Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 4 Next »
This Forum is Read Only

Attention WoWfansFollow

#152 Jun 10 2009 at 12:33 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,465 posts
Karelyn wrote:
Protip: Both ZAM.com and ffxi.allakhazam.com are using the same forums.

In fact, AureliusSir, here is a link to your post in the ffxi.allakhazam.com forums.
http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/forum.html?game=268;mid=124406831245597551;page=3;howmany=50#m1244561696225897291

And for you Shouta, here is a link to your post on the ZAM.com forums.
http://www.zam.com/forum.html?game=268;mid=124406831245597551;page=3;howmany=50#m124453583054399589

Now both of you stop being ******

EDIT: Don't click the links. Copy and paste them into your browser. Otherwise the forum will just redirect you to the post on your own forum.


I know they use the same forum. I was going to mention that the view of this being a "Final Fantasy XIV forum on a FFXI fansite might be rooted in the the fact folks are using ffxi.allakhazam.com rather than say zam.com All for the argument and all though I'm kind of tired of it, hah.
#153 Jun 10 2009 at 1:05 AM Rating: Default
**
424 posts
Quote:


Haha ;D I think it’s more fun to blast AureliusSir in an argument type of discussion then to flatly deny him to express his thoughts and ideas. I do agree that some of his ideas don’t suit the FFXI community at all, but he has made some good points as well. This is where the power of the mind and the pencil (in this case the keyboard) will shine ^^. If you think he is wrong just puncture his arguments like he punctures yours;D Of course, this will lead to a "flame" like discussion sometimes, but what the heck, I have 18 hours of free time each day to spend on these forums until FF14 is released so I have all the time in world :D


Congratulations. You win the thread.


Quote:

Now both of you stop being ******


Why don't you tell air to stop being floaty and ****. They have both made it clear they aren't going to stop being ***** on this thread.

And honestly... I think it is the only thing keeping this thread interesting.

____________________________
Administrator Kaolian:
"Quote it correctly or don't quote it. That's called "how people get banned"..."

Actually it's called "Libel"... and only if it is fabricated, but hey, you are the admin.

AureliusSir the Irrelevant:
"They're on a tangent, but they aren't off topic."
#154 Jun 10 2009 at 1:12 AM Rating: Default
**
424 posts
Quote:
Aurelius, make your personal attacks now.


Funny this quote isn't the one you chose to respond to, because the easiest way for anyone to prove this one is just to have them scroll up.

Oh, and as far as you claiming that WOW did things better than FFXI?

Well, all anyone has to do is scroll up, or click back a few pages.

I guess the only way to not let a post degenerate into personal attacks by you is to post this:

'Post personal attack now'

Oh, and I bet the next post is ' WHERE DID I CLAIM WOW DID BETTER THAN FFXI '

Just calling it folks.

____________________________
Administrator Kaolian:
"Quote it correctly or don't quote it. That's called "how people get banned"..."

Actually it's called "Libel"... and only if it is fabricated, but hey, you are the admin.

AureliusSir the Irrelevant:
"They're on a tangent, but they aren't off topic."
#155 Jun 10 2009 at 7:50 AM Rating: Good
*****
11,576 posts
Shazaamemt wrote:
Quote:
Aurelius, make your personal attacks now.


Funny this quote isn't the one you chose to respond to, because the easiest way for anyone to prove this one is just to have them scroll up.

Oh, and as far as you claiming that WOW did things better than FFXI?

Well, all anyone has to do is scroll up, or click back a few pages.

I guess the only way to not let a post degenerate into personal attacks by you is to post this:

'Post personal attack now'

Oh, and I bet the next post is ' WHERE DID I CLAIM WOW DID BETTER THAN FFXI '

Just calling it folks.



You're kind of a funny guy. FFXI players (general stereotype incoming!) like grouping. It's what they're familiar with and as far as solo play goes, they don't see why someone would play an MMO if they don't group, and that's cool. Other players don't see it that way. They like a mix or, more specifically, they like a choice. They like to know that they can log in and find diverse entertainment value whether a group is readily available or not.

One side says they don't want to see solo play; the other side says wtf does it matter if there's solo play as long as you can group? Something for everyone!

One side says fine, you can have your solo play, as long as 80% of the content is aimed at groups. The other side says LOL! What are the group aficionados afraid of? Hmmm...maybe that if there's a larger diversity of options they'll find that there aren't as many dedicated fans of group play to the exclusion of almost everything else as they once thought, and that their pool of people who is willing to do nothing while they wait 2 hours for a group might dwindle? It doesn't make sense to me.

The only thing I'm arguing against is narrow-minded players who refuse to see the benefits of a game designed with enough diversity to keep everyone happy for that much longer. I'm not arguing against any one approach to playing an MMO, rather I'm recognizing that certain approaches can have inherent drawbacks to them and it's nice if you've got options to do something else if you find yourself feeling like you want to develop your character one day without have to deal with the drawbacks associated with a particular method of doing so.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.
#156 Jun 10 2009 at 9:43 AM Rating: Default
Scholar
***
1,842 posts
why is this thread still going on? SE has already said there is going to be both solo and group play. 'Nuff said.
____________________________
FFXIV Dyvid (Awaiting 2.0)
FFXI Dyvid ~ Pandemonium (Retired)
SWTOR Dy'vid Legacy - Canderous Ordo
#157 Jun 10 2009 at 10:09 AM Rating: Default
Scholar
*
180 posts
AureliusSir wrote:


You're kind of a funny guy. FFXI players (general stereotype incoming!) like grouping. It's what they're familiar with and as far as solo play goes, they don't see why someone would play an MMO if they don't group, and that's cool. Other players don't see it that way. They like a mix or, more specifically, they like a choice. They like to know that they can log in and find diverse entertainment value whether a group is readily available or not.

One side says they don't want to see solo play; the other side says wtf does it matter if there's solo play as long as you can group? Something for everyone!

One side says fine, you can have your solo play, as long as 80% of the content is aimed at groups. The other side says LOL! What are the group aficionados afraid of? Hmmm...maybe that if there's a larger diversity of options they'll find that there aren't as many dedicated fans of group play to the exclusion of almost everything else as they once thought, and that their pool of people who is willing to do nothing while they wait 2 hours for a group might dwindle? It doesn't make sense to me.

The only thing I'm arguing against is narrow-minded players who refuse to see the benefits of a game designed with enough diversity to keep everyone happy for that much longer. I'm not arguing against any one approach to playing an MMO, rather I'm recognizing that certain approaches can have inherent drawbacks to them and it's nice if you've got options to do something else if you find yourself feeling like you want to develop your character one day without have to deal with the drawbacks associated with a particular method of doing so.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.


The problem with the argument for a balance of solo and group content is that it's not a 'win win', it's flawed. In order to enjoy group play, there has to be others to group with. I've seen and dealt with this in a number of MMO's since WoW's release. (for context, I'm an EQ1 and FFXI vet)

For the most part, people are lazy and will choose the path of least resistance even if it's not the most fun. In games that offer half group and solo content, you have the antisocial types (why are they playing an mmo?), the players who are too lazy (or don't have the time) to join a group, and then the players that want to group but can't find/put together one because everyone else is soloing. Nobody wants to wait for them to put one together. If you present most players with an easy button, they can't resist pushing it. The players that want to group end up being forced to solo.

Then you end up with 90% of the players forced to fight over 50% of the content, which leads to people whining for more solo content, which leaves the people who enjoy grouping even less of a reason to continue playing. It's a snowball effect that really hurts any game that does not place an emphasis on grouping and cooperation.

This destroys the potential for cooperation and community in an MMO, which in my opinion are what an MMO is all about. We have plenty of Final Fantasy Offline games to enjoy, and there are already a myriad of WoW clones. I've played EQ1 and FFXI and have numerous friends and fond memories from them that I can recall to this day. I can't say the same about any other MMO I've played. I remember having these same anti-WoW arguments in the EQ2 forums and then standing completely alone in dungeons after the push for solo play. "Hi, would you like to group in Runnyeye?"... "Sorry, I'm playing solo."

I definately think there should be things to do solo, (crafting, missions/questing, etc), but none of those things should be the main focus of a multi-player game. That seems pretty straightforward to me.
#158 Jun 10 2009 at 10:51 AM Rating: Decent
11 posts
I am a WOW fan...

And if FFXIV turns out to be backwards or the same as WOW...

OR

...A clone of FFXI, only different I will drop WOW in an instant and be on-board.

But if they make it like any of the other MMOs out there I'm just not going to be able to stay with it very long. The only 2 MMOs that are right up my ally are WOW and FFXI. Now the way it sounds it will be 100% unique, so I'm a little iffy... square did make some final fantacys I couldn't get into (FFX-2 anyone?).
#159 Jun 10 2009 at 10:58 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,010 posts
Calispel wrote:
The problem with the argument for a balance of solo and group content is that it's not a 'win win', it's flawed. In order to enjoy group play, there has to be others to group with. I've seen and dealt with this in a number of MMO's since WoW's release. (for context, I'm an EQ1 and FFXI vet)

For the most part, people are lazy and will choose the path of least resistance even if it's not the most fun. In games that offer half group and solo content, you have the antisocial types (why are they playing an mmo?), the players who are too lazy (or don't have the time) to join a group, and then the players that want to group but can't find/put together one because everyone else is soloing. Nobody wants to wait for them to put one together. If you present most players with an easy button, they can't resist pushing it. The players that want to group end up being forced to solo.



So your answer is to keep doing what is being done currently in FFXI, because that is the win-win situation? Forcing people to group who would rather not, is win-win?

I'd rather be in a group of people who want to group, than with maybe one other person who wants to and the other four who hate it.

I'll also address the *why play an mmo* comment. You know, not everyone wants to be with strangers in random parties all the time. That's akin to frequenting bars and not everyone is social in that way. Some people get into a linkshell group, and are quite happy to stay in that small circle for the rest of their time in the game. It doesn't make someone anti-social to not want to group for every single possible thing in an entire game.

Most folks play a game because they enjoy the game, not because they think they are honing their social skills or necessarily want *that* particular aspect of it. You are forgetting about the content of the game as being appealing because FFXI's only saving grace is the community.

Balance is win-win, because those who want to group can group with others who want to group. Those who don't, aren't forced to. It's not the responsibility of folks who want to do their own thing (or are forced to because of RL responsibilities) to cater to the whim of co-dependent Bob. Suggesting that everyone should be focused on group content just because there happen to be other people playing the same game is kind of selfish.

SE tried the *force groups for everything* approach, and we see where that led. I don't think they will make the same mistake twice.

#160 Jun 10 2009 at 11:37 AM Rating: Default
Scholar
*
180 posts
Torrence wrote:
Calispel wrote:
The problem with the argument for a balance of solo and group content is that it's not a 'win win', it's flawed. In order to enjoy group play, there has to be others to group with. I've seen and dealt with this in a number of MMO's since WoW's release. (for context, I'm an EQ1 and FFXI vet)

For the most part, people are lazy and will choose the path of least resistance even if it's not the most fun. In games that offer half group and solo content, you have the antisocial types (why are they playing an mmo?), the players who are too lazy (or don't have the time) to join a group, and then the players that want to group but can't find/put together one because everyone else is soloing. Nobody wants to wait for them to put one together. If you present most players with an easy button, they can't resist pushing it. The players that want to group end up being forced to solo.



So your answer is to keep doing what is being done currently in FFXI, because that is the win-win situation? Forcing people to group who would rather not, is win-win?

I'd rather be in a group of people who want to group, than with maybe one other person who wants to and the other four who hate it.

I'll also address the *why play an mmo* comment. You know, not everyone wants to be with strangers in random parties all the time. That's akin to frequenting bars and not everyone is social in that way. Some people get into a linkshell group, and are quite happy to stay in that small circle for the rest of their time in the game. It doesn't make someone anti-social to not want to group for every single possible thing in an entire game.

Most folks play a game because they enjoy the game, not because they think they are honing their social skills or necessarily want *that* particular aspect of it. You are forgetting about the content of the game as being appealing because FFXI's only saving grace is the community.

Balance is win-win, because those who want to group can group with others who want to group. Those who don't, aren't forced to. It's not the responsibility of folks who want to do their own thing (or are forced to because of RL responsibilities) to cater to the whim of co-dependent Bob. Suggesting that everyone should be focused on group content just because there happen to be other people playing the same game is kind of selfish.

SE tried the *force groups for everything* approach, and we see where that led. I don't think they will make the same mistake twice.



No, my point is that it's impossible to achieve a balance in this way. If you try, the ability to put groups together, cooperation, and community gets thrown out of the game and everyone is forced to play by themselves because it's the easiest way to advance. Those who want to group can't group. You can't have both, it doesn't work. I've seen this in several games that pushed from group focus to solo. The only way it can happen is to have solo and group play attached to different methods of character advancement so people can work toward both, depending on the amount of time they have available to them. (ie, crafting, solo missions/quests).

Obviously nobody enjoys sitting lfp in whitegate/jeuno for hours, so the current game isn't perfect. The solution should be more along the lines of helping to facilitate grouping and spreading out the jobs more evenly among the different archtypes so nobody has to sit around for hours at a time. If you've played a dps job in FFXI you know what I mean. The current game has a lot of room for improvement in this area.

As for the strangers in random parties bit, that's how you make friends. Once you've made your friends you can do all the group content with them you want and ignore everyone else if you prefer. I play massively multiplayer online games for the 'multiplayer', but games that try to include solo play end up becoming a 'massively solo online game' per my previous example. (MSO, has that been coined? :) ) I never meet anyone in those games because everyone is too busy doing their own thing to do anything social, other than to make moronic statements in public chat channels. I can play any previous FF console game and jump into a random internet chat on my PC to achieve the same thing. That gets really old, really fast.

To be honest, if someone is playing solely for the gameplay... a solo game has a much greater chance at excelling in that area. MMO's are about experiencing that content through cooperation and the community. I don't know what SE has planned for FFXIV, but I hope they keep this in mind. There are already plenty of WoW clones out there for people to solo in. FFXI is one of the extremely few that emphasizes cooperation, and I'm hoping to see more of that gameplay style in the new game.


Edited, Jun 10th 2009 3:43pm by Calispel
#161 Jun 10 2009 at 11:46 AM Rating: Default
**
572 posts
Torrence wrote:


SE tried the *force groups for everything* approach, and we see where that led. I don't think they will make the same mistake twice.



SE didn’t force anyone actually, if you bothered to check out FFXI before buying it you would have realized that it was tuned towards group based content. It always makes me laugh and mad at the same time when I hear the argument "SE tried the force this or that on players" when in fact they are not forcing you to do anything. Saying someone if forcing you to do things you don’t want to is the same thing as someone putting a gun to your head and asking you to give him all your money. In case of the gun, the consequences can be pretty harsh if you don’t do as the guy says. In case of SE's probably no one would give a **** about it.

The bottom line here is it’s YOUR responsibility to check what game you are buying and if it suits your needs and taste, so please don’t ever use the " XX game developer forces this XXX restriction on the game" argument. SE or any other company knows what they are developing, meaning that the group base content was the goal of FFXI. Of course there is always room for improvement, but buying a game knowing it doesn’t have the element that you want and then start complaining to the developers that this is the direction you want them to go will ultimately evolve into flame wars and divide the game’s community into people that want to change the game and people that like the game and don’t want to change it.

And finally to answer your question, it led to people that liked grouping, decided to stay in the game and the rest went to other games.
That being said we now face an new MMO from SE. I hope this time you check movies, information from its community forums and other sources, or even beta test it, before buying the game. This way you won’t be surprised if the game maybe in fact has very little of the elements that you had in mind and thus can easily avoid spending money and monthly subscription on it.

This is the reason why I myself never played AoC, Warhammer, LoTRO and a few other MMO:s.
#162 Jun 10 2009 at 12:05 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,010 posts
Maldavian wrote:

SE didn’t force anyone actually, if you bothered to check out FFXI before buying it you would have realized that it was tuned towards group based content. It always makes me laugh and mad at the same time when I hear the argument "SE tried the force this or that on players" when in fact they are not forcing you to do anything. Saying someone if forcing you to do things you don’t want to is the same thing as someone putting a gun to your head and asking you to give him all your money. In case of the gun, the consequences can be pretty harsh if you don’t do as the guy says. In case of SE's probably no one would give a **** about it.

The bottom line here is it’s YOUR responsibility to check what game you are buying and if it suits your needs and taste, so please don’t ever use the " XX game developer forces this XXX restriction on the game" argument. SE or any other company knows what they are developing, meaning that the group base content was the goal of FFXI. Of course there is always room for improvement, but buying a game knowing it doesn’t have the element that you want and then start complaining to the developers that this is the direction you want them to go will ultimately evolve into flame wars and divide the game’s community into people that want to change the game and people that like the game and don’t want to change it.

And finally to answer your question, it led to people that liked grouping, decided to stay in the game and the rest went to other games.
That being said we now face an new MMO from SE. I hope this time you check movies, information from its community forums and other sources, or even beta test it, before buying the game. This way you won’t be surprised if the game maybe in fact has very little of the elements that you had in mind and thus can easily avoid spending money and monthly subscription on it.

This is the reason why I myself never played AoC, Warhammer, LoTRO and a few other MMO:s.


Wow, do you hear what you just said? Comparing playing this game to someone ready to shoot you? This is why RL comparisons fail, because they are often such extreme examples that they don't apply.

I'm not insulting the game or the players who enjoy grouping, but I am saying that pushing the issue to the point where there is no other content will be a huge mistake and it's not going to fly if SE wants a bigger piece of the pie.

It's not about researching a game to make sure it has all the elements that one desires, and that's just a silly thing to say. At NA release we all ran to the store to get our Ps2 kits and dove into the game. We didn't wait for someone to put up a wiki and translate all the Japanese comments so that we could carefully evaluate every element. Don't be absurd.

It's about a company having the business sense to have enough in the game so that there is a niche for everyone, not just those who think that the *only* way to play an online game is with a different group of 6 people every night of their lives.
#163 Jun 10 2009 at 12:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
20,804 posts
Maldavian wrote:
SE didn’t force anyone actually, if you bothered to check out FFXI before buying it you would have realized that it was tuned towards group based content. It always makes me laugh and mad at the same time when I hear the argument "SE tried the force this or that on players" when in fact they are not forcing you to do anything. Saying someone if forcing you to do things you don’t want to is the same thing as someone putting a gun to your head and asking you to give him all your money. In case of the gun, the consequences can be pretty harsh if you don’t do as the guy says. In case of SE's probably no one would give a **** about it.

That is some of the worst rhetoric I have ever heard.

To effectively play FFXI you are forced to group, just like to effectively play Quake 3 you are forced to shoot people, just like to effective play Super Mario 64 you are forced to jump. The alternative is simply to not play the game, which isn't really an alternative.

If you want to try to argue that, then technically someone putting a gun to your head isn't forcing you to do anything either. You still have a choice, you could die, not a great choice but a choice none the less. In Chess you aren't forced to move your king out of check either, you could always give up the game and simply lose.
#164 Jun 10 2009 at 12:31 PM Rating: Default
**
572 posts
Torrence wrote:

I'm not insulting the game or the players who enjoy grouping, but I am saying that pushing the issue to the point where there is no other content will be a huge mistake and it's not going to fly if SE wants a bigger piece of the pie.


As mentioned in other posts IIRC this is not necessary true. Making a game that suits grouping and soloing might even backfire, AoC, Warhammer, LoTRO, all those games had solo and group and they still failed to take the "bigger piece of the pie". If we take a small example, SE does it 50/50 solo/group. FFXI players join and say, **** to much solo back to FFXI again. WoW or other solo friendly joins and say ****, this is not as much solo as I wanted and bang, leaves back to whatever MMO they came from. Where does that leave FF14 ?
So to sum it up, no it’s not a HUGE mistake if SE only implements a little solo playing.

Quote:
It's not about researching a game to make sure it has all the elements that one desires, and that's just a silly thing to say. At NA release we all ran to the store to get our Ps2 kits and dove into the game. We didn't wait for someone to put up a wiki and translate all the Japanese comments so that we could carefully evaluate every element. Don't be absurd.


Time changes, and as you said there was almost no information on FFXI when it was released in NA. This time around you can find yourself lucky since we will get a lot of information since the target is EU/NA/JP and the release will be simultainiesly.

Quote:
It's about a company having the business sense to have enough in the game so that there is a niche for everyone, not just those who think that the *only* way to play an online game is with a different group of 6 people every night of their lives.


Again so did AoC, Warhammer, LoTRO, Vanguard and it really didn’t make any difference. If you can create a game that you are good at making and concentrate at what you are good at you still can be successful.

If we go by your logic, then why not implement a PvP system as well since that seems to be popular as well, and will give you even a bigger piece of the cake?
#165 Jun 10 2009 at 12:48 PM Rating: Default
**
572 posts
Allegory wrote:

That is some of the worst rhetoric I have ever heard.

To effectively play FFXI you are forced to group, just like to effectively play Quake 3 you are forced to shoot people, just like to effective play Super Mario 64 you are forced to jump. The alternative is simply to not play the game, which isn't really an alternative.

If you want to try to argue that, then technically someone putting a gun to your head isn't forcing you to do anything either. You still have a choice, you could die, not a great choice but a choice none the less. In Chess you aren't forced to move your king out of check either, you could always give up the game and simply lose.


The point here is to make a choice IF YOU KNOW about the game and its components. Why buy it and complain afterwards? And by choosing one would assume you choose what will be most logical, so IF YOU KNOW the game doesn’t contain the element that you want YOU DONT BUY IT. Same logic applies to the gun, if I know I’m getting shot in the head, the logical thing to do is to hand over the money. Of course you can still get shot in the head afterwards, but the chances are slim usually ^^.

Also the alternative to not simply play isn’t really true, since you have a lot of games to choose from. The only time that would apply is when there is no other game which in this case isn’t true.


Edited, Jun 10th 2009 4:51pm by Maldavian
#166 Jun 10 2009 at 1:19 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
*
180 posts
Another example of my earlier point, for those of you who've played at least a little FFXI, SE provided similar areas in Valkurm Dunes and Buburimu to exp in. You could say that everyone has a choice as to what zone to play in, but in reality you're forced to choose the Dunes because that's where the parties are and where the lfp players are waiting.

In similar fashion, in a 50/50 solo/group game, the players will deem the solo playstyle as the easiest path to advancement and those who enjoy the group dynamic more will be forced follow suit. This leads to highly contested solo content and a cry to cater more of the content for the solo player. The only way to avoid this is to focus on cooperation and group play.

I do agree there needs to be things to do when time is limited, but they should be different methods of advancement. Give us quests and missions we can do solo to rank up when we don't have time to party. Even reward us with decent items for these accomplishments. A more interesting crafting system... Just don't make 'soro onry' a valid means to reach end game in a multi-player game. I hope this type of mix is what SE was referring to.

Besides, though it was encouraged, FFXI didn't completely force you to group. There were a few jobs that could solo perfectly fine. PUP and BST if I recall, probably a few other combinations as well.
#167 Jun 10 2009 at 2:03 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
279 posts
Have parties be the more efficient way to level up?
____________________________
WoW - Quel'dorei <ON HOLD>

Main: Tancoo (80 Tauren Enhance Shaman)
Other: Saraah (63 BE Paladin)
Raymund (47 Troll Hunter)

FFXI - Carbuncle <RETIRED>
Raymund - 45 DRG, 42 PLD, 26 BLU, 30 RNG, 1 NIN <- I miss you Buster!
#168 Jun 10 2009 at 6:05 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,576 posts
Maldavian wrote:
Torrence wrote:

I'm not insulting the game or the players who enjoy grouping, but I am saying that pushing the issue to the point where there is no other content will be a huge mistake and it's not going to fly if SE wants a bigger piece of the pie.


As mentioned in other posts IIRC this is not necessary true. Making a game that suits grouping and soloing might even backfire, AoC, Warhammer, LoTRO, all those games had solo and group and they still failed to take the "bigger piece of the pie". If we take a small example, SE does it 50/50 solo/group. FFXI players join and say, **** to much solo back to FFXI again. WoW or other solo friendly joins and say ****, this is not as much solo as I wanted and bang, leaves back to whatever MMO they came from. Where does that leave FF14 ?


The success or failure of a game will have more to do with the content of the game and less to do with whether there are group and solo options. LOTRO suffered because of the inexperience of its developers and something of an identity crisis. AoC suffered because...well...bewbs do not an engaging MMO make. Warhammer suffered because they tried to take on the most complicated and challenging aspects of an MMO...PvP...and make it their mainstay. It had nothing to do with a solo friendly game, and everything to do with everything else.
#169 Jun 10 2009 at 7:22 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
*
157 posts
Wow nor FFXI take more skill. I've done both end games and its really just about the same. They both require good strategies and half decent players. The only difference is that WoW guarantees that loot will drop and FFXI doesn't. As long as FFXIV has guarantee loot drop from end game bosses I'm in if not I'll stay with WoW till something better comes along.

People just need to open their eyes a bit. WoW brought to light some of the flaws in FFXI. Likewise FFXI also showed some flaws that WoW has. Hopefully FFXIV learns from both and we get a great game out of it.

Edited, Jun 10th 2009 11:22pm by Selbakitty
____________________________
ffxi-75-Brd, 75-Nin, 75-Whm, 75-Cor--retired
WoW-Mimsx-80 Rogue The Scryers server Alliance
Mimse-80 Hunter
mimsinator-80 mage
#170 Jun 10 2009 at 7:23 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,804 posts
Maldavian wrote:
The point here is to make a choice IF YOU KNOW about the game and its components. Why buy it and complain afterwards?

There is a degree to which this is a legitimate point. It's silly to complain about an FPS game for not having enough racing in it. However, we have not reached that degree.

I'm not sure why you are stating that players knew about FFXI's group dependence, because they very clearly did not. Where was the game advertised as "Extremely little solo content!"? How were the first English players supposed to know what the game was like when it was first released in the U.S.? The same for Japanese players when the game was first released. The only way to know about the lack of solo content was either to have already been playing the game or read it on message boards where players complain.

Most players didn't know and could not be reasonably expected to know. Most MMORPG players expect to be able to complete a significant portion of the game alone effectively.
Maldavian wrote:
Also the alternative to not simply play isn’t really true, since you have a lot of games to choose from.

Obviously by "not play the game," the article the implies a specific reference, otherwise I would have used "a game" or "any game." Not being able to play FFXI is not a viable alternative.

Edited, Jun 10th 2009 10:24pm by Allegory
#171 Jun 10 2009 at 8:01 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
29 posts
to comment on the original poster.

I don't care what you think. I don't want a FFXI clone OR a WoW clone. I am praying this game is unique! I loved FFXI for certain reasons and WoW for certain reasons. But both had it's disadvantages/dislikes. I just hope they break the "wow-clone" mold and re-invent the online Final Fantasy.
#172 Jun 10 2009 at 8:05 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,576 posts
Calispel wrote:
Another example of my earlier point, for those of you who've played at least a little FFXI, SE provided similar areas in Valkurm Dunes and Buburimu to exp in. You could say that everyone has a choice as to what zone to play in, but in reality you're forced to choose the Dunes because that's where the parties are and where the lfp players are waiting.


Yes, Valkurm was a more popular leveling spot that Bubu. Did that mean you had no choice but to level in Valkurm? Nope. It meant that if you wanted to rely exclusively on PUGs (strangers), then you had to follow the crowd. If, on the other hand, you made some like-minded friends and decided to mix things up a bit and head out to Bubu, there wasn't a single thing stopping you from doing so. I find it tragic in a way that we would choose to rely on strangers rather than developing a large network of friends and then seek to place restrictions on those strangers in order to influence them to do things the way we want to see them done. You're shifting the source of influence from yourself to the developers, which is maybe not ideal.

Again, if you like to group and out of 300 people who have characters at a roughly similar level of development as yours you can't find enough people to fill a group, what does that tell you? Playstyles, skill level, objectives, tolerance, and people skills all play an enormous role in allowing for a successful group and it's pretty darn hard to develop a system that mitigates those influences. I'm not interested in showing up to a party and having to spend more time adjusting to the boneheadery of people who don't know and don't care to know than on clearing the content, and despite the "community" in FFXI, there were no shortage of players like that. Someone does something that does little more than create a headache for the rest of the group and you ask them politely to try it a different way and what do you usually get? Some sniveling buffoon giving you all manner of grief because they resent their parents and teachers and anyone else who asks them to do anything other than what they want to do. Do you think a developer can find a way to remove that element from the game?

Or what about the other side of the coin...you know from experience in other groups that you're a competent (not uber, not stellar, just nicely adequate) player yet you join a group and all you get from start to finish is some overbearing elitist douchebag spouting off about how great they are and how everyone else sucks, usually starting with gear, followed by skill, and all-too-frequently bottoming out with relentless references to one's intrinsic worth as a human being because 15k xp/hour is just so, so nub.

But that's fun, right? However long you wait just to get the group and you feel compelled to put up with that kind of nonsense simply because "something" is better than nothing? Since when should it be required of players to endure <x> number of hours waiting for a group plus <y> hours spent in crappy groups that either sorely under-perform or contain all manner of people with sub-par behavior and people skills for those handful of shining, glorious hours with the group that finally just clicks for once? And you wonder why people head out solo so that they can have a better shot of enjoying their recreation time and restrict their group efforts to specific short-term objectives instead of relentless grinds with no escape in sight.

You know what I found to be really fun in an MMO that has diverse solo play as one of the many options when you log in? Finding a group of people with similar interests to me and shredding group content. I'll make the effort in an MMO to find a group of people that I enjoy experiencing the content with and they'll be the first people I look to if there's some group content I want to sink my teeth into. I'll PUG occasionally, but if someone relies entirely on PUGs and thinks that it's up to the developer to control the playerbase so that they don't have to build that social network...ya...not gonna fly. And history has shown that the more control you try to exert over the playerbase in an MMO, the smaller that playerbase becomes.

Quote:
In similar fashion, in a 50/50 solo/group game, the players will deem the solo playstyle as the easiest path to advancement and those who enjoy the group dynamic more will be forced follow suit. This leads to highly contested solo content and a cry to cater more of the content for the solo player. The only way to avoid this is to focus on cooperation and group play.


If there is entertaining and rewarding content that requires a group and is tuned in such a way that a status quo group can manage that content in an hour or so, people will group. Key is that it has to be entertaining and rewarding. It has to be developed and tuned with the human factor in mind in that it's usually best if it's fairly linear and diverse enough to be interesting but not so diverse that people end up not knowing where to go or what to do. That's an area where a developer can influence content to support group play without doing so by placing restrictions on the players. Having to group to level is the antithesis of that.

Quote:
I do agree there needs to be things to do when time is limited, but they should be different methods of advancement. Give us quests and missions we can do solo to rank up when we don't have time to party. Even reward us with decent items for these accomplishments. A more interesting crafting system... Just don't make 'soro onry' a valid means to reach end game in a multi-player game. I hope this type of mix is what SE was referring to.


What's the difference between solo for character development and grouping for some quests and missions and grouping for character development with solo for groups and missions? I'll take a solo option for the grind and group option for the content any day.

Quote:
Besides, though it was encouraged, FFXI didn't completely force you to group. There were a few jobs that could solo perfectly fine. PUP and BST if I recall, probably a few other combinations as well.


Ya, but if you ever leveled BST you know that the freedom came with heavy consequences and an unforgiving method of fighting that required a particular mindset that only a small handful of players could maintain. Ideally there would be more diverse options available to players.
#173 Jun 10 2009 at 8:37 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,890 posts
And yet nobody in all their wisdom consider systems that encourage grouping with valid incentives without the harshness of LFG. Such concepts have yet to be done as a main leveling model yet they already exist in both WoW and FFXI. And here we are, a bunch of cats in a box on antibiotics. ;P

Logic is: IF IT HAS YET TO BE DONE IT CAN NEVER BE!!!!!!

Anyone with half a brain knows that to arm wrestle a giant gorilla without cheating is folly. Square Enix has but one hope and that is to NOT PARTICIPATE in a direct competition with blizzard. If they don't offer something considerably different there was NEVER any hope anyway.

We might as well be talking about TV shows on this forum than to entertain the idea that FFXIV will suddenly garner 11 million people while rolling up a newspaper and exclaiming "BAD BLIZZARD BAD!!!"

People who come here with the intentions of setting the game down this dreadful path need not be welcomed. Wolves in morons clothing the bunch of you SHOOO!!!

however I digress and use a smiley emoticon :)
there all better now...

Edited, Jun 11th 2009 12:37am by thorazinekizzez

Edited, Jun 11th 2009 12:41am by thorazinekizzez
#174 Jun 10 2009 at 8:54 PM Rating: Decent
**
424 posts
Quote:
You're kind of a funny guy.


That's just because I only kind of try.


Seriously, how is this thread at the top of the page now, and good threads are getting buried in the 'Holy War'.

'Learning from WOW' had better ideas in it.
____________________________
Administrator Kaolian:
"Quote it correctly or don't quote it. That's called "how people get banned"..."

Actually it's called "Libel"... and only if it is fabricated, but hey, you are the admin.

AureliusSir the Irrelevant:
"They're on a tangent, but they aren't off topic."
#175 Jun 10 2009 at 9:08 PM Rating: Decent
**
424 posts
Ultimately, I think almost everyone here can agree (for better or worse) that the focus on group play, even throughout the grinding process, is what really set FFXI apart from the other major MMOs.

Some people really love this system, some people hated the idea of having to rely on total strangers and a waiting for group to simply play the game.

I think it is clear by this point that what everyone wants is a system the will allow you to play and feel like you have progressed your character from the minute you log in. The problem lies in balancing group and solo play.

Those arguing against group play seem to be doing it from the position of 'I don't want to have to wait for a group, and I want to be able to play on my own schedule and with my own priorities'

Those for group play argue that ' you can't simply play without other players as you please, or it would lead to all players being forced to play solo because if solo play was an easier option, then everyone would play solo.'

So let us leave specifics and even reality alone for awhile.

Can we all agree that it would be awesome if you could log into the game, and instantly have the option of joining an efficient group that granted you bonuses to advance your ability to play in a group. Alternatively, upon logging in you could turn down the option to instantly group up, and instead advance your solo abilities.

Obviously there would still be 2 paths to the game, advancing solo, or advancing your group status.

This would probably lead to similar problems as a BST lvling to 75 and then deciding they wanted to participate in group play and having to go back and replay through group play. But if you could do it as a white mage, and just not be as good as a group white mage, maybe you could catch up to the group by playing as a white mage group player in enough group quests to advance your character to being a good group healer.
____________________________
Administrator Kaolian:
"Quote it correctly or don't quote it. That's called "how people get banned"..."

Actually it's called "Libel"... and only if it is fabricated, but hey, you are the admin.

AureliusSir the Irrelevant:
"They're on a tangent, but they aren't off topic."
#176 Jun 10 2009 at 11:50 PM Rating: Good
*
192 posts
I have no reason whatsoever to believe that the good folks at SE can get things a bit more balanced concerning groups and soloing.

What it boils down to is that Soloing should be a reasonable option for advancing and should be entertaining enough for a real person to be able to stomach doing it when they feel like doing so.

If someone logs in and says, "I don't want to deal with a party right now, I just want to go play a bit by myself," they should be able to get decent progress out of it and have fun.

It doesn't have to be as efficient as partying: Honestly I feel it's generally an MMO fact that partying is the more efficient path. But you need to keep that gap reasonable. If soloing is miles and miles behind partying in terms of EXP efficiency, you're only doing a disservice to people who might otherwise just sometimes feel like going it alone, sometimes to the point of turning them off of the game.

People, and especially partying, is a random element that can turn very negative, and sometimes people just want to smash monsters on their character without dealing with that element. They should be able to at least get by when they choose to do so.

And again, I feel like where the solution to this problem comes from, be it World of Warcraft or Wii Sports(!?) is irrelevant.
____________________________
The Other Castle
1 2 3 4 Next »
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 18 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (18)