computers do has a pattern to it, and humans have an innate ability to master patterns in the most efficient way possible. Only nature itself is truly random.
Isn't it a little late to start worrying about the "extreme learning curve"? Did it ever occur to anyone at SOE that most of us that were here possibly liked a more sophisticated game? I started out playing chess, and you turned it into Connect Four. Yes, it's still a game, and yes, quite a few people that didn't like it before may find it more interesting, but you concentrated on the least common denominator. You chose those that "might" want to play over those that did want to play and that were playing. And let's be real....the world that we had, at least worked!!
Darvus Sinister "The shroud of the Darkside has fallen..."
"The war is OVER!!! There is no enemy left to fight!" - Dr. Doom, 1985
So, the question "what should be more like a game" arises. The specific example that started this discussion was that a Politician skill shouldn't be required to place and/or manage player structures. That's a perfect example of how trying to retain the idea of a world simulation or "sand box" makes gameplay more opaque than it needs to be. In fact, improving overall player ability to manipulate world structures in a cohesive manner would be an enhancement to the community. Over-complicating things for the sake of simulation detracts rather than adds to gameplay in many instances.
This is not to imply, however, that over-simplification is desirable. Ideally, you would make a game like Chess vs. a game of Checkers. Both have fairly simply rules for engagement. When you look at the whole thing, however, Chess is infinitely more strategic because of how it's set up. It's easy to grasp the basic concept, but once you understand those basics you can take the same building blocks to make something much more interesting and diverse.
As a case study I give you the pre-NGE skill system. While most seasoned SWG vets enjoyed the flexibility, the system did arguably have a relatively high learning curve (in relation to comparable games on the market). With the NGE the system was over-simplified. We have recognized the deficiency in the NGE skill system and are introducing an expertise system that gives you the customization of the previous system without the complexities it's predecessor suffered.
When did you guys start hemoraging accounts? Why does EVE continue to grow? When you find the answer to these questions, maybe you'll start to understand.
So, the question "what should be more like a game" arises. The specific example that started this discussion was that a Politician skill shouldn't be required to place and/or manage player structures. That's a perfect example of how trying to retain the idea of a world simulation or "sand box" makes gameplay more opaque than it needs to be. In fact, improving overall player ability to manipulate world structures in a cohesive manner would be an enhancement to the community. Over-complicating things for the sake of simulation detracts rather than adds to gameplay in many instances.
This is not to imply, however, that over-simplification is desirable. Ideally, you would make a game like Chess vs. a game of Checkers. Both have fairly simply rules for engagement. When you look at the whole thing, however, Chess is infinitely more strategic because of how it's set up. It's easy to grasp the basic concept, but once you understand those basics you can take the same building blocks to make something much more interesting and diverse.
As a case study I give you the pre-NGE skill system. While most seasoned SWG vets enjoyed the flexibility, the system did arguably have a relatively high learning curve (in relation to comparable games on the market). With the NGE the system was over-simplified. We have recognized the deficiency in the NGE skill system and are introducing an expertise system that gives you the customization of the previous system without the complexities it's predecessor suffered.
Helios, it wasn't that the previous system was to complex, just that there was no direction for the new player. THat has been fixed with t he legacy quest. However, the customization has been destroyed.
Direction, not difficulty was what i think made it hard for new players. Until i met up with my rl friends in game, i did not know how to advance. Once I got going though the old template system was a blast. Legacy offers a focus and direction for new players as well as a place for like leveled players to meet each other. Complexity of the skill set is not nesasarily exclusive to this.
So, the question "what should be more like a game" arises. The specific example that started this discussion was that a Politician skill shouldn't be required to place and/or manage player structures. That's a perfect example of how trying to retain the idea of a world simulation or "sand box" makes gameplay more opaque than it needs to be. In fact, improving overall player ability to manipulate world structures in a cohesive manner would be an enhancement to the community. Over-complicating things for the sake of simulation detracts rather than adds to gameplay in many instances.
This is not to imply, however, that over-simplification is desirable. Ideally, you would make a game like Chess vs. a game of Checkers. Both have fairly simply rules for engagement. When you look at the whole thing, however, Chess is infinitely more strategic because of how it's set up. It's easy to grasp the basic concept, but once you understand those basics you can take the same building blocks to make something much more interesting and diverse.
As a case study I give you the pre-NGE skill system. While most seasoned SWG vets enjoyed the flexibility, the system did arguably have a relatively high learning curve (in relation to comparable games on the market). With the NGE the system was over-simplified. We have recognized the deficiency in the NGE skill system and are introducing an expertise system that gives you the customization of the previous system without the complexities it's predecessor suffered.
I think that last tidbit about the expertise system has been largely overlooked in discussions since last Friday's session and it's something I am looking forward to seeing go live (even though I personally abhor the notion of Dark Jedi, something that never appeared in a single Star Wars movie, and see the Sith as being the natural nemesis of the Jedi).
There's a tendency in this community to focus on the negative and if there isn't anything negative then to invent something for everyone to hop on the bandwagon together with. Perhaps in the parenthesis above I made my own point.
So we are talking about the old game having no learning curve eh? What about having to figure out all the different skill mods so that you could beef up your character to make them the best they could be. What do we have now, gay ass luck crap? I dont think so, the NGE has dumbed down the game to a 12 year old level. And if you guys dont believe that, than you are decieved and need your eyes opened. And thats what the community is here for. (Or whats left of it)
---Good---- ---Bad------ ---I'm the Guy with the gun-----
We have recognized the deficiency in the NGE skill system and are introducing an expertise system that gives you the customization of the previous system without the complexities it's predecessor suffered.
When are we going to get to see the diagram or breakdown of these Expertise Systems? Will it be like the pre-nge jedi profession was, where we had 5 skill sets to choose from and could only choose at max 2 and half of them? Or is it going to be overly simplifed and be lgiht/dark?
The problem comes in that there is more than just light/dark jedi in the expanded universe and it would be cool if you added more depth to the game than just that. In fact it would be best for the game I feel to remove jedi from the gcw and give them their own faction system so they can be more powerful like in they should be (i.e. lightsabers are the lowest damage weapon in the game).
What i see an expertise system being, is another point usage system. There would be offense with saber, offense with force powers, defense with saber (ranged), defense with force powers (melee and unique). Now that would be sufice enough for me, although I still like the old skill point system more no matter how much you try to convice us how good this is for the game and its longevity.
I just hit a bunch of buttons and hope everything works out.
So I made a comment about SWG moving away from being mostly a world simulation towards being more of a game. As there may have been some misunderstanding, I'll take a minute to clarify.
In any simulation the point is to model the real thing as close as possible in an effort to bring the experience to life. This generally only works well if the simulation is extremely accurate. A world simulation is one of the most complex kind of simulations you could think of building, involving literally billions of variables, knobs and switches that all interconnect in some harmonious manner.
Of course, an extremely accurate world simulation is not only beyond the capacity of a team of game developers to create but is also beyond the processing power of any computers available on the free market today. As such, when game developers create world "simulations" they already have to allow for a large number of inconsistencies (light sabers in SWG have never carried the danger of chopping off a limb, for instance).
World simulations are difficult to maintain because of their inherent lack of precision - there are no truly self governing systems. In addition, while extremely accurate world simulations may not be feasible with today's technology, world simulations with a dizzying number of rules, causes and effects certainly are. Such world simulation games typically suffer from an extreme learning curve and tend to foster unnatural and repetitive game play. I'm not saying that such undesireable gameplay is the result of the world simulation itself - no - it is instead a direct result of our inability to create extremely accurate world simulations. Everything computers do has a pattern to it, and humans have an innate ability to master patterns in the most efficient way possible. Only nature itself is truly random.
As you make more and more provisions for the lack of accuracy in your simulation you naturally gravitate towards a more pliable and "game-y" environment. A "simulation" and a "game" are in essence the same thing, only with varying degrees of accuracy.
This shift away from "simulation" and towards "game" can happen "orderly" as part of a conscious decision making process or it can happen "chaotically" as a side-effect of making provisions for an inaccurate simulation.
That being said, while we may have made a conscious decision to put more "game" into SWG, we are still endeavoring to provide an exciting Star Wars fantasy set in a persistent state world. Persistent state worlds do not necessarily imply "simulation", but they do imply things like community, a virtual society, an economy and other such things we gave grown to enjoy about SWG.
I do not think anyone is looking for a simulation of growing grass and migrating birds. As there are x amount of creatures etc it was completely under control. What you seem to be describing is a singleplayer console game not an mmorpg. All that aside though once again you have little to no knowledge of what your customer base had been prior to the snafu that you have foisted upon your PAYING community. A community that had 0 desire for these changes.
The community of SWG had something special. There were thousands upon thousands of gamers living thier stories in the Star Wars Universe. Exactly as the game was marketed. You may think that dumbing down the game will get you millions of people but in case you havent logged out of wow long enough to look, lemme inform you that the servers are nearly barren. There were people of ALL ages, economic backgrounds, education levels and levels of physical capability that played and enjoyed this game. Thousands of those people have left because of the changes that you made with 0 regard as to ramification.
Look at what YOU wrote yourself: "That being said, while we may have made a conscious decision to put more "game" into SWG, we are still endeavoring to provide an exciting Star Wars fantasy set in a persistent state world. Persistent state worlds do not necessarily imply "simulation", but they do imply things like community, a virtual society, an economy and other such things we gave grown to enjoy about SWG." These are all elements that no longer exist in SWG because of the changes YOU made. These were not changes we asked for, these are not changes that we paid for. Community? Destroyed there had been one of the best ever in an mmo before the cu, it was starting to rebuild pre-nge. Now, there is little to NO hope for that community to ever come back. Virtual Society? ummm don't you mean Community? Regardless the "society" that had built up within this game is gone and will doubtfully ever return. Economy? You have made the economy completely worthless with your changes. Before the NGE you could pull up just about any page on the galactic bazaar and find thousands of items under subcategories. This past weekend, at least on my server, there are less than 300 total weapons for sale. Swords, rifles, carbines, pistols etc all combines under 300. Before your changes there were easily 500 fwg5's available on any given day.
The problem is you at SOE and at Lucas Arts got lost. You refused to communicate with your playerbase and got pushed off on a tangent. It wasn't the complexity of the game that kept people away as you like to believe. It was YOU that kept the people away and continually pushed away those that wanted to stay. We, the subscribers to this game, payed you for a service that you failed and continue to fail to provide. You may not realize this because you aren't part of the original crew that worked on this game, every last one of you could do with a history lesson in this game. ALL we have ever wanted was the GCW to be meaningful, for the BUGS to be fixed, and for YOU people to keep your word to us. All you people have done for years is LIE and CHEAT those of us who wanted to play in the Star Wars Universe. Sure you would toss us a bone: the DWB, The Corellian Corvette, the promise of the reactivation of the Battlefields, the live events that you had going on (probably before your time), but for the most part you would consistently drop the ball. The Live events turned into pathetic scripted things with vader or skywalker saying go kill x amount of the opposite faction blah blah blah. Once upon a time I would be in a large group of I dunno, 12 13 people working to take down a krayt dragon and through guild chat we would here that there was a battle at the pirate outpost on Dantooine. We would boogie ourselves there asap where there would be hundreds of people from both factions engaged in WAR. And at the end, surprise surprise it was a csr hosted event that people got badges for.
All through that time there were bugs and issues with the general gameplay but we stuck through it. We played and payed through it all until bugfixes stopped. Then all communication stopped and 2 phrases became all we would hear from you people. "Working as intended" and "Don't worry the CU will fix all those problems". Too bad you lied to us. Lied. Then when the CU was released more lies from you all about how there would be increased communication and that you would fix all those issues that you magically missed during the development of the CU. That the CU would provide a platform for all sorts of new cool stuff to be introduced to the galaxy (enter E3 and the Corvette footage), that you would return to the addition of real meaningful content to the core game. Of course nothing truthful there in anyway shape or form. The only that has happened is that you ripped the rug out from under us and now you try to placate us with more lies and double speak. I'm starting to wish you would all go back to not saying anything because you obviously don't think very highly of us when what you do say is countered within your own post and the occasional other posts from other developers.
So, the question "what should be more like a game" arises. The specific example that started this discussion was that a Politician skill shouldn't be required to place and/or manage player structures. That's a perfect example of how trying to retain the idea of a world simulation or "sand box" makes gameplay more opaque than it needs to be. In fact, improving overall player ability to manipulate world structures in a cohesive manner would be an enhancement to the community. Over-complicating things for the sake of simulation detracts rather than adds to gameplay in many instances.
This is not to imply, however, that over-simplification is desirable. Ideally, you would make a game like Chess vs. a game of Checkers. Both have fairly simply rules for engagement. When you look at the whole thing, however, Chess is infinitely more strategic because of how it's set up. It's easy to grasp the basic concept, but once you understand those basics you can take the same building blocks to make something much more interesting and diverse.
As a case study I give you the pre-NGE skill system. While most seasoned SWG vets enjoyed the flexibility, the system did arguably have a relatively high learning curve (in relation to comparable games on the market). With the NGE the system was over-simplified. We have recognized the deficiency in the NGE skill system and are introducing an expertise system that gives you the customization of the previous system without the complexities it's predecessor suffered.
The learning curve was not that high IMO if you guys had of added a starter kit and had a quests system back then maybe that would have solved some of the problems of ppl getting into game.I have seen you guys agrue that they can't make content for 32 proffessions but there was only 9 primary proffessions to make content for smuggler, commando, Squad leader, ranger, bounty hunter, entertainers, crafters, jedi, doctor/CM the rest were secondary proffessions that didn't need content just the fixing of skills.
If they can make this new expertise system as invovled, immersive and complex as the orginal system and go back to turn base there is some serious hope for this game.
I am glad you guys reconize that the NGE system is over simplified.
Message Edited by RKO on 03-26-200610:50 PM
WarStory
There are only five notes in the musical scale, but their variations are so many that that cannot all be heard. There are only five basic colors, but their variations are so many that they cannot all be seen. There are only five basic flavors, but their variations are so many they cannot all be tasted. There are only two kinds of charge in battle, the unorthodox surprise attack and the orthodox direct attack, but variations of the unorthodox and the orthodox are endless. The unorthodox and the orthodox give rise to each other, like a beginningless circle- The Art of War by Sun Tzu
So, the question "what should be more like a game" arises. The specific example that started this discussion was that a Politician skill shouldn't be required to place and/or manage player structures. That's a perfect example of how trying to retain the idea of a world simulation or "sand box" makes gameplay more opaque than it needs to be. In fact, improving overall player ability to manipulate world structures in a cohesive manner would be an enhancement to the community. Over-complicating things for the sake of simulation detracts rather than adds to gameplay in many instances.
This is not to imply, however, that over-simplification is desirable. Ideally, you would make a game like Chess vs. a game of Checkers. Both have fairly simply rules for engagement. When you look at the whole thing, however, Chess is infinitely more strategic because of how it's set up. It's easy to grasp the basic concept, but once you understand those basics you can take the same building blocks to make something much more interesting and diverse.
As a case study I give you the pre-NGE skill system. While most seasoned SWG vets enjoyed the flexibility, the system did arguably have a relatively high learning curve (in relation to comparable games on the market). With the NGE the system was over-simplified. We have recognized the deficiency in the NGE skill system and are introducing an expertise system that gives you the customization of the previous system without the complexities it's predecessor suffered.
Keep looking at your NGE....there are deficiendies everywhere, in every single facet of the game.
Expertise system..........another "option" wheel that takes 1000000000 xp to comlete and gues what.....you've done all your quests ROFL.
Master Creature Handler 
