Jobeson said: "what's going to happen when thousands of players get in the game and realize it's not insta-dungeon-speedruns nonstop." They call for QoL changes clearly. Some day we will be outnumbered 20 to 1 by people seeking instant gratification... I just hope they stay off the RP server.
And I hope that by the time 'casual gamers' (or whatever folks want to call 'them') start applying that pressure, that *if* VR are tempted to grab for that money, they don't do what all other modern MMOs have done and ruin their flagship product, but instead make a new mass market, mobile phone version of Pantheon for the modern gamers and stack it full of micro-transactions so they can fund expansions and upgrades to the flagship MMORPG and keep it great forever.
I don't hate QoL features. In many instances "QoL features" can streamline actions that unnecessarily burden players. There's no sense in implementing intentionally bad design out of some obligation to old-school games just to make certain tasks or accomplishments difficult.
What I hate is design that removes player agency. Agency in the sense of allowing players to think and make decisions for themselves, and the necessity for dealing with the consequences of those decisions. VR can implement all the QoL they want, as long as it doesn't impact the risk/reward of players experiencing and engaging with the world.
Some of my favorite QoL features:
Brightness slider
Remap-able keybinds
Auto-run
3rd person pov
Tab target
Chat tabs
Jump
Auto-attack
Movable UI components
Game logs
disposalist said:Jobeson said: "what's going to happen when thousands of players get in the game and realize it's not insta-dungeon-speedruns nonstop." They call for QoL changes clearly. Some day we will be outnumbered 20 to 1 by people seeking instant gratification... I just hope they stay off the RP server.And I hope that by the time 'casual gamers' (or whatever folks want to call 'them') start applying that pressure, that *if* VR are tempted to grab for that money, they don't do what all other modern MMOs have done and ruin their flagship product, but instead make a new mass market, mobile phone version of Pantheon for the modern gamers and stack it full of micro-transactions so they can fund expansions and upgrades to the flagship MMORPG and keep it great forever.
It will be very interesting how those players will respond to VR's hardstance on their tenets and QoL features they do not want in the game. We know it's coming, but I'm not looking forward to the incessant whining that will infest the boards about QoL demands. Some will stay and continue to plead their case and others will leave. If that is the only thing they complain about, and the game itself is something they love, then it will be interesting the percentage that leaves or stays.
In WoW, they caved in after awhile and enabled folks to make a career out of demanding QoL features and it will never end. There is no such thing as an acceptable amount of QoL features. It is a never ending demand until the game servers are turned off. Which will be, as I said, interesting as to how the players respond to not getting their way when so many companies cave in.
I've never played EQ, so there's quite a few things about Pantheon that I won't be used to, like the severe death penalty. 'Severe' compared to WoW, which I played religiously. I am not willing to argue or be dismissive of any of the things in Pantheon(with the addtional attention to soloing being the only exception that comes to mind) until I have had a chance to play it and see for myself before I get my feathers all ruffled. I'm glad there is no consideration for add-ons and many other things. But, things are subject to change, so I will wait til I play to see what ends up in game.
Virtually everything in all game is designed with Quality of Life in mind, so blaming QoL for bad games doesn't provide a useful standard. The real issue is the use of QoL features that reduce core game difficulty, social interaction, etc. So we really need to evaluate each feature for what it's purpose is, how it will impact the game, and if it will have any unintended consequences.
I am looking for an old-school, challenging MMO, but I want the challenge to be from the game, not from a QoL-free interface.
Telepath said:Some of my favorite QoL features:
Brightness slider
Remap-able keybinds
Auto-run
3rd person pov
Tab target
Chat tabs
Jump
Auto-attack
Movable UI components
Game logs
I can't say I'm intrinsically apprehensive about any of these. Thanks for the list too!
As long as QoL elements rest firmly in the game tenets, I'd be more likely to feel positive about them. But they must contribute to challenge, engagement, and an involved sense of gameplay rather than be neglectful of those elements.
Telepath said:3rd person pov
I mostly dislike this one. The inclusion of it makes playing in first person (my preferred POV) a liability to others and overall a hinderance comparatively so I more or less feel forced into 3rd person to not disadvantage myself and others.
Would love an "immersion" or RP server that was first person locked though so everyone was on the same footing.
I also think 3rd person is much more of a basic game design choice than a QoL feature.
It's interesting to this discussion, because of that, though. @Iksar clearly feels the other way and people often do feel quite polar opposites for some features others will think are 'essential' never mind QoL.
For me, 1st person feels 'bad', not immersive. An 'immersive' PoV is impossible with a monitor, unless yours, is a superwide, and even then, it's still not near the same as human PoV. Feels like wearing blinkers or running around navigating only looking into a video camera monitor (because it effectively is).
In all games, I whack up PoV to max and, if I can't do that, or as well, I pull out to max 3rd person unless I am 'zooming in' to 'examine' something.
3rd person feels like a much more 'natural' analog to human PoV and the kind of situational awareness that a person would have when fighting, for example.
1st person leads to bizarre situations like fighting someone in front of you and being unaware someone is smashing you over the head from behind or a flank.
In a 1st person shooter, they always have to have damage direction indicators to make up for the insufficient PoV, which I suppose would still be needed even in 3rd person if the damage is coming from range, except you'd see the arrow or spell incoming I suppose.
Either way, what I'm saying is, one person's QoL is another's essential design feature or useless fluff or whatever.
But even so, I think we all know the list of so-called QoL features that have altered the MMORPG genre so fundamentally, so that's what people tend to be talking about when talking about MMORPG QoL.
Telepath said:Some of my favorite QoL features:
Brightness slider
Remap-able keybinds
Auto-run
3rd person pov
Tab target
Chat tabs
Jump
Auto-attack
Movable UI components
Game logs
Really not sure these are all QoL - certainly not the QoL features people are regularly express much concernover in MMORPGs, but as noted in my previous post, I guess it is somewhat subjective and personal.
A brightness slider is essential for monitors (though abused for 'dark' games).
Remappable keybinds are essential for some language keyboards and some people with unique physical configurations.
Auto-run saves people getting RSI.
3rd person is more a fundamental design choice.
Tab targeting is definitely a fundamental game design choice. Action combat makes for a totally different game.
Jumping is pretty much a game design thing, adding verticality.
Auto-attack could be considered QoL if you mean having options over whether and when autoattack switches or locks on.
Whilst the thread title is "I hate QoL features", I'm thinking most people know it means "I think certain well known QoL features have ruined the genre I love".
Fulton said:Agree, 1st person would be great once we have haptic feedback suits, but until then there is a huge gap in close environment awareness in games. Even directional indicators can be missed in games with a lot going on.
Yeah, though even then, I'm not sure I want it. Starts to be more real than is fun, even if you receive a haptic 'tap' on the back of the head indicating a club strike from behind, it would still be making me flinch and tense up.
Also, I, personally, don't really play games like I *am* the character. I play them like I am directing the hero of a movie, or whatever.
I call it the Lara Croft syndrome. I'd much rather watch (direct) Lara Croft (Angelina Jolie) through an exciting scenario than pretend I'm doing it, though maybe it;s kinda halfway between since you're doing much more than 'directing' - games are better than films that way - but you hopefully get what I mean.
Of course, even in that situation, immersion is very important, is you want to 'get into' the 'scene'. You don't want the atmosphere to be spoiled by continually being reminded it's a film/game, but I don't want to 'pretend I'm there', either, really, or for things to get 'uncomfortably real'.
disposalist said:Whilst the thread title is "I hate QoL features", I'm thinking most people know it means "I think certain well known QoL features have ruined the genre I love".
This is actually the problem I was intending to highlight with my list. Discussing "QoL" in a general way rather than individual examples of QoL is not very productive because everyone has their own opinions about what is and is not QoL in their own minds. My post was intended to point out that what one gamer has come to expect as an "essential feature" or "fundamental design choice" is something another gamer might think of as QoL. And what one gamer sees as QoL another might see as easy-fying games down to the point of futility and catering to the least common denominator. Just about everything that seems standard in current games was once a groundbreaking, if not controversial change in an old one.
disposalist said:For me, 1st person feels 'bad', not immersive. An 'immersive' PoV is impossible with a monitor, unless yours, is a superwide, and even then, it's still not near the same as human PoV. Feels like wearing blinkers or running around navigating only looking into a video camera monitor (because it effectively is).
...
Yep, total opposite here because for me seeing through the eyes of the character I feel more pulled in like I am that character vs third person where I am controlling and watching a character. I thought maybe it was nostalgia for early EQ but recently did a little time in Mortal Online 2 and my goodness was it immersive being in a first person MMO again. Going into a dungeon was chilling. Hearing the sounds of inhabitants or footsteps in other rooms, hallways, and around corners takes on an entirely different feeling when it's not a matter of just panning the camera to pre-check anything and everything (or do easy full 360 sweeps of the area in combat with no effect on the fight itself). If you need to run there is a tangible difference when you can't just zoom out and see what/where things are following or turn on auto-run and use the camera to see where you are going: if a cliff is coming up, a mob behind the bush, etc.
Good sound and general player awareness go a long way to dealing with "not knowing" something is at your back.
I've never really had an FoV issue (especially in more modern times of ~120+ FoV) though it seems like the argument is the opposite problem for third person (vision above and beyond what anyone should be able to see).
So I guess I see 3rd person as a QoL crutch for player awareness, one that happens to render first person detrimental or otherwise "hard" mode for awareness.
Iksar said:disposalist said:For me, 1st person feels 'bad', not immersive. An 'immersive' PoV is impossible with a monitor, unless yours, is a superwide, and even then, it's still not near the same as human PoV. Feels like wearing blinkers or running around navigating only looking into a video camera monitor (because it effectively is).
...
Yep, total opposite here because for me seeing through the eyes of the character I feel more pulled in like I am that character vs third person where I am controlling and watching a character. I thought maybe it was nostalgia for early EQ but recently did a little time in Mortal Online 2 and my goodness was it immersive being in a first person MMO again. Going into a dungeon was chilling. Hearing the sounds of inhabitants or footsteps in other rooms, hallways, and around corners takes on an entirely different feeling when it's not a matter of just panning the camera to pre-check anything and everything (or do easy full 360 sweeps of the area in combat with no effect on the fight itself). If you need to run there is a tangible difference when you can't just zoom out and see what/where things are following or turn on auto-run and use the camera to see where you are going: if a cliff is coming up, a mob behind the bush, etc.
Good sound and general player awareness go a long way to dealing with "not knowing" something is at your back.
I've never really had an FoV issue (especially in more modern times of ~120+ FoV) though it seems like the argument is the opposite problem for third person (vision above and beyond what anyone should be able to see).
So I guess I see 3rd person as a QoL crutch for player awareness, one that happens to render first person detrimental or otherwise "hard" mode for awareness.
I understand your reasons and preference, but phrases like "chilling" and "entirely different feeling" makes it pretty clear it's a subjective personal thing, not objectively more or less immersive. Not one being 'just QoL' and the other being 'good design'.
Yes, 1st person sometimes feels immersive and 'chilling' because of the claustrophobic lack of input apart from the danger you are hyper-focused on. There's a reason 1st person is only really used in cimema when the director wants the viewer to feel uncomfortable and scared.
Many game features and mechanics are not perfect analogs to reality, including 3rd person and 1st person views.
3rd person compensates for lack of sensual awareness, but can be 'too much'. 1st person has consistently too little awareness. 3rd person you can peek around corners quite easily. 1st person to look around a corner you have to walk around it (into sight of whatever is there). Both *could* be fixed by programming effort - implement a lean-and-peek ability and damage direction indicators for 1st person - add zoom and angle restrictions for 3rd - but since neither are game-breaking and largely based in subjective preference, why not have both?
Telepath said:disposalist said:Whilst the thread title is "I hate QoL features", I'm thinking most people know it means "I think certain well known QoL features have ruined the genre I love".
This is actually the problem I was intending to highlight with my list. Discussing "QoL" in a general way rather than individual examples of QoL is not very productive because everyone has their own opinions about what is and is not QoL in their own minds. My post was intended to point out that what one gamer has come to expect as an "essential feature" or "fundamental design choice" is something another gamer might think of as QoL. And what one gamer sees as QoL another might see as easy-fying games down to the point of futility and catering to the least common denominator. Just about everything that seems standard in current games was once a groundbreaking, if not controversial change in an old one.
I see what you are saying. However individuals feel about them, there is a pretty 'well known' list of concepts that are regularly disputed.
Soloing
Instancing
Endgame focus
Quest hubs
Fast travel
Global auction houses
Auto-grouping
Twinking/Powerleveling
Etc
And they can all be embodied by certain features/mechanics and linked to detrimental effect on the various things we want from Pantheon: Challenge, Social aspects, Discovery and Exploration, Immersion, Group focus, etc.
Things like customisable UI, chatbox tabs and key bindings are pretty much neutral to anyone, though they are QoL features. Others that are part of the above are not neutral at all.
So, yeah, saying "QoL bad" is a bit silly, but I think most know what is meant.
disposalist said:So, yeah, saying "QoL bad" is a bit silly, but I think most know what is meant.
The whole point of the term Quality of Life was to emphasize that the change would improve the player experience without neglecting core principals, skipping content, or cheapening game-play. If you go to the other extreme, nobody with any sense has ever called cheat codes, game cracks, hacks, or Godmode QoL. My point is that the things that "most know what is meant" are actually the things where there is the most disagreement over whether they are QoL or not. Here are some features from other games that are debatable whether or not they are "QoL"
XP Bonus for Alts under your highest level toon Mini Map
Map Waypoints Mini Map Entity Radar
Instant travel via map click Path to Location Trails
PC Auto Pathing to Location Built in DPS Meters
Player Inspect with Gear score Stat XP Boost Potions
Instant teleport to dungeon finder Dungeon Finder
Bind and Recall anywhere Raid Finder
Theme park Flying mounts
Pets/Companions/Familiars with stat bonuses Cash shop
Loot settings AOE auto loot
Perfect PvP parity between classes Vendor Anywhere
Auction house from Anywhere Bank Anywhere
Infinite Backpack Space Infinite Bank Space
Boost potion to max level -5 Cosmetics
Loot boxes Corpse Recovery
No Death Penalty Quest Tracker
My definition of quality of life is something that makes the game easier to play, rather than making the game easier. Perhaps too fine a distinction. My focus is on convenience versus tedium. Anything that makes a fight easier to win or a quest easier to do will rarely be QoL in my book it will be making the game easier to beat. A group finder that teleports you to and from the group falls under QoL to me though it runs afoul of a core design goal so I don't want that particular quality.
Most of Telepath's features are QoL to me. Which doesn't mean I want them in the game - I am just focusing on definitions here. Some I like some I don't.
Disposalist's list - not so much. But as before - some I like and some I do not like.
The definition of QoL is not going to be dictated by any of our well deserved pledgers here in reasonable fashions.
When they say QoL they mean their TIME.
This is far and away from UI improvements.
This is going to be a fundamental divide in feedback given to the devs as testing expands to the extent that some of us in disagreement now are going to be in alignment.
As exposure / presence increases for the game, the push by people expecting a modern MMO will be a flood.
I know that can be taken as alarmist, but my position has always been meant more as preparation, not arguements.
Kittik said:So many threads now and everyone's bringing up, "Oh, but it's QoL, no one wants to play a game with the mechanics of game from 1776!"
I do! I'd rather see zero flippin' QoL features in the game and just point me on my way. (ok, slight over exageration there)...
QoL features like any QoL feature cheapens the experience of the game.
QoL features are less QoL features and more, I'm lazy and I just want to see flashy bloom effects on my screen and pretty, big, foating numbers.
Your definition of QoL is VERY subjective.
Most of the Quality of Life updates are actually fixing things that were poorly designed, had a negative impact on players for no sustainable reason.