Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next »
This Forum is Read Only

Learning from WoWFollow

#402 Jul 01 2009 at 9:06 AM Rating: Good
***
1,112 posts
Maldavian wrote:

Even if all equipment is crafted how do you get the parts? Can you get the best part in EVE though solo play, or do you still need raids to obtain them?
Edited, Jun 13th 2009 5:01am by Maldavian


EVE is not Raid > Loot > Bigger Raid > Bigger Loot

There are no dungeons, all the good stuff really is player made, and you WILL loose the lot when you're in lowsec and someone doesnt like the cut of your jib. Its extremely difficult to compare EVE to another online game, because all they really have in common is the fact that they are MMOs.

Yes, the best stuff can be obtained solo. Likely you will take a squad of people with you when ratting (killing NPC) or mining as like I say if a few other players come along and see something they like, they take.

Edited, Jul 1st 2009 1:08pm by Kordain
____________________________
To endanger the soul endangers all,
when the soul is endangered it must become a Warrior.
#403 Jul 01 2009 at 9:09 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
777 posts
Hyanmen wrote:
Why not more than 80 has something to do with the ps2's memory I think.

That's what Square claimed, but it's a boldfaced lie.

Items are stored server-side, not on the PS2. If it was stored on the player-side, you'd be seeing people running around with hacked items all the time. There should be little to no memory usage on the PS2 to hold items.

Likewise, the same items that would have been stored in 160 slots, are instead stored on a character and a mule in 2 sets of 80 slots. Once again emphasizing that there was no difference in memory usage.

There was no memory issue, only lazy programming.
____________________________
KUMQUATS
#404 Jul 01 2009 at 9:17 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,416 posts
While it was a lie that SE couldn't add more inventory space, I think that the 160 (or actually 200) space limit you can have open at time is true. I don't see why they would add more and more bags/satchels/storages with 80 space max rather than expanding on the old system otherwise.

Edited, Jul 1st 2009 5:17pm by Hyanmen
____________________________
SE:
Quote:
We really want to compete against World of Warcraft and for example the new Star Wars MMO.

#405 Jul 01 2009 at 9:19 AM Rating: Good
***
1,112 posts
Karelyn wrote:

That's what Square claimed, but it's a boldfaced lie.

Items are stored server-side, not on the PS2. If it was stored on the player-side, you'd be seeing people running around with hacked items all the time. There should be little to no memory usage on the PS2 to hold items.

Likewise, the same items that would have been stored in 160 slots, are instead stored on a character and a mule in 2 sets of 80 slots. Once again emphasizing that there was no difference in memory usage.

There was no memory issue, only lazy programming.


Im not so sure on that one. The game, despite the info being on yonder side of server still needs to hold the information on the client-- or you wouldnt see the inventory at all! While I agree a set of 80 seems small, we can never be sure what info is required for each item. I think the problem is that SE has all of the PS2's memory in use at any one time save for a small portion reserved for inventory, not anticipating needing more. This is why we have many containers but never over 80, as the PS2 cannot retain info on 80 items in a collection at one time.

I semi agree though. I find it difficult to believe the PS2 is floored by such a problem but thats the line we are given, and the rest we will never know.
____________________________
To endanger the soul endangers all,
when the soul is endangered it must become a Warrior.
#406 Jul 01 2009 at 12:13 PM Rating: Good
***
2,535 posts
Kordain wrote:
Karelyn wrote:

That's what Square claimed, but it's a boldfaced lie.

Items are stored server-side, not on the PS2. If it was stored on the player-side, you'd be seeing people running around with hacked items all the time. There should be little to no memory usage on the PS2 to hold items.

Likewise, the same items that would have been stored in 160 slots, are instead stored on a character and a mule in 2 sets of 80 slots. Once again emphasizing that there was no difference in memory usage.

There was no memory issue, only lazy programming.


Im not so sure on that one. The game, despite the info being on yonder side of server still needs to hold the information on the client-- or you wouldnt see the inventory at all! While I agree a set of 80 seems small, we can never be sure what info is required for each item. I think the problem is that SE has all of the PS2's memory in use at any one time save for a small portion reserved for inventory, not anticipating needing more. This is why we have many containers but never over 80, as the PS2 cannot retain info on 80 items in a collection at one time.


Here's the thing about items in FFXI: in order to display the item's data, the game needs to load the item's entry from the item DB (the DB itself is too large to fit in the PS2's RAM). Each DB entry takes up 3 KB (most of that 3 KB is taken up by the item's icon). For performance reasons, the entries for your inventory and one storage space (safe, locker, storage, or satchel) are cached in RAM (because loading them as needed of the hard drive is slow, and doing so from the server is slower still). 80 storage items + 80 inventory items therefore takes up 480 KB, which is about 1.5% of the PS2's RAM.

However, the PS2 RAM is very cramped. Because the PS2 has very little video RAM, all texture and model data has to be stored in main RAM. Graphics data for each zone takes up around 10-12 MB; graphics data for players and mobs can run up to 1/4 MB each, and with a cap of 50 displayed at once, there goes another 12.5 MB.

Take off another 1 MB for the program itself, and there's only 6.5 MB of RAM available, which has to hold inventory, animation and visual effect data, music and sound data, cached chat logs, and an ever-expanding auto-translate dictionary, and it becomes easy to see how inventory size becomes constrained by PS2 memory issues.
#407 Jul 01 2009 at 6:29 PM Rating: Decent
12 posts
I think the main thing wow did right was the ease of gameplay it had. What I mean is that the game did not have a huge learning curve just to do basic things. A new player could immediatly start playing and have fun, then learn the more complex things later as they explore the game.

but, in my mind, ease of gameplay does not equal ease of difficulty.

In terms of difficulty Wow was too easy(and Im not talking about endgame). I would like FFXIV to have ease of gameplay like WoW, but still have challenging monsters that are fun to fight
#408 Jul 01 2009 at 10:07 PM Rating: Good
***
1,112 posts
BastokFL wrote:
A long quote


Indeed, but I am curious as to where you got such exact numbers!
____________________________
To endanger the soul endangers all,
when the soul is endangered it must become a Warrior.
#409 Jul 01 2009 at 10:34 PM Rating: Decent
**
791 posts
Quote:
main thing wow did right


Quote:
learn the more complex things later as they explore the game.


There is no more complex period other than being able to dodge things and listen to simple commands from the raid leader. I'll admit the learning curve in FFXI was extremely tough on beginners and I wouldn't like to see a repeat of that but the "curve" in WoW is pretty much a steady plateau. It's pretty much you either know how to maneuver while maintaining a rotation or you don't. Learning happens more on an individual fight basis than an overall "how to play your class" style of learning since the rotations you use for leveling are not the same as what you use for leveling since generally you level solo.
____________________________


#410 Jul 01 2009 at 11:30 PM Rating: Decent
12 posts
Quote:
There is no more complex period other than being able to dodge things and listen to simple commands from the raid leader.


I meant more complex in terms of beginers, like learning how the game works. Actually, I didnt really say it right. Maybe "more in-depth" fits better than "more complex"

Edited, Jul 2nd 2009 3:43am by Kurtwp
#411 Jul 02 2009 at 2:04 AM Rating: Decent
**
572 posts
Deathfrance wrote:
Quote:
main thing wow did right


Quote:
learn the more complex things later as they explore the game.


There is no more complex period other than being able to dodge things and listen to simple commands from the raid leader. I'll admit the learning curve in FFXI was extremely tough on beginners and I wouldn't like to see a repeat of that but the "curve" in WoW is pretty much a steady plateau. It's pretty much you either know how to maneuver while maintaining a rotation or you don't. Learning happens more on an individual fight basis than an overall "how to play your class" style of learning since the rotations you use for leveling are not the same as what you use for leveling since generally you level solo.


The only learning curve in FFXI that was "tough" was finding a group. Everything else was a walk in the park.
#412 Jul 02 2009 at 2:48 AM Rating: Good
*
50 posts
unfortunately, a really, really long walk in a really, really big park.
#413 Jul 02 2009 at 11:44 AM Rating: Default
**
572 posts
godmademedoit wrote:
unfortunately, a really, really long walk in a really, really big park.


For you maybee, but not for me ;D
I don't know how hard it is now in 2009, I only played FFXI 2003-2004.
#414 Jul 02 2009 at 12:16 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
46 posts
i would ask about the learning curve in ffxi to all those poor level 12-15, no sub job, warriors in the dunes that just started playing that get yelled at, called names and kicked of parties by experienced players.. then quit the game
i just recently started a new character and it is so very difficult as a beginner if you are alone and dont have any other character :(
i started with a friend and she quit because she couldnt afford both basic armor and magic and she got very frustrated over it ><
I do agree then back in 2004 everything was easier because people was more united
but if you start now it is a whole different experience sadly.



the main thing i would get from WoW is the possibility to get pretty decent gear from questing, if they were quests to do with 2, 3 people it would be great too.
The more difficult the quest is the more players are needed and the better the reward is at the end, and everyone in the group gets its own little rewardfrom said quest. Sounds fair and rewarding to me.

Working hard "Final fantasy Style" but you actually get rewarded [Yes, Please] :P


#415 Jul 02 2009 at 12:30 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,218 posts
Deathfrance wrote:
Quote:
main thing wow did right


Quote:
learn the more complex things later as they explore the game.


There is no more complex period other than being able to dodge things and listen to simple commands from the raid leader. .


Not at all.

It SEEMS that way when you've played for so long because you really do learn at a very gradual pace. However, my experience has been that people who start from low level feel that the game is easy to grasp and learn, while some one thrown into a high level character without being immersed from a low level tends to be overwhelmed. I have a number of friends who left the game shortly after TBC came out, and returned for Wrath, and they were noticeably bad. Not just "I have to get used to the interface bad" but genuinely "12 year old with ADD" bad.

I really had to take a deep breath and try my hardest to be patient as I explained to my friend how you should position mobs as a tank or what a good basic threat rotation would look like, and why. Any decent player in the game should know to position mobs so that the tank's back is to a wall and the mob's back is to the room, but my friends didn't know stuff like this. The list just went on and on of basic details that long time players take for granted, that actually do require a certain amount of experience and exposure. If there were only one or two things to know or remember, it would be trivial, but the list of things that good players do without really thinking about it is in the dozens, if not the hundreds.

It's sort of like driving a car. It's trivial once you're used to doing it, but you see new drivers all the time who ***** it up. Playing WoW is actually a lot more complicated than driving a car, but we are all just used to it.
#416 Jul 02 2009 at 12:36 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,218 posts
Nerio wrote:


the main thing i would get from WoW is the possibility to get pretty decent gear from questing, if they were quests to do with 2, 3 people it would be great too.
The more difficult the quest is the more players are needed and the better the reward is at the end, and everyone in the group gets its own little rewardfrom said quest. Sounds fair and rewarding to me.

Working hard "Final fantasy Style" but you actually get rewarded [Yes, Please] :P




I'd like to see gear earned by methods that don't involve camping, but I don't really want the WoW style "kill 20 boars, here's your sword!" method.

I think you should have to demonstrate some form of actual dedication (crafting, farming) or skill (BCNM type encounters) in order to earn gear. Quest rewards, whether in WoW or FF, almost never feel like they were earned, unless they're the sort of quests like AF armor quests, which require a fair amount of work.
#417 Jul 02 2009 at 1:43 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
16 posts
The 20 boars destroyed your old sword so why not take the new one?
____________________________
Don't rate me down bro!!

Zinzo 75Rng Bismarck <Retired>
Juudah 62RDM Pandemonium <Active>
Zackarum 80Pld Shandris <WoW> <Retired>
#418 Jul 02 2009 at 3:19 PM Rating: Default
**
323 posts
yrr wrote:
Quote:
I'll stick with FFXI if the combat system in FFXIV is like WoW's.


same here. i hate that "klick mob to death" combat style that is used in wow and most other mmos. it feels so... gimp. just gimp.

if combat in FFXIV is going to work like that as well then i'm definitively not going to play it.

Edited, Jun 5th 2009 5:04am by yrr




As opposed to click once and use a macro every 30 seconds which is somehow less gimp?
____________________________
Amnzero Arrowburn 80/153 Ranger Najena ~The Dying Sun~ EQ2
Amnzero FFXI 60nin/war Phoenix -Sword Arts-
Fishing 67 Cooking 88
#419 Jul 02 2009 at 7:17 PM Rating: Decent
******
22,699 posts
Amnzero wrote:
yrr wrote:
Quote:
I'll stick with FFXI if the combat system in FFXIV is like WoW's.


same here. i hate that "klick mob to death" combat style that is used in wow and most other mmos. it feels so... gimp. just gimp.

if combat in FFXIV is going to work like that as well then i'm definitively not going to play it.


As opposed to click once and use a macro every 30 seconds which is somehow less gimp?


First, it doesn't need to be opposed to anything. Elements of ffxiv aren't going to be "either like wow, or like ffxi". And second, I hope that wasn't supposed to be ffxi you meant with "opposed to". Every 30 seconds? lol. Clicking? olloololoololo.
____________________________
Dear people I don't like: 凸(●´―`●)凸
#420 Jul 03 2009 at 4:06 AM Rating: Default
11 posts
How about, at the very least, some jumping and/or swimming?
#421 Jul 03 2009 at 5:37 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,523 posts
Quote:
same here. i hate that "klick mob to death" combat style that is used in wow and most other mmos. it feels so... gimp. just gimp.


What clicking? Did we play the same WoW? Do you mean pushing macros like in FFXI or something else?
____________________________
____(>°°)D_->__(O°°)>-_<(;,,;)>_C-(°°Q)__O~~_t(°°<)_(;o0)___<(;,,;)>_<(;,,;)>_<(;,,;)>_<(;,,;)>_<(;,,;)>_____

#422 Jul 03 2009 at 6:26 AM Rating: Decent
*
50 posts
Quote:
For you maybee, but not for me ;D
I don't know how hard it is now in 2009, I only played FFXI 2003-2004.


Nah I was just joking about the amount of pointless timesinks the game has, and it's daft amount of running about r e a l l y s l o w l y.

I think anyway on the subject of learning curves, it's right that many experienced players forget what it's like being a noob and it's kind of like riding a bike later on. On the whole I'd say from a newbie perspective, FFXI is way too hard to get into the whole game mechanics and extremely confusing for new players. On the other hand WoW had a fairly intuitive and versatile combat system, but once you got the hang of it then it became too easy - inexperienced players still felt they were getting somewhere, but experienced ones felt short-changed and breezed through it without the challenge they obviously seek. That's where WOTLK failed, because everyone playing the new content was already to level 70 so had a fair bit of experience, yet the levelling process to 80 had pretty much nothing new in the way of a challenge until lvl 80 raids, and then of course 99% of the playerbase had done the level 70 raids so knew how to go about it.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next »
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 20 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (20)