• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D Online to gradually transfer from 3.5 to 4e

teitan

Legend
Ddo

I think they should completely rethink DDO myself, drop Eberron and create a new world using the core cosmologies etc. The biggest issue is that the 30 level system and core experience concepts don't allow for an extended play experience like WoW or other, ground up, MMORPGs, so a direct adaptation of 4e isn't exactly the best idea. Were we still in 1e or 2e it would be A-OK as the levelling etc. took longer and also there wasn't a level cap or major change in the way the game played ala 3e.

perhaps doing a ground up rebuilding of the game engine using elements of 4e but reconsidering most elements. Or just make Forgotten Realms online...
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Riposte

First Post
The way I saw it, if they ever wanted to make a DnD MMO it should be more like DnD rather than MMO with a DnD name. I know this sounds like something a lot of people have said, but what I mean is, it should be a MMO where people play DnD.

For example, in MMOs it is all about hitting the cap. Depending on the game, this usually means you'll be leveling another character and/or doing stuff at this cap. For a DnD game, the level cap isn't really the goal. It would be more interesting just to play new modules at any level.


Anyway, 4e really is a great system for a game. I don't mean to call 4e videogamey or anything, just think of it as a compliment to the game design.
 

Vocenoctum

First Post
I had fun in the beta, but no one else wanted to stick with it in my group, so I lapsed.

I've known a few folks that dabbled with it this year and say it's world of difference now, much improved. I'm just not sure if the early games "problems" are hindering the game's current status.

(Same with a lot of MMO's really, they fix their mistake but can't get folks back.)
 

pawsplay

Hero
I play DDO almost every day; I'd say I've averaged 15 hours a week since launch and that makes me a casual player.

Folks complaining about DDO not being a good game fall into three camps:

1) The game doesn't comport to their vision of D&D (or Eberron)
2) They can't solo
3) The game doesn't sport WoW's subscription base

4) People who realize what an awful game it was/is. I tried it and I completely loathed it. It's the one MMORPG I've never considered giving a second chance to. I'm not a huge Eberron fan, but what they did to the Warforged graphically is nothing short of a crime. I found soloing not every difficult, but the combat interface was clunky, almost like something from the previous generation of games.

Most of the characters simply look awful, which I can't tolerate after seeing WoW's cheery graphics or City of Heroes' amazing customizability. The Sleep spell turned out to be useless, since casting it usually entails turning off autoattack.

I hated the missions, hated the city maps, hated ropes and ladders and ladders. I hated the "slashing" animation for the rapier. I would play AC 2 again before I would play DDO. I am dead serious.
 

CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing (He/They)
On principle, I do not play any game that charges me a monthly fee, and I never will. For my online gaming needs, I prefer Diablo II and Battlenet (and I am seriously excited about the upcoming Diablo III, assuming they don't decide to charge a monthly fee for Battle.Net.) So the argument about whether or not D&D will ever succeed as an MMORPG is sort of beside the point for me.

What I find interesting (odd? worrysome?) about this news announcement is the "gradual" transition from 3.5 Edition to 4th Edition. I know that we don't have all of the details, but I'm thinking this would end up causing more problems than it would solve.

The MMORPG players that I know are very obsessive about their characters...any amount of tampering with their Precious will enrage them. Heaven forbid they log in and discover their prized barbarians or druids have been "upgraded" to fighters and warlocks. Or worse: deleted, locked, reset...

My guess will be that the differences between the 3.5E and 4E games will be handled much like the Battlenet games do when the ladders get reset: you log in to discover that your six-month old character can no longer play in games with newer rules. Not good either.

I don't see this being good or easy. I think it would be best to just wait until the 4E system was fully-developed, and then release it as a whole.
 


No, it isn't. It's definitely sufficient to keep the game running, support it and make good money from it.

That's a wildly vague and open-ended claim, and completely fails to take reasonable account of development and operating costs.

DDO is still operating for essentially two reasons:

1) It sold a lot of boxes due the D&D name. It was at the top of a number of national sales charts when released. This probably helped to cover it's development costs. Also, it was by Turbine, who seem to know to develop games on a lower budget, and re-use a lot of engines and so on (LotRO is practically a LotR-themed remake of AC2), so it's development costs were probably less than most games.

2) Atari are stubborn and want to squeeze as much money out of it as possible. They are certainly not making "good money" out of it, but they are probably running a profit as they shut down enough of the servers pretty quickly. Also this stubborn-ness is partially due, I believe, to a desire to IP-squat on the D&D name.

Don't be saying that a game that likely took multiple tens of millions of dollars to develop is "doing fine" because it has subscriber figures that are considered "good" for the "majority" of MMORPGs, most of which cost about tuppence and a bit of string to develop, which seems to be the heart of your argument.

I play DDO almost every day; I'd say I've averaged 15 hours a week since launch and that makes me a casual player.

Folks complaining about DDO not being a good game fall into three camps:

1) The game doesn't comport to their vision of D&D (or Eberron)
2) They can't solo
3) The game doesn't sport WoW's subscription base

Neither of these detract from the play value of DDO. It is a fantastic game.

It really isn't. Your post just proves that, no matter how unpopular a game is with most people who play it, no matter how it drives away it's customers, it'll still keep some core of players who like some wierd aspect of it. DDO has plenty of innovation and plenty to like, but calling it a "fantastic game" for anyone but yourself is somewhat unrealistic. It sold over 500k copies very early on in the US alone and I'd be unsurprised if it sold near 1m copies in the US all told), and yet retains less than 50k players.

Personally those aren't my complaints. Mine would be that it's fundamentally pretty dull to play, even though it claims to be "action-oriented", that the "rest point" system is unintuitive and downright unfriendly to your first time in a dungeon (esp. as RPs are often hidden), that the art direction is really, really weak, that it's deeply claustrophobic and has no "world" feel, and that it's so generic that if wasn't for the Warforged and the odd airship, I couldn't have told that it was Eberron at all.

I wanted to like DDO. Desperately. I preordered two copies. I played the hell out of it for my first month. I came back every single time they sent me a "come back!" letter. And I was disappointed time and time again.

Ironically, the #2 complaint you list as not being valid is one that they continue to be keen to address - the linked article says they are putting in henchmen. I would suggest that, had they done this from day one, DDO would have retained a much larger portion of it's customer-base (not me maybe, but a lot of others), because accessiblity and finding groups who actually wanted to do stuff were often problematic. In the end you need to face the fact that it's basically a failed game.

PS - 15hrs/week solidly since release isn't really "casual". What it is, I couldn't say.

It's succeeded on substance: All the bad stuff about previous MMOs was filed down or replaced with something better.

That's largely true. Note that it also had good basic gameplay, i.e. it was like a game, something utterly unheard of in MMORPGs (outside of PvP). The endgame and PvP were completely undeveloped and actually inferior to EQ and DAoC respectively at release, but they got them up to speed before people got bored of levelling alts (levelling was huge fun compared to other games), so it didn't matter.

DDO, on the other hand, came at MMOs saying "hey, that EverQuest I seemed like a pretty good game, let's fiddle around with it a little bit, make it conform a little more with 3.5, make it nominally Eberron and wait for the trucks full of money to show up!"

Did you actually play DDO? EQ seems like a poor comparison point to say the least. It doesn't play like EQ on any level that I can think of. It's action-oriented, it's ultra-heavily quest/mission oriented, it's not "grindy", you couldn't level up killing mobs *at all*, you only got XP from completing the missions (or parts thereof). The world was tiny and deeply restricted, most places on available on a mission, completely "gamist" as opposed to EQ's clumsy/primitive attempts to have a whole static world out there. I could go on, but it's hard for me to think of two more different level-based fantasy MMORPGs than EQ and DDO.

People don't want to pick up EQ1 nowadays -- the catastrophe that was Vanguard: Saga of Heroes, even before all of the interoffice politics began was proof of that -- no matter what the brand is.

They certainly don't, but what the heck are you talking about? For all it's flaws, I don't see any strong similarities between EQ and DDO. DDO failed because it wasn't fun and it wasn't accessible, not because it was old-fashioned or non-innovative. Indeed, it's good proof that innovation doesn't equal success.

The D&D MMO that's a big hit will be a big hit because of the game play, not because someone put name brand lipstick on what was still ultimately a pig.

Quoted for truth. I hope it happens.

I heard your cry and I'm here to intervene. No one should EVER be driven that far into despair as to play AC 2 again.

If you ignore the bugs and terrible server reliability, both of which were fixed, AC2 was actually better, imho, than a number of more recent MMORPGs. Well, maybe not a "number", but some! LotRO is dangerously close to being AC2, and directly includes a considerably amount of code from it (very clearly - even the instrument playing works identically), albeit re-themed for LotR and with some of the "lessons of WoW" learned (but not all), and it's kind of popular. I guess. Sorta.
 
Last edited:

amysrevenge

First Post
The Sleep spell turned out to be useless, since casting it usually entails turning off autoattack.

If you had autoattack on, you weren't getting the optimal experiance anyway. The whole point of DDO combat is that every second requires some sort of action - clicking to attack, moving out of reach or into flanks, key-mashing or clicking to cast spells, etc. They deliberately went as far as they could away from the WoW model of "click on a mob, then go make a sandwich while your toon kills the mob". They kept autoattack in as training wheels for people coming in from other games. :p
 

They deliberately went as far as they could away from the WoW model of "click on a mob, then go make a sandwich while your toon kills the mob". They kept autoattack in as training wheels for people coming in from other games. :p

You mean the EQ model. That's not the WoW model, indeed in WoW that's spectacularly ineffective way to kill a mob, and some classes (poorly-geared Rogues particularly) might even die doing it. Aside from Paladins, and Shamans at melee range, most classes are pressing a button every 1.0-3.0 seconds at worst in WoW. Also, in WoW you typically kill a mob in under 15 seconds. Unless you're The Flash, you aren't going to make a sandwich in that time. Again, EQ, sure, I got up during some fights in that game, but there's a huge difference between a vaguely simulationist progenitor MMORPG from 1999 and a heavily-designed ultra-gamist MMORPG from 2004.

Again, if they'd removed Autoattack entirely, they'd have had a better game on their hands, as basically it was a "newbie trap" rather than a "learning aid", and newbie traps are Very Bad Design.
 

pawsplay

Hero
If you had autoattack on, you weren't getting the optimal experiance anyway. The whole point of DDO combat is that every second requires some sort of action - clicking to attack, moving out of reach or into flanks, key-mashing or clicking to cast spells, etc. They deliberately went as far as they could away from the WoW model of "click on a mob, then go make a sandwich while your toon kills the mob". They kept autoattack in as training wheels for people coming in from other games. :p

I guess that might be, in theory, true. But from my admittedly limited experience, I have to say, that's completely the opposite of true. I made a sorcerer with the idea of starting off with shield and sleep. Well, as it turned out, I just fired up Shield all the time and whaled on things with my staff and kicked all kinds of butt. Similarly, a fighter I made basically just autoattacked all the time, occasionally maneuvering to stay on target, occasionally "intimidating" foes to attack him. Maybe clerics and rogues are vastly, infinitely more interesting and challenging, I don't know.

But my experience was that DDO exemplified the auto-attack beatfest. I have no idea what else I was supposed to do. Nor did I feel like I underperformed.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top