Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jeremy Ackerman-Yost" data-source="post: 5161823" data-attributes="member: 4720">That's not what he was saying.&nbsp; You are blowing &quot;take this example from WoW&quot; completely out of proportion.He was saying that the time cost for missing is disproportionately high given how long it takes before you get to act again.&nbsp; Which can be farking forever in 3.x and 4e.&nbsp; This contrasts perfectly with WoW, where you get to act every 1.5 seconds or less.Both are ludicrous extremes.In WoW, you act every 1.5 seconds, but they've set the game up so that nearly every action (and your passive damage!!) have a positive consequence.&nbsp; This is extreme.&nbsp; It's actually not defensible as a reward system for average people, but is catered to a high end optimizer in the raid game.4e is built expecting a 60% hit rate, give or take.&nbsp; And missing means you have had minimal or no impact for... what?&nbsp; 10-20 minutes, depending on nature of the combat and the table.&nbsp; You get to spend 40% of that time as a failure.&nbsp; Good on ya.&nbsp; There is a fair case to be made that that is not fun, that has nothing to do with WoW.He mentioned WoW because it is a familiar example to people, but he still comes down on a system that is far closer to baseline D&amp;D.&nbsp; There are about 50 iterative steps between where 4e is on these lines and where WoW is.&nbsp; He takes maybe 1 step, and if you read his actual argument, it is informed by statistics, not WoW.He made one aspect of his game 1% more like WoW.&nbsp; The blasphemer.&nbsp; That's not even enough to call it convergent evolution, much less &quot;inspired by WoW.&quot;There is a difference between &quot;using as a contrasting illustration&quot; and &quot;inspired by.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jeremy Ackerman-Yost, post: 5161823, member: 4720"] That's not what he was saying. You are blowing "take this example from WoW" completely out of proportion. He was saying that the time cost for missing is disproportionately high given how long it takes before you get to act again. Which can be farking [i]forever[/i] in 3.x and 4e. This contrasts perfectly with WoW, where you get to act every 1.5 seconds or less. Both are ludicrous extremes. In WoW, you act every 1.5 seconds, but they've set the game up so that nearly every action (and your passive damage!!) have a positive consequence. This is extreme. It's actually not defensible as a reward system for average people, but is catered to a high end optimizer in the raid game. 4e is built expecting a 60% hit rate, give or take. And missing means you have had minimal or no impact for... what? 10-20 minutes, depending on nature of the combat and the table. You get to spend 40% of that time as a failure. Good on ya. There is a fair case to be made that that is not fun, that has nothing to do with WoW. He mentioned WoW because it is a familiar example to people, but he still comes down on a system that is far closer to baseline D&D. There are about 50 iterative steps between where 4e is on these lines and where WoW is. He takes maybe 1 step, and if you read his actual argument, it is informed by statistics, not WoW. He made one aspect of his game 1% more like WoW. The blasphemer. That's not even enough to call it convergent evolution, much less "inspired by WoW." There is a difference between "using as a contrasting illustration" and "inspired by." [/QUOTE]

Verification