Forum Settings
       
This Forum is Read Only

Don't be like WoW/Be like WowFollow

#1 Jul 09 2009 at 7:27 PM Rating: Decent
**
354 posts
Alright, after a couple of days of seeing topics argue the development of FFXIV being either true to FFXI or adopt certain mechanics towards WoW. Everyone can voice their opinions towards their own preferences.

Although to be blatantly honest.

I want an HD FFXI. There I said it. FFXI was great but I didn't want to start playing again b.c I feared there were just way too many high levels. and I've had my fair share of smug players. Many are nice but others see new players as noobs. Thus after I quit in 2005... I feared coming back FFXI again after so many years with a few low level players. So my reason for FFXIV is for a fresh new start with everyone in an even playing field.

WoW and FFXI are very different, yet they are very similar. One has its ups and downs... and the other has its downs and ups.

I've had well over 200 days of playtime on FFXI. and about a 1 year of WoW.

I have always said this about both games. FFXI has an amazing social system, where you can actually see a person walk by you... and like omg remember them when you see them again. FFXI had such a connected social system, that drama and rumors spread like wildfire for a single player.

WoW... if you see a player walking by... its likely you wont probably see him again or atleast not remember him.

FFXI is way to addictive, but so is WoW. FFXI did not reward you for not being on. It pushed partying to a major requirement, thus allowing you to socialize more with your fellow players rather than just do your own things. Your bound to party with the same player at least once.

WoW allowed solo playing throughout the entire game. Allowing you to level incredibly fast with having little to no contact with other players. Although WoW did reward you for being offline. Which made turning off WoW continue your progress.

Both games are different and that's what makes them unique. What it comes down to in the end is a solid MMORPG. Something that we will be proud to call our new home. So take things if FFXIV must from WoW... As long as I get a solid game with that FF touch I'm content.
____________________________
Back Baby!
Dragonwarrior - Phoenix
Blacksmithing level 100+3
First NA maxed blacksmithing in Phoenix
First to create Cursed Hauberk -1 in Phoenix

#2 Jul 09 2009 at 7:43 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,000 posts
Yay another one.
____________________________
[ffxivsig]381309[/ffxivsig]
#3 Jul 09 2009 at 9:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
**
349 posts
I dont want it to be like wow. I dont want it to be like ffxi. I want it to be like ffxiv.
____________________________
That was no hemroid doctor. That was an alien hoobajoob
#4 Jul 09 2009 at 10:12 PM Rating: Decent
10 posts
As long as they don't copy the UI like every other MMO and use the dull quest system (granted, FFXI's wasn't good either) then I'm cool.

WoW has a lot of good things that can be implemented, but it needs to look like FF, and the UI is a big part of that to me.
#5 Jul 09 2009 at 11:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
***
1,298 posts
I want it to be
the very best
like no MMO ever was

____________________________

#6 Jul 09 2009 at 11:32 PM Rating: Good
45 posts
Too many threads with the word WoW in it now. They are all kinda the same too, meh. I can't wait for new content so we'll get some new threads, nyaha.

But on topic, I don't want FF:WoW. I quit WoW recently cuz I don't enjoy playing it anymore, too easy. Nd many other reasons. I don't wanna pay for a new game thats the same. I'm not saying I don't expect XIV to not take things from other MMOs, even WoW, they all do that, or at least should to evolve I guess. Share and share alike. As long as its refreshing to play, doesn't have too many immature spammers and is not too easy I'll be happy. :3
#7 Jul 10 2009 at 12:01 AM Rating: Decent
**
424 posts
Way to start a thread with absolutely no opinion, no information, and no new thinking.

Post count +1.
____________________________
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."
#8 Jul 10 2009 at 2:22 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
777 posts
EliteDW wrote:
WoW... if you see a player walking by... its likely you wont probably see him again or atleast not remember him.

Huh what?

I recognize about half of the Horde on my server when I see them in town, and pretty much have had to macro /wave because I can rarely type it as fast as I see people in town who I know.

mezlabor wrote:
I dont want it to be like wow. I dont want it to be like ffxi. I want it to be like ffxiv.

This.

Edited, Jul 10th 2009 6:23am by Karelyn
____________________________
KUMQUATS
#9 Jul 10 2009 at 2:32 AM Rating: Default
**
424 posts
Quote:

I recognize about half of the Horde on my server when I see them in town, and pretty much have had to macro /wave because I can rarely type it as fast as I see people in town who I know.


That is very sad if it is true. Or you play on a very very small Horde server.

EDIT:
Oh, and that post really does scream WOW fanboy. Just own up to it on the other threads from now on.

Edited, Jul 10th 2009 6:33am by Shazaamemt
____________________________
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."
#10 Jul 10 2009 at 5:45 AM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,854 posts
Shazaamemt wrote:
Oh, and that post really does scream WOW fanboy. Just own up to it on the other threads from now on.

No? It seems like everyone who has anything nice to say about WoW or even doesn't immediately insult the game is a WoW fanboy to you. Honestly, you seem to have the strongest bias of all here.
#11 Jul 10 2009 at 6:22 AM Rating: Decent
FFXI was great fun when I was actually playing it.

Before the addition of level sync, it could take hours of searching and waiting to find a party - or even just to make your own. THIS IS NOT FUN.

My other problem with FFXI was the lack of on-demand abilities for some jobs.

As a Dragoon I used jump and high jump every couple minutes and weaponskilled at 100 tp. This really isn't fun when you think about it - the limited interactivity. The most interactive FFXI for a dragoon is playing /mage and soloing. On the flip side other jobs like red mage & bards are always pushing buttons or doing something. This might get old very fast for some people.

Solo Content - not much of this is in FFXI, although more than at the release.
While part of the MMO experience is interacting with other players and grouping together to complete difficult quests - meaningful solo content should exist.
There are several good reasons. 1. It gives casual players with very little time the ability to advance and 2. Maybe some players might not feel like grouping with other players from time to time.

This is where world of warcraft shines, if you only have 30 minutes to play you can actually make a noticeable amount of progress on your character. People often cite world of warcraft's rest exp, which doubles the experience earned from killing monsters, as easy mode. Howeever, the primary method of leveling in warcraft is completing quests most of the time. Rest XP does not effect this.

More importantly, if you pay $15 a month to play a game - what's so wrong with the company giving you a small boost when you're not able to get your money's worth due to real life constraints.


My BIGGEST problem with warcraft is that, in some cases it PUNISHES YOU for grouping up. Many quests involve killing specific enemies to obtain a certain amount of specific items only dropped by one type of enemy. If a quest requires you to obtain 8 pirate coins dropped by pirate captains, and these captains have a 50% drop rate - you might need to kill 16 or more them to get all 8. If you have a group of 5 people, this number increases drastically.
More importantly, these pirate captains may have nearby aggressive mobs much more dangerous than they are. If you have 5 people around instead of just yourself - there's a greater chance of the aggressive mobs coming to kill you.

This is where I am upset with WoW. I know for a fact I can level significantly faster by myself than I can with a partner or group. However, all of WoW's "end-game" content is heavily group based, with variable group size of 10 or 25 man. Difficulty wise, they're about the same - but it can vary. Sometimes the 10 man versions are more difficult because you don't have the utility or damage output of a 25 man group. However, the enemies in the 25 man version are usually much stronger. Also, the gear obtained through 25 man encounters is significantly better than the gear from 10 man encounters. This means that a player with gear from 25 man "raid dungeons" will likely outperform a player in 10 man gear. It also makes 10 man content much easier if players have a significant amount of 25 man gear.

All things said, I think a "just right" MMO would be halfway between FFXI and WoW.

Meaningful Solo Content, but faster leveling and greater rewards for leveling as a group.

____________________________
I switch back between FFXI and World of Warcraft all the time. I'm too lazy to change my sig.

#12 Jul 10 2009 at 9:54 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
39 posts
Quote:
I want it to be
the very best
like no MMO ever was


I loled

Quote:
I dont want it to be like wow. I dont want it to be like ffxi. I want it to be like ffxiv.


/wins the thread
____________________________
1. Life is the great indulgence - death, the great abstinence. Therefore, make the most of
life - HERE AND NOW!
2. There is no heaven of glory bright, and no **** where sinners roast. Here and now is
our day of torment! Here and now is our day of joy! Here and now is our opportunity!
Choose ye this day, this hour, for no redeemer liveth!


From the Satanic Bible
#13 Jul 10 2009 at 10:34 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,010 posts
What purpose does this thread really serve? We have been through the same arguments over and over and it's getting to the point where the people who actually *gasp* enjoy WoW are going into hiding to avoid the attacks (yes, attacks) from the XI faction.

The discussion won't be any more productive on the 10th thread than it was on the 1st.
#14 Jul 10 2009 at 12:28 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
777 posts
Shazaamemt wrote:
Quote:

I recognize about half of the Horde on my server when I see them in town, and pretty much have had to macro /wave because I can rarely type it as fast as I see people in town who I know.


That is very sad if it is true. Or you play on a very very small Horde server.

Normal pop server. I guess something like 8000 Horde? ... That is odd. I guess it's cause people tend to hang around the same locations in towns during the same time of day, which means I typically pass by people I know.

Either way, about half the people I see when I hang around town are people I know.

Quote:
Oh, and that post really does scream WOW fanboy. Just own up to it on the other threads from now on.

Um... no? I'm not a WoW fangirl, and regularly comment on things that Blizzard did horribly wrong in WoW, that FFXIV should hopefully have learned NOT to do (example: Using filler quests in an attempt to mask standard MMO level grinding).

If you want to call me a fangirl of any MMO, you could call me a fangirl of Ragnarok Online, which is by a wide margin my favorite MMO I've ever played.

Kayne the Irrelevant wrote:
My BIGGEST problem with warcraft is that, in some cases it PUNISHES YOU for grouping up.

Truth. So ******* true.

The quest system in WoW is fundamentally broken in that aspect. While me and my spouse do level characters together, we are very well aware that by doing so in a party, that we will actually level slower than if we leveled while not in a party.

Edited, Jul 10th 2009 4:34pm by Karelyn
____________________________
KUMQUATS
#15 Jul 10 2009 at 12:34 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
349 posts
I think the most important thing to remember is that from what the devs have said FFXIV isn't going to resemble WoW or FFXI much. I mean there's no leveling which already drastically changes this game from games such as WoW or FFXI where progress is measured in levels. I think if we're to compare this game to any mmo it should be skill based games like... UO, Eve, or Darkfall. Honestly tho I'd rather not compare it to anything. It sounds like the Devs have the ground set for a very unique and different mmo already (and thank God for that.)
____________________________
That was no hemroid doctor. That was an alien hoobajoob
#16 Jul 10 2009 at 4:27 PM Rating: Excellent
*
192 posts
karelyn wrote:
Um... no? I'm not a WoW fangirl, and regularly comment on things that Blizzard did horribly wrong in WoW, that FFXIV should hopefully have learned NOT to do (example: Using filler quests in an attempt to mask standard MMO level grinding).

If you want to call me a fangirl of any MMO, you could call me a fangirl of Ragnarok Online, which is by a wide margin my favorite MMO I've ever played.


You've got to understand, he called you a name.

By schoolyard politics you have now lost the argument, forever. You should probably just give up.


I...I just want them to adopt whatever from wherever that they think will make a great game. Who cares where good ideas come from?
____________________________
The Other Castle
#17 Jul 10 2009 at 5:37 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
***
3,317 posts
Yea, I even recognize a lot of the alliance I see all the time, though they get an explosive shot to the face rather then a /wave :D.

FFXIV has the potential to be something really really great and it will get there by paying attention to things that work/don't work from other games as well as bringing that Square-Enix innovation we've come to love. Trust that S-E knows what they're doing, trust that S-E will make the game that they want to make, not any clone, and above all believe in Yuna!

Whoa. Had a great game flash back just then.
#18 Jul 10 2009 at 10:11 PM Rating: Default
**
424 posts
Wow, it was a joke.

Guess I forgot that there is no sarcasm in Alla.

Seriously, saying you know 4,000 players on your server and wave hi to them (from Kare's own estimates, 8,000 horde and she knows 'half of them').

If it's true then you have to pretty much do nothing but play that game, it wouldn't even allow for time to post here.

Guess I really must be biased for calling someone who claims to know 4,000 players on her server a 'fanboy'. Nothing wrong there.
____________________________
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."
#19 Jul 11 2009 at 5:22 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,010 posts
Shazaamemt wrote:

Wow, it was a joke.

Guess I forgot that there is no sarcasm in Alla.

Seriously, saying you know 4,000 players on your server and wave hi to them (from Kare's own estimates, 8,000 horde and she knows 'half of them').

If it's true then you have to pretty much do nothing but play that game, it wouldn't even allow for time to post here.

Guess I really must be biased for calling someone who claims to know 4,000 players on her server a 'fanboy'. Nothing wrong there.


You know, it's pretty obvious that she wasn't talking about knowing everyone on the server. The regulars, though, sure. I mean there is about 4k people on any given FFXI server, and yet I am sure that you know people that play during the same time that you do and that you recognize and /em to them when you see them in a city. It's really not that different. You meet people when partying, and you meet people when raiding. Your social life does not have to be limited to your linkshell or guild.

Don't get so stuck on the solo aspect of leveling in WoW that you completely miss the social aspect.




#20 Jul 11 2009 at 9:31 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
469 posts
So, on the topic of being like warcraft.

Instances - A lot of people call this a saving point of warcraft, but what it actually serves to do is detract from the game experience. The fact that you can wander the world and play with everyone, but then enter a certain area and know no one but who you choose will be there with you further cripples warcraft's immersion, as if it wasn't crippled already.

This isn't to say that fights where only small groups are allowed are bad. Instancing on a very small scale would be alright with me. Boss fights, that's fine. I might implement some way where you could see the people outside your instance while you were in it to help immersion, but that would really be superfluous and unnecessary. My only point is: complete instanced dungeons detract from the player's view of the world. The zone change from the realm of many people to the realm of five people takes you out of the game world, and puts you straight in your chair, where you are fully cognizant of the fact that you are playing a game, not experiencing a true world.

Graphical style - do not take cues from warcraft here. Warcraft has bad character and city design. Bad. Plain and simple. There are a lot of flashy items in warcraft, like how the bank in darnassus is shaped like a bear. But darnassus is not a charming town. I suppose this doesn't really fall under graphical style, because it's more the fault of the NPCs. Warcraft's cities are all about business. There is no feeling of life within them. This is mainly because the NPCs are useless. Even the highest, most story related characters evoke no actual interest from the player.

Don't even talk to me about spell effects. Fireball looks exactly the same at level 80 as it did at level 1. I have effectively been casting the same spell for 80 levels. Retarded. If you don't have a new spell effect on each rank, do not have a new rank. End of story. Of course, this assumes that spell ranks even need to exist, but I'm just saying, with the system blizzard created, all the spell rank changes only give the illusion of a landmark progression, but it actually doesn't happen.

As for technical graphical quality, wow is ok. It's not great, but it's not terrible either.

Quests - Misery. In all the quests of warcraft, I can think of perhaps two that I was even vaguely interested in, and the fact that I gave those two quests a chance after all the horror the other quests put me through is astounding. They spent a lot of time writing out text for their quests, but that's what it amounts to: text. Around level 30, I realized that every questgiver had the exact same plight, and would give you the exact same objectives as the previous one. It is a facade, an illusion meant to keep the players from complaining about the ridiculous and near-painful grind that is the path to 80. Leveling should be fun, and it should be considered part of the game. More and more, I see blizzard promoting the idea that "the game begins at 80." Leveling solo is so much faster than leveling in a group (as someone in this thread stated) that being in a group is completely useless. It is much faster and more efficient to simply skip a group quest than it is to find a group for it and do it.

What ****** me off the most about the questing system in wow is that other games are copying it. Aion, for example, could have had great potential, but I'm looking at the videos, and I'm seeing the same interface, complete with a standard box where quest text comes up, a quest tracker, and apparently quest helper implemented standard. This is not good game design. If you are going to implement quest helper as a standard feature, why pretend? Simply give your player a straight, linear path with monsters on it at random intervals, and let them walk along and grind them. Maybe have a treasure chest or two along the way. This is effectively what questing in warcraft (and aion too, I'm guessing) is. For FFXIV, if you want to emulate any types of questing, observe old FF games, or zelda. Not for what you do in the quest, but for presentation. Presentation makes or breaks every quest. Take the biggoron sword quest for instance. It is effectively "go here, talk to person" over and over, sometimes with a time limit. But it is a good quest and you truly have fun doing it because they don't tell you where to go. You have to be immersed in the world and actually pick up on hints as to where you need to go next. Quests don't need to be complex, they just need to be presented well.

Interface - as little as possible. No I don't want or need a minimap, no I don't want a static ability bar. The less constant interface is viewable, the better. Have the chat log, a list of your party members, and that's about it. Everything else (menu, abilities) should appear as they are called. I want to see the world, not the interface. That said, WoW's interface isn't so bad. I don't hate it, but I don't want FFXIV to do it similarly. A big problem with the wow interface is character portraits. They take up a lot of the screen, and it's not necessary. Name, health bar, mana bar. I suppose I could mod it up and make that happen, but I never do. It's not that big a deal, but the less interface they can have and have it be functional, the better.

Music - take absolutely no cues from wow. Wow's music is awful in so many ways, and I'm not even going to go into it. I have faith in the FF music department, though.

Gameplay - Movement in wow is pretty good. I like strafing, and I hope they put that in FFXIV in some way. Jumping is not necessary, swimming is not necessary. I hate being in the water anyways. Flying is also not necessary. I'd prefer they focus on the actual battle system unless they have something really cool to implement with the different types of movement. I do hope they have a lockon feature like in FFXI.

Oh god and let me unsheathe my weapon while running. That's more of a qualm with ffxi than praise for wow, but you know, whatever. Wow got that right.

As for character customization, if you had talked to me a couple years ago, I would have said wow does a pretty good job. Nowadays, many of the gear pieces look very similar, but more importantly, every class is slowly being homogenized. Cookie cutter builds aren't just common anymore, they're forced. If you don't have a cookie cutter talent build, your guild will make you change to one, because they are that much better. This effectively ends character customization via talents. Now, the talent system itself is good in theory. If each talent were equally viable, at least arguably, I would praise it. And that use to be near to the case. But in today's wow, there are specific builds that simply destroy other combinations. I would prefer a more open system like materia.

Travel - This is a point where I'll say blizzard got it fairly right. Flight paths are a nice alternative to boats and such. Hearthstones allow you to get out of a place which would be otherwise very difficult. With the system they designed, travel is pretty good. I'm not saying they should copy it in FFXIV, but I always found the travel times in FFXI to be unnecessarily high.

PvP - the issue with PvP in wow is that it affects their thoughts about balancing of classes. Every class is imbued with this survivability so they can compete in PvP, and it's not necessary. It further homogenizes the classes, and that is not necessary or wanted. If PvP is implemented, make sure that it does not impact class balancing. It might seem harsh, but some classes need to die a lot in PvP. That's why wow will never have a truly great pure buffing class like BRD. The WoW community would freak out over the fact that BRD couldn't do much in PvP.

The biggest problem with WoW is simply that they cater to their fanbase. Blizzard no longer is trying to make a game, they are simply furthering an addiction medium. There was a time when wow was a great game. Well, at least, better than it currently is. The classes had differing levels of survivability, filled vastly different roles in groups (or at least, filled those roles in different ways), and you could customize your talents the way you wanted to without crippling yourself horribly. But what blizzard does is cater to its fanbase. Trainable ice block? No problem. Hunters not doing that well in arena? MS effect added to aimed shot. Paladins doing high burst in pvp? Nerf those pious sons of ******* in the face. This is the biggest failing point of wow. It's not about making their game great, it's about fashioning it so that their players remain addicted, and they continue to get money. That's the most important thing I don't want to see from wow.

Quote:
I dont want it to be like wow. I dont want it to be like ffxi. I want it to be like ffxiv.

Everyone seems to love this quote, and I'm not entirely sure why. Are you saying you want a complete departure from everything FFXI/WoW? I actually don't. There are aspects of those games that should be observed, and cues need to be taken. Obviously I think less should be taken from WoW, but certainly lessons can be learned.

Quote:
Seriously, saying you know 4,000 players on your server and wave hi to them (from Kare's own estimates, 8,000 horde and she knows 'half of them').

Hyperbolic hyperbole is hyperbolic.

And you berate her for not knowing that you were "joking." Ironic.
#21 Jul 11 2009 at 9:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
**
777 posts
Torrence wrote:
I am sure that you know people that play during the same time that you do and that you recognize and /em to them when you see them in a city. It's really not that different. You meet people when partying, and you meet people when raiding. Your social life does not have to be limited to your linkshell or guild.

It also helps that I'm a tank, who made a point of tanking a ridiculous amount of instances in pick up groups, which meant I meet a ridiculously large number of people who have a higher tendency of remembering me than me remembering them D:

There's quite a few people who insist they know me well, but I for the life of me have no freaking idea who they are D:

Quote:
Don't even talk to me about spell effects. Fireball looks exactly the same at level 80 as it did at level 1. I have effectively been casting the same spell for 80 levels. Retarded. If you don't have a new spell effect on each rank, do not have a new rank. End of story. Of course, this assumes that spell ranks even need to exist, but I'm just saying, with the system blizzard created, all the spell rank changes only give the illusion of a landmark progression, but it actually doesn't happen.

To be fair, spell ranks are an outdated mechanic that even Blizzard admits they want to get rid of. It would just require such a massive reprogramming and rebalancing that they probably won't get around to it during the life of the game.

Originally, spell ranks were the only way to scale up the damage of magic spells, and raid bosses dropped new ranks of spells to make them more powerful. Blizzard realized that this worked horribly, and invented the "Spell Power" stat for making spells more powerful.

Meh.

Quote:
Interface - as little as possible.

Something like this?

What? I like my UI and am proud of it and like flexing my e-gina over it a lot D:

Edited, Jul 11th 2009 2:02pm by Karelyn
____________________________
KUMQUATS
#22 Jul 11 2009 at 9:58 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,416 posts
The problem are the people who can think in only black and white.

Either "omg u wnat make it liek WOW!!1" or "omgz u maek it FFXI-2!!1", but a mix of the 2 is unheard of...
____________________________
SE:
Quote:
We really want to compete against World of Warcraft and for example the new Star Wars MMO.

#23 Jul 11 2009 at 10:12 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
469 posts
I love that interface. The hp/energy orbs are too big for my taste, I'd stick with straight bars, but other than that it's very nice. That's a lot like my old interface. I recently re-installed and never configured it back the way it was. But I really don't care anymore. My time with wow is nearing the end.

Also: nice talking to yourself, there.

Quote:
To be fair, spell ranks are an outdated mechanic that even Blizzard admits they want to get rid of. It would just require such a massive reprogramming and rebalancing that they probably won't get around to it during the life of the game.

Originally, spell ranks were the only way to scale up the damage of magic spells, and raid bosses dropped new ranks of spells to make them more powerful. Blizzard realized that this worked horribly, and invented the "Spell Power" stat for making spells more powerful.

Well the problem with that fix was that it made gearing for all caster classes nearly the exact same thing. With a lot of classes shooting for the same best-in-slot items, it ends up posing some problems. I'd like to see a little more variation of stats. But yeah I see your point. At least they admit their mistake on that one.
#24 Jul 11 2009 at 10:24 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
316 posts
AntiMe wrote:

The biggest problem with WoW is simply that they cater to their fanbase. Blizzard no longer is trying to make a game, they are simply furthering an addiction medium.


If by "furthering an addiction medium", you mean "make people keep playing their game", then..... yes?

And how is listening to a fanbase, considering what they want, and including the ideas that they feel would make a game better a bad thing? XI fans have been asking for new summons for how long now? That's a better policy?

Given that the number of multi-page threads solely about WoW on the XIV forum has probably hit double-digits by now, I'd like to see a buzzword bingo game based on some of the complaints.

Naturally, "furthering an addiction medium" would be included, even though I'm not sure what it means. "Hopping around like bunny rabbits" too. Need some more though. "Picture next to my HP/MP bar"? Lots of people say it, but in different ways, so it's not quite a buzzword yet.

Yes! Perfect, thanks!

Furthering an addiction medium
Hopping around like bunny rabbits
Kill 10 wolves
EZ mode


Edited, Jul 11th 2009 2:49pm by SEforPrez
#25 Jul 11 2009 at 10:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
**
777 posts
SEforPrez wrote:
Naturally, "furthering an addiction medium" would be included, even though I'm not sure what it means. "Hopping around like bunny rabbits" too. Need some more though. "Picture next to my HP/MP bar"? Lots of people say it, but in different ways, so it's not quite a buzzword yet.

You forgot "Kill 10 wolves"
____________________________
KUMQUATS
#26 Jul 11 2009 at 10:45 AM Rating: Excellent
*
192 posts
Shazaamemt wrote:
Wow, it was a joke.

Guess I forgot that there is no sarcasm in Alla.

Seriously, saying you know 4,000 players on your server and wave hi to them (from Kare's own estimates, 8,000 horde and she knows 'half of them').

If it's true then you have to pretty much do nothing but play that game, it wouldn't even allow for time to post here.

Guess I really must be biased for calling someone who claims to know 4,000 players on her server a 'fanboy'. Nothing wrong there.


Wait, wait, wait. So was it a joke, or do you really think she's a fangirl? You can't have your cake and call it names too, now.

AntiMe wrote:
Everyone seems to love this quote, and I'm not entirely sure why. Are you saying you want a complete departure from everything FFXI/WoW? I actually don't. There are aspects of those games that should be observed, and cues need to be taken. Obviously I think less should be taken from WoW, but certainly lessons can be learned.


I think the idea is that people want the developers to make FFXIV using whatever they find from any other game, and not to go, "Oh, well, there's this great thing WoW did, but we don't like WoW and/or don't want it to be like WoW, so we won't use it". Their decisions should be aiming at making FFXIV a good, whole game, and not borrowing or avoiding ideas because of their source.

Yes, there are things we do and don't want taken from FFXI and WoW, but if you dwell too much on those games then the identity and quality of FFXIV could get a bit blurry behind them. Focus on FFXIV first, and then the ideas and where they come from. Not the other way around; say, shunning valid ideas from WoW because you don't like WoW as a game.

Karelyn wrote:
Something like this?

What? I like my UI and am proud of it and like flexing my e-gina over it a lot D:


1) That is an awesome UI and more than anything I hope FFXIV's UI is just very very flexible. The base UI could be 1:1 ripped from FFXI, as long as I'm not forced to use it exactly that way I'd be happy.

2) My girlfriend now thinks you are the coolest person on the intarwebs for using the term e-gina.

SEforPrez wrote:
Given that the number of multi-page threads solely about WoW on the XIV forum has probably hit double-digits by now, I'd like to see a buzzword bingo game based on some of the complaints.


Don't forget "EZ mode".

Karelyn wrote:
You forgot "Kill 10 wolves"


Correction: "Get 10 Wolf Pelts, which you can only secure from a wolf corpse 25% of the time."

Edited, Jul 11th 2009 1:47pm by PrinnyFlute
____________________________
The Other Castle
#27 Jul 11 2009 at 10:48 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,416 posts
Quote:
And how is listening to a fanbase, considering what they want, and including the ideas that they feel would make a game better a bad thing? XI fans have been asking for new summons for how long now? That's a better policy?


Druids have been asking for a new animal to morph into for how long now? (I might have got the details wrong, but ya get my point!)

Blizzard does whatever they can to get even more players and thus more money. That's kind of lame tbh- abandoning your own ideas for the sake of profit.
____________________________
SE:
Quote:
We really want to compete against World of Warcraft and for example the new Star Wars MMO.

#28 Jul 11 2009 at 10:55 AM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
Hyanmen wrote:
Quote:
And how is listening to a fanbase, considering what they want, and including the ideas that they feel would make a game better a bad thing? XI fans have been asking for new summons for how long now? That's a better policy?


Druids have been asking for a new animal to morph into for how long now? (I might have got the details wrong, but ya get my point!)


Druids actually don't ask for that. Warlocks have been asking for new demons for some time, you can use that. Warlocks have also been asking for a special flying mount for some time as well. And green fire, they want green fire.
#29 Jul 11 2009 at 10:57 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
316 posts
Hyanmen wrote:

Druids have been asking for a new animal to morph into for how long now? (I might have got the details wrong, but ya get my point!)


New skins for existing animals probably. (Included in the upcoming patch).


Hyanmen wrote:
Blizzard does whatever they can to get even more players and thus more money. That's kind of lame tbh- abandoning your own ideas for the sake of profit.


What fundamental core gameplay feature have they dropped due to the complaints of players? Maybe the PvP title system grind right before the release of TBC, but other than that, I can't think of any of their own ideas that they abandoned. I'm by no means an expert on changes that they've made though, so maybe there are others.
#30 Jul 11 2009 at 11:07 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,416 posts
Quote:
What fundamental core gameplay feature have they dropped due to the complaints of players? Maybe the PvP title system grind right before the release of TBC, but other than that, I can't think of any of their own ideas that they abandoned. I'm by no means an expert on changes that they've made though, so maybe there are others.


None. The thing is, they do what they think gets them the most subscriptions, not what their original idea of the game was. What they want the game to be like is no longer the main factor when developing things, but what brings them the most profit possible.

And yeah, warlock/druid etc. :D
____________________________
SE:
Quote:
We really want to compete against World of Warcraft and for example the new Star Wars MMO.

#31 Jul 11 2009 at 11:12 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
777 posts
PrinnyFlute wrote:
Karelyn wrote:
You forgot "Kill 10 wolves"

Correction: "Get 10 Wolf Pelts, which you can only secure from a wolf corpse 25% of the time."

Naw. The 25% drop rate on Wolf Pelts is justifiable in if you are running around stabbing wolves with your sword, or throwing fireballs at them, it's reasonable to expect that maybe only 25% of them are actually usable after the wolf is dead.

"Get 10 Zebra hoofs" Okay so yay, I'm not only a poacher now, but apparently it's a 10% drop rate? I can't justify that one away. That's one quest that needs a 400% drop rate, seriously.

Then again, the "Hearts" or "Brains" or other LIFE-DEPENDING ORGANS are probably the worst ones to not have a 100% drop rate.
____________________________
KUMQUATS
#32 Jul 11 2009 at 11:29 AM Rating: Excellent
*
192 posts
Karelyn wrote:
Naw. The 25% drop rate on Wolf Pelts is justifiable in if you are running around stabbing wolves with your sword, or throwing fireballs at them, it's reasonable to expect that maybe only 25% of them are actually usable after the wolf is dead.

"Get 10 Zebra hoofs" Okay so yay, I'm not only a poacher now, but apparently it's a 10% drop rate? I can't justify that one away. That's one quest that needs a 400% drop rate, seriously.

Then again, the "Hearts" or "Brains" or other LIFE-DEPENDING ORGANS are probably the worst ones to not have a 100% drop rate.


Zebras fire their hooves into the upper atmosphere as an autonomic reaction upon death 90% of the time. It's evolved as a mating ritual. Science, duh?

Now that you mention it, wouldn't it be fun flavor tidbit if you got less valuable "scorched" or "pierced" pelts depending on how you dispatched them? I mean, it'd only be a text prefix anyway...I guess.
____________________________
The Other Castle
#33 Jul 11 2009 at 11:38 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
469 posts
Quote:
If by "furthering an addiction medium", you mean "make people keep playing their game", then..... yes?

At the cost of game quality.

Quote:
And how is listening to a fanbase, considering what they want, and including the ideas that they feel would make a game better a bad thing? XI fans have been asking for new summons for how long now? That's a better policy?

Yes that's a better policy. You shouldn't make a new summon because your fans want a new summon, you should make one because you genuinely think it will make your game better, and make sense within the world you've created. That's the difference. And maybe a new summon would make sense within the world square created in FFXI, but the point is that it's their choice. Generally, fans do not understand game design, and the ideas fans come up with will hinder the game's quality more than it will help it.

Quote:
Yes, there are things we do and don't want taken from FFXI and WoW, but if you dwell too much on those games then the identity and quality of FFXIV could get a bit blurry behind them. Focus on FFXIV first, and then the ideas and where they come from. Not the other way around; say, shunning valid ideas from WoW because you don't like WoW as a game.

Fair enough.

Quote:
What fundamental core gameplay feature have they dropped due to the complaints of players? Maybe the PvP title system grind right before the release of TBC, but other than that, I can't think of any of their own ideas that they abandoned. I'm by no means an expert on changes that they've made though, so maybe there are others.

DKs, true and necessary gear progression, disparities between classes in PvP, viability of classes in PvE with relation to buffs. Class burst and survivability is balanced around what the community wants, not what makes sense or what is right.

But really, it's not so much the things they take out as the things they put in. People would complain that you had to PvE for gear to compete in PvP originally, and they castrated that progression with resilience. That kind of thing. The demand for higher burst damage to counter insurmountable heals in TBC is what led to the state of wow PvP today. However, in doing that, they also have made PvE encounters parallel PvP encounters, where bosses do ridiculous burst damage, but pathetic damage over time compared with the capabilities of the healers. In a way, it makes the game easy, in another way it makes it too hard. In reality, it makes it... "strategyless." That's not really a word, but you get the point. Strategy, mana conservation, and threat generation are now archaic mechanics. If you're a DPS, you don't ration your mana, you don't worry about thread. You go hog wild for the entire fight, because you can. If you're a healer, you never run out of mana. I play a mage, and my druid gives me his innervate because he simply doesn't need it. What this all comes down to is that wow lacks necessity for strategy at this point. Yes, you can still wipe on bosses, but not because you made an egregious mistake, it's generally because your healers or tank got slightly unlucky. I don't know what percentage of these changes were caused by blizzard listening to their fans, but it is a factor.

Quote:
Now that you mention it, wouldn't it be fun flavor tidbit if you got less valuable "scorched" or "pierced" pelts depending on how you dispatched them? I mean, it'd only be a text prefix anyway...I guess.

Well, isn't that kind of what greys are? I mean, you'll get "broken raptor horn" or something as a grey. My assumption is that these are blizzard's explanation for why you don't get 100% drop rates on things that should be 100% drop rates. I'm willing to grant them this, though. They didn't want to put in a 100% drop rate on everything, and I'm ok with that. It's not really realistic, but it doesn't need to be.

Edited, Jul 11th 2009 3:41pm by AntiMe
#34 Jul 11 2009 at 1:56 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
4,512 posts
AntiMe wrote:
DKs, true and necessary gear progression, disparities between classes in PvP, viability of classes in PvE with relation to buffs. Class burst and survivability is balanced around what the community wants, not what makes sense or what is right.


You need to expound on this. It looks like you're just making a list of things you didn't like and claiming that Blizz is catering to their players.

DKs for example - what about them caters to players? Are you angry about the nerfs that came about because they were beyond overpowered? Do you not like that they were powerful to begin with? In either case, what proof do you have other than "Blizz took my pony!!"?

AntiMe wrote:
However, in doing that, they also have made PvE encounters parallel PvP encounters, where bosses do ridiculous burst damage, but pathetic damage over time compared with the capabilities of the healers.


The ability to do a large amount of damage against a boss in one hit has absolutely nothing to do with why WoW bosses currently do insane amounts of damage. That problem started because of issues with avoidance being far too high.

AntiMe wrote:
Strategy, mana conservation, and threat generation are now archaic mechanics.


Statements like this confuse me.

Strategy is certainly important. Even entry-level LK raiding, despite how easy it may have been, still required a certain amount of strategy. Hard mode bosses in the second tier (Ulduar) require substantially more (Firefighter as an example for those who know what I'm talking about).

I somewhat doubt you're doing the hardest of the hard modes in appropriate item level gear if you think mana conservation isn't the issue. It's great that your Druid friend doesn't need his innervate - I don't see how that's any proof that he's an excellent healer and never has to use it, thus showing that mana conservation isn't important.

There's also a certain amount of mana conservation built into healing from the beginning, simply because most healers know that it's not worth wasting 400 mana to heal up that last 800 HP.

Threat is only a complete non-issue if you have a great tank.

AntiMe wrote:
I don't know what percentage of these changes were caused by blizzard listening to their fans, but it is a factor.


I don't understand why that's a bad thing. I'd rather have a game where the developers listen to their customers rather than one where they stand atop a high pedestal and pretty much tell you that everything is ok when it clearly isn't.

I'm also going to go out on a limb and assume that this fear of listening to the customers came with Ghostcrawler actively posting on the Blizz forums. I don't know how often you read what he posts, but he's constantly saying how they don't make changes simply because a large, angry mob says "DO THIS. NOW." They use the threads on the forums as a venue for discussion among the developers. Maybe they say "Well they have a point for why X is a bad thing, but their solution is terrible." GC is constantly saying that providing mathematical evidence that there's a problem is the way to go, not just anecdotal posts about SRS PROBLEMS that really aren't that bad in the first place.

There's players constantly complaining that the WoW devs don't listen because they didn't do exactly what the players wanted.

One of my favorite things about FFXI was the difficulty, especially by comparison to the other MMOs I've played. The reason I stopped playing wasn't because I didn't like the game - I loved it - but my computer just couldn't handle it. When I came back a couple years later, things were even more of a mess than they were when I left. I wanted to be a BLM, it had always been my favorite class to play. I wasn't able to be a BLM because by this point no one wanted them in parties anymore.

That should never happen in a game, and that is the one major success story of WoW IMO - particuarly with LK. You can be whatever you want to be at any point in the game and still be a viable addition to any group/party.
____________________________
Mazra wrote:
When you cast Moonfire on someone, it's not some Druid base on the moon launching a precision deathbeam across space to strike people
#35 Jul 11 2009 at 3:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
This is pretty late but...

Quote:
I want it to be
the very best
like no MMO ever was


To beta test is my real quest
To play it is my caaaaause


That is all.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#36 Jul 11 2009 at 4:55 PM Rating: Good
***
3,530 posts
AntiMe wrote:
Fireball looks exactly the same at level 80 as it did at level 1. I have effectively been casting the same spell for 80 levels... If you don't have a new spell effect on each rank, do not have a new rank. End of story. Of course, this assumes that spell ranks even need to exist, but I'm just saying, with the system blizzard created, all the spell rank changes only give the illusion of a landmark progression, but it actually doesn't happen.


So true! My wife and I were so disappointed by that (and many other) aspects - well said!
____________________________
"... he called to himself a wizard, named Gallery, hoping by this means to escape the paying of the fifteen hundred crowns..." (Machen 15)

"Thus opium is pleasing... on account of the agreeable delirium it produces." (Burke para.6)

"I could only read so much for this paper and the syphilis poem had to go."
#37 Jul 11 2009 at 5:11 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
469 posts
Quote:
DKs for example - what about them caters to players? Are you angry about the nerfs that came about because they were beyond overpowered? Do you not like that they were powerful to begin with? In either case, what proof do you have other than "Blizz took my pony!!"?

Sorry I meant "Dishonorable Kill" not "Death Knight." Should have clarified there. Nevertheless, I will elaborate.

Dishonorable kills - people whined about DKs for years, and then blizzard removed them. This would be fine, as DKs were always a double-edged sword. Removing them accomplished one thing: it increased griefing in towns. DKs were originally placed in the game to prevent high level players from killing low-level quest givers, and it worked pretty well. I can see the playerbase's point that DKs killed world pvp, but I see no more world PvP than I ever did when DKs were in place. I certainly see the removal of DKs as an action that would not have been taken without the whining of the fans, and something that was detrimental to the game as a whole.

"true and necessary gear progression" - I'm referring here to the complaint that "casuals need access to the same loot as the hardcore." Firstly, no they don't. Secondly, blizzard has implemented a system where casuals CAN get fine gear, but in doing so, they have balanced the difficulty level of every aspect of the game generally below where it should be. I don't mean in straight up endgame content, I'm talking about progression. If you're a new player, you don't run through the old instances, you skip straight to ulduar, and that's how I think so many high level noobs have been bred into the game. I should have been more clear when talking about the difficulty level. Ulduar itself is balanced at a fine difficulty level, especially considering hard modes (though I do think that the strategy is simplistic and it displays many mechanics that have been seen before a million times) but the fact that you can enter ulduar and be a contributor ten minutes after hitting 80 (exaggeration) is what annoys me.

"disparities between classes in PvP" - Mage and priest are getting mortal strike in order to counter the claim from those classes that healers were impossible to beat. With every patch, each class becomes homogenized further and further, rehashing the same overused mechanics to create cheap, quick patches for what is currently ailing the community.

"viability of classes in PvE with relation to buffs." - warlocks getting the 5% spell crit debuff, multiple overlapping attack or str/agi buffs. There was a time that you took a shaman because shaman gave great buffs that no one else could give. Nowadays, if you can't get a shaman, you can bring a frost DK for the same effect. Battle shout no longer stacks with might. This kind of thing. They buffed and nerfed classes to assuage the anger of their playerbase.

"Class burst and survivability is balanced around what the community wants, not what makes sense or what is right." - Take for example Arcane mage. PoM Pyro mages have always been capable of doing a few massive hits in a short timespan once a cooldown cycle. That was fine. But what happened was that the rest of the classes complained, and as a result, AP PoM got nerfed. I personally like the new AP PoM because I'm a raiding mage, but the point is still valid. They didn't do it because it makes sense with the class, they did it because people were whining. Or at least, that's what I think. Keep in mind, this is basically all conjecture. I have my suspicions, but no true hard proof. They could think all these changes are great and wonderful and perfect, but I honestly wouldn't believe that.

Quote:
I don't understand why that's a bad thing. I'd rather have a game where the developers listen to their customers rather than one where they stand atop a high pedestal and pretty much tell you that everything is ok when it clearly isn't.

Because it actually is ok. It's their game. Telling them it's not ok would be like calling up square and saying "Knights of the Round in FF7 is overpowered." It's not their job to cater the game to your whims, it should be their job to make their game great. That's my point. They should endeavor to make their game as good as they can make it, not do as much fanservice as they possibly can. Let me try another analogy, as some of my other examples are more situational. Think about family guy. They have their common, popular phrases used on that show. Peters laugh, "victory is mine," "giggity" etc. And the fans want to hear these phrases, because they're funny. But if family guy were to just have an entire episode of peter laughing, it would get old, and stupid. That's what blizzard is doing. They give their fans exactly what they want, and in doing so, they cheapen and degrade the experience of their game, reducing it to the point where it simply serves to perpetuate the addictions they have cultivated in their players. If they were making these changes because they thought they would make their game truly better, I'd praise them. But I don't believe that's what they're doing. I think they have come to the point of making decisions based on their fans' more reasonable (yet less consistent) desires. And a lot of people like that.

Ulduar too difficult? No worries, we'll nerf it next patch!

Engineering lacking usefulness? Here's an AH in dalaran, bombs that stun, better tinkers, and a portable banker, just like you asked for!

Spriest no good in PvP? Here's a disarm, an overused, frustrating mechanic that is a total stretch to connect logically to your class!

Spriest still no good in PvP? Why not give it a MS effect? ****, it worked for hunters. Nevermind the fact that now half the classes in the game will be applying a MS effect.

I don't really care, though. Blizzard has made its choices, and that's fine. I see many of them as mistakes, but that's their own deal. And ****, I still pay for the game (though I'll probably quit as soon as my time for this month runs out), and I think that's all they really want anymore, so good for them. I disagree with the way they run their game, but then, if they changed the way they run their game just to suit me, they would be doing the exact thing I'm complaining about. So I guess is a paradox, but I'm sick of it.

Edited, Jul 11th 2009 9:20pm by AntiMe
#38 Jul 11 2009 at 5:23 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,044 posts
CBD wrote:
AntiMe wrote:
I don't know what percentage of these changes were caused by blizzard listening to their fans, but it is a factor.
I don't understand why that's a bad thing.
There are only two truths to game development:

1) The best thing game developers can do is listen to the fans.
2) The worst thing game developers can do is listen to the fans.

This is because (1) the fans spend much more time playing the game than the developers and programmers, so they end up noticing the little things much more often. (2) The fans are also extremely biased towards their own goals that the things they want are unbalanced in one way or another, or are more harmful to the game in the long run.

1 is an absolute truth, while 2 is not absolutely true, as there are very few people who play the games and look at the whole image before making their cases for or against ideas. Problem there is, they are a very small minority, and their voices are lost in the sea of chaos that is 2.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#39 Jul 11 2009 at 6:05 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
4,512 posts
I'm going to do my best to keep my reply applicable to general game design so that this just doesn't become a post all about WoW. My goal with these posts hasn't been to try to defend WoW as the BEST GAEM EVAR, but rather correct inaccurate statements about it. Blind dislike is just as bad as fanboy-ism, and I don't want people to read something and accept it as truth.

It's important to remember that it is any company's goal to make more money through some manner. Pretending otherwise is futile. The way a gaming company can make more money is to make their customers happy while also keeping the game balanced.

AntiMe wrote:
I can see the playerbase's point that DKs killed world pvp, but I see no more world PvP than I ever did when DKs were in place.


I really don't know enough about DKs to discuss them, but if it was killing world PvP before, I don't really see how it was ever a bad thing. It seems to me (from what I can find on the subject), that the removal of DKs was more of a housekeeping issue frm the revamping of the honor system. There's really no point in keeping an unnecessary component of the game in place.

AntiMe wrote:
If you're a new player, you don't run through the old instances, you skip straight to ulduar, and that's how I think so many high level noobs have been bred into the game.


This statement is just grossly inaccurate. A fresh 80 cannot function adequately in an Ulduar group. I disagree with how they went about tuning Naxx, where a fresh 80 can really pull their own weight, but there is no way I can bring a new class up to 80 and pop right into Tier 8 or soon to be Tier 9 content.

I do feel that gear access in a game needs to strike a balance between FFXI and WoW. A person should be able to adequately gear themselves and continue playing at endgame without being forced into an endgame guild/LS or shelling out inordinate amounts of money. It should not be as easy as walking into entry level raids/NMs at level cap.

AntiMe wrote:
Mage and priest are getting mortal strike in order to counter the claim from those classes that healers were impossible to beat. With every patch, each class becomes homogenized further and further, rehashing the same overused mechanics to create cheap, quick patches for what is currently ailing the community.


You need to be considering the point of view of the developer more.

With the necessary change to resilience to counter burst mechanics, healers will be able to survive longer. One way to fix this is to nerf healing capacity - done. However, with this change, the ability to lower the amount of healing done will be significantly more important. A bad and lazy way to fix things would be to remove the ability entirely. It's already accounting for the representation of these classes that have it.

Mages and shadow priests already have low representation and need more utility in a PvP situation. The developers had a debuff that needed to be spread to more classes. This was the best possible solution to both problems without drastically altering balance.

AntiMe wrote:
They buffed and nerfed classes to assuage the anger of their playerbase.


No, it was related to a complete and total change in their game design with LK. It made no sense to the game developers to have a situation where two players of equal skill and gear could not perform on the same level or possibly even make it into a raid because one did not provide the necessary tools to help the raid. They were putting time and energy into developing classes and items on an endgame level for specs/classes that would never even see it.

AntiMe wrote:
I have my suspicions, but no true hard proof. They could think all these changes are great and wonderful and perfect, but I honestly wouldn't believe that.


See, but you're supporting your discussion in this very thread with your ideas that you admittedly state have no hard proof. They've spent a lot of time since LK release toning down excessive burst in a PvP situation. Arcane mages were able to put out too much damage in too short a time given character health pools, and something had to be done about it.

AntiMe wrote:
If they were making these changes because they thought they would make their game truly better, I'd praise them. But I don't believe that's what they're doing. I think they have come to the point of making decisions based on their fans' more reasonable (yet less consistent) desires. And a lot of people like that.


The two aren't completely separate though. You're operating under this assumption that for some reason most of the customer's ideas are flawed, most of them were not and have never been shared by the developers, and that the developers really are just catering to their customer's desires.

Have you ventured your way over to the official WoW forums recently? The number of complaints customers make that are shut down immediately vastly outnumber the amount of complaints that they make that "cause" a change in the next patch.

Same for the amount of ridiculous ideas spewed out by the users every day.

It's silly to say that Blizzard is catering to customer ideas and concerns when in reality their game development philosophy has changed over time, occasionally to match exactly what their customer wants.

AntiMe wrote:
Ulduar too difficult? No worries, we'll nerf it next patch!


Any good game designer has a goal for the number of people that they want to see the endgame content they release. The number of guilds that have defeated Yogg-Saron pales in comparion to the number of guilds that have cleared the siege, which is only a portion of the guilds that cleared some portion of T7. The number of guilds that have unlocked Algalon's room is absolutely nothing in comparion to even the number of guilds that have killed Yogg-Saron.

Ulduar is still plenty difficult. Their entire goal for LK was to enable more people to see the endgame raiding because they didn't see a point in investing the majority of their development time into something that very few people could see or defeat.

AntiMe wrote:
Engineering lacking usefulness? Here's an AH in dalaran, bombs that stun, better tinkers, and a portable banker, just like you asked for!


Why were the customer ideas bad in the first place? How do you know that they weren't ideas the developers were toying around with in the first place? Are you trying to instead make the argument that it was acceptable to have engineering continually nerfed from what they felt was a balanced point upon release, while the other tradeskills got constant additions and buffs?

AntiMe wrote:
I disagree with the way they run their game


I could understand this more if it wasn't just a bunch of hand waving and stating that things are so because they feel that way, but it's not very difficult to find quotes from one of their lead designers about how they refuse to change things just because the players want it, or how one person posting on a forum does not accurately represent consensus for a community, or how they only view player-provided data as an additional tool for the sheer insane amount of internal data they have.

A game developer needs to address the concerns of their playerbase. FFXI only occasionally did (or so it was when I played), and it was maddening from the beginning to have new content patch after new content patch with the same problems never being fixed. I never even once played DRG, but I sure as **** got annoyed when they were completely unable to get into parties and nothing was being changed about it.

Edited, Jul 11th 2009 10:09pm by CBD
____________________________
Mazra wrote:
When you cast Moonfire on someone, it's not some Druid base on the moon launching a precision deathbeam across space to strike people
#40 Jul 11 2009 at 6:13 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
4,512 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
There are only two truths to game development:

1) The best thing game developers can do is listen to the fans.
2) The worst thing game developers can do is listen to the fans.

This is because (1) the fans spend much more time playing the game than the developers and programmers, so they end up noticing the little things much more often. (2) The fans are also extremely biased towards their own goals that the things they want are unbalanced in one way or another, or are more harmful to the game in the long run.

1 is an absolute truth, while 2 is not absolutely true, as there are very few people who play the games and look at the whole image before making their cases for or against ideas. Problem there is, they are a very small minority, and their voices are lost in the sea of chaos that is 2.


So do you agree that it's not necessarily a bad thing for developers listen to their fans as a factor in game design?

I'm not really sure because you quoted me to reply to, but you don't really seem to be saying anything about why it's an absolutely horrible idea which is what I feel like AntiMe's opinion is.

I'd also say that there's a third truth, which is that no matter what you change or how you change it, it was done wrong.
____________________________
Mazra wrote:
When you cast Moonfire on someone, it's not some Druid base on the moon launching a precision deathbeam across space to strike people
#41 Jul 11 2009 at 8:00 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
469 posts
Quote:
I really don't know enough about DKs to discuss them, but if it was killing world PvP before, I don't really see how it was ever a bad thing. It seems to me (from what I can find on the subject), that the removal of DKs was more of a housekeeping issue frm the revamping of the honor system. There's really no point in keeping an unnecessary component of the game in place.

It's not so much that they removed it, it's why they removed it. They recognized a problem (griefing of low level players) and fixed it with DKs. However, that raised another problem. People who wanted to raid towns were no longer able to without destroying their PvP ranking. The DK system was not perfect, but the problem it fixed is still an important one, and they simply removed DKs after their fans whined about it enough. There are more elegant ways to fix the DK system. Or, my personal favorite, not fix it at all. There was never any objective need to change it, especially at a time when the whole PvP system was being revamped. I wouldn't have minded them changing DKs to something that promoted world PvP while discouraging dishonor via griefing. But they simply removed it, ignored the problem it was meant to fix, and I saw that as them simply doing a fanservice.

Quote:
This statement is just grossly inaccurate. A fresh 80 cannot function adequately in an Ulduar group. I disagree with how they went about tuning Naxx, where a fresh 80 can really pull their own weight, but there is no way I can bring a new class up to 80 and pop right into Tier 8 or soon to be Tier 9 content.

That was an exaggeration. I thought I wrote that in there, but I guess not, my bad. Anyways, after the patch, it sounds like we'll be getting marks of triumph from heroics, which will prove my point further.

Quote:
Mages and shadow priests already have low representation and need more utility in a PvP situation. The developers had a debuff that needed to be spread to more classes. This was the best possible solution to both problems without drastically altering balance.

The phrase "low representation" is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. The fact that not that many mages or spriests play arena is not a sign that the classes are balanced badly, even though that's what the community would have you believe. It's not a sign of anything, really. Think about BRD. BRD is a fairly under-represented job. That is, not that many people play bard. Should they buff bard because not that many people play it? I really don't think they should. BRD is one of the most powerful classes in FFXI. Mage, also, is quite a powerful class, but it requires a certain type of player, especially for arena, and most people end up preferring their juggernaut warrior or ret paladins for that purpose. The change was unnecessary. They should strive for every class being unique and fun to play, not for every class to be able to beat every other class in PvP.

Quote:
It made no sense to the game developers to have a situation where two players of equal skill and gear could not perform on the same level or possibly even make it into a raid because one did not provide the necessary tools to help the raid.

Well why not? What is the huge tragedy about one class/spec being more desirable in raids compared to another?

Quote:
See, but you're supporting your discussion in this very thread with your ideas that you admittedly state have no hard proof.

Well, what I'm trying to establish here is that the best way to develop an MMO is not to bend to the will of the players. Listen to players' concerns, sure. Glitches, whatever. That's all fine. But the fact that a player doesn't think some aspect of the game is tweaked right shouldn't be of much consequence to the developer.

Quote:
They've spent a lot of time since LK release toning down excessive burst in a PvP situation. Arcane mages were able to put out too much damage in too short a time given character health pools, and something had to be done about it.

I would have to agree. But then, my point of view is not specific to mages. Warriors, mages, paladins, hunters, even locks are putting out disproportionate amounts of burst compared to player health pools. Blizzard's rationale for this is to counter the disproportionate amount of healing that healers can do. But again, this is really off point. My opinion of the way the game should be run shouldn't be an issue to Blizzard. They're professional game developers and I'm not one.

Quote:
Any good game designer has a goal for the number of people that they want to see the endgame content they release.

I disagree. There is a ton of content in wow that people aren't experiencing, because they want to see ulduar, and the problem is: most of them aren't ready. But that doesn't mean that Blizzard should balance content around those players so that they can experience endgame.

Quote:
Ulduar is still plenty difficult. Their entire goal for LK was to enable more people to see the endgame raiding because they didn't see a point in investing the majority of their development time into something that very few people could see or defeat.

Oh I agree, but you must admit, Ulduar's original design was much harder.

Quote:
Why were the customer ideas bad in the first place?

They're not bad ideas, but they're not blizzard's ideas.

Quote:
How do you know that they weren't ideas the developers were toying around with in the first place?

They very well could be, which is why I say I don't have hard evidence. But some of the moves they make seem awfully coincidental (and in many cases, just lazy on the front of innovation).

Quote:
Are you trying to instead make the argument that it was acceptable to have engineering continually nerfed from what they felt was a balanced point upon release, while the other tradeskills got constant additions and buffs?

Yes that would be ok. They didn't actually do that, but that would have been ok, because it's their game. They can determine the value of engineering. I dropped alchemy for engineering in 2006 so I could make fireworks, and for no other reason. Maybe they value fireworks as much as I do, but the point is: it's their design, their call, their ideas, their decisions. If they happen to coincide with what my selfish wants are, cool for me, I guess. But frankly, their changes have coincided with too many people's selfish wants lately for me to not become suspicious of their process.

Quote:
I never even once played DRG, but I sure as **** got annoyed when they were completely unable to get into parties and nothing was being changed about it.

I remember those days, and back then, I never saw why DRG wasn't getting parties. They always seemed alright to me. Not amazing, but I wouldn't deny a DRG a spot in my party if I had a slot to fill. I think that was a prejudice within the community, not a problem with the game.

As a pretty good example, the RNG nerf is what I like to see. It became obvious to them that RNG was overpowering other jobs and dominating everything. I'm absolutely certain that RNGs would have been happy to go along, merrily destroying everything in their path in arrow burn parties and such. But they got nerfed, and SO hard too. It was a good change, though. It was a change that made sense. Well... some amount of sense. But they did it because they thought it would make their game more cohesive, and I applaud them for having the balls to do it. Blizzard could never do something like that.

Quote:
I'm not really sure because you quoted me to reply to, but you don't really seem to be saying anything about why it's an absolutely horrible idea which is what I feel like AntiMe's opinion is.

Let's see if I can be clearer about this, because my opinion isn't "listening to your fans is an absolutely horrible idea 100% of the time."

I think it's a bad idea when there's no logical rationale behind changes that the community suggests. But my definition of "logical rationale" is fairly small. Changes that the community wants generally fall into one of a few categories. This will not be a comprehensive list, but it might help illustrate my point.

1. Changes that make one class better or worse against another class in PvP
These types of changes are unnecessary. Almost always. Don't give warriors shattering throw, it doesn't make sense. It's the wrong class to give to, and it's not even necessary. Paladin's bubble is very powerful, yes, but they need it. Not every ability in the game needs a counter. Better way to balance paladin's bubble: "limits your movement speed to 100% while shielded." But again, it didn't need rebalancing.

2. Changes that make one class better or worse compared to another class in PvE
These changes are also generally unnecessary. It's like a little kid running to his mom and saying "mommy his ice cream cone is bigger than mine! Make him share!" It's an immature reaction, doesn't promote class uniqueness, and shouldn't merit attention.

3. Changes that in any way make two classes more similar in any way: I say almost always don't do it. Class homogenization is one of the things that irritates me the most about present day wow. If it were up to me, every class would have a different style, and each bring different, unique buffs and/or debuffs to situations. None of this non-stacking buffs BS, that's just one more thing that hinders immersion.

4. Cosmetic changes:
I have no problems with them putting some time into the new druid bear and cat forms. Cosmetic changes are generally fine by me.

5. Changes to the interface or implementations of new features. This is where listening to the community can be good:
Dressing room - great idea!
Voice chat - great idea! Nobody uses it, but they should, because it's actually great
Preview talent changes - great idea!
Dual spec - double edged sword, but worth looking into idea
Resizable quest objectives pane - great idea! A bit annoying in implementation, but still, good in principle

If the community came up with those ideas in 5, great. I'm glad they listened for those. But 1, 2, and especially 3 need to be handled very gingerly. 1, 2, and 3 are generally the ideas I've seen on the forums, and those are the areas that, honestly, should be mostly left alone. Class balance doesn't need to be set in stone or anything, but they're always tweaking everything, trying to get things perfect, when in reality, the imperfection is what makes the classes unique and fun. The problem with listening to players isn't that they have bad ideas, it's that the goals behind their ideas are different. They're not coming up with ideas to make classes more varied, interesting, and fun. They're coming up with ideas to make classes more fair compared to each other. And that's not the mindset that you need to have when trying to make a cohesive world.

Edited, Jul 12th 2009 12:09am by AntiMe
#42 Jul 12 2009 at 3:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
****
4,512 posts
AntiMe wrote:
But they simply removed it, ignored the problem it was meant to fix, and I saw that as them simply doing a fanservice.


You're ignoring the fact that there are a huge number of people out there that complain about griefing, and you don't see Blizz giving in to those complaints and reinstating DKs. Meanwhile, you're saying that they only removed them because of customer complaints. I hope you see how this makes absolutely no sense.

AntiMe wrote:
I thought I wrote that in there, but I guess not, my bad. Anyways, after the patch, it sounds like we'll be getting marks of triumph from heroics, which will prove my point further.


No, we're getting conquest emblems because they're releasing a new tier, not enough people are running heroics for new players to get geared, and it's becoming increasingly harder to gear a new character.

The number of triumph emblems given by the dungeon dailies is positively minuscule. Any non-Tier 9 raider will need to do an inordinate number of dailies if they want any good gear.

No matter how you look at this, there's still gear progression and a difficulty curve. You're resorting to excessively hyperbole to try to make a point.

AntiMe wrote:
The fact that not that many mages or spriests play arena is not a sign that the classes are balanced badly, even though that's what the community would have you believe.
...
They should strive for every class being unique and fun to play, not for every class to be able to beat every other class in PvP.
...
Well why not? What is the huge tragedy about one class/spec being more desirable in raids compared to another?


See, now we're getting into differences in design philosophy between you and Blizzard. Blizzard feels that classes with low representation should be given utility so that they are more popular in arena. Blizzard feels that not having too many hard counter specs is good for their game balance. Blizzard feels that one spec shouldn't be more desirable in raids over another spec. If you disagree, that's fine. That's not a reason to start claiming they're catering to their customer base.

AntiMe wrote:
But the fact that a player doesn't think some aspect of the game is tweaked right shouldn't be of much consequence to the developer.


It isn't of much consequence to Blizzard, and you're again relying on a lot of anecdotal evidence to say that it's of consequence. There's many, many quotes out there from the lead developer that communicates on the O-Boards saying that they use the forums as a tool, not a defining force.

AntiMe wrote:
Blizzard's rationale for this is to counter the disproportionate amount of healing that healers can do.


No, they drastically changed the benefit of a mostly PvP stat, and in fear that it would make healers invincible because they were already extremely powerful before this buff, they nerfed the ability to heal.

I understand this is way off topic, but it's pretty much one of the biggest problems with discussion between WoW and FFXI players, and it has been even since I was on the other side of the fence and saying WoW was lame cause it was "EZ-mode." For some bizarre reason, people on both sides continually feel the need to make opinions about a game without facts backing it up, or flat out incorrect facts.

AntiMe wrote:
I disagree.


You disagree that Blizzard wants a certain number of people to see their end-game content?

I don't really know what to tell you here. You're just being silly now.

AntiMe wrote:
They're not bad ideas, but they're not blizzard's ideas.


A statement you have zero proof for. A statement that's preposterous because you're trying to act as those customer feedback is a bad thing solely because it isn't developer feedback.

Most developers play their own games to get the customer's PoV for a reason.

AntiMe wrote:
Yes that would be ok.


You're missing the point. Blizzard wants their professions to be balanced and fun. Blizzard felt that Engineering was becoming too necessary in a certain aspect of their game (PvP), which they didn't want. Blizzard continually nerfed Engineering and didn't provide it with a whole lot of new content while essentially every other profession got new content. Blizzard felt like this was a problem. Blizzard came up with ideas to fix this problem. Blizzard implemented those ideas in patch 3.2.

It seems like good game design to me.

AntiMe wrote:
I think that was a prejudice within the community, not a problem with the game.


Prejudices evolve for a reason. FFXI devs finally switching some aspects of DRG up is the perfect example of why game developers need to listen to the community. Maybe everything was fine and dandy with the numbers, but if one of your classes that you invested a ton of development time into is barely getting played, something is wrong.

AntiMe wrote:
Blizzard could never do something like that.


Blizzard is constantly making changes that the community doesn't want. Blizzard is constantly making changes that may be very unpopular because they feel it's better for the game. At this point you're pretending they don't simply because you want to believe that's the case.

AntiMe wrote:
but my definition of "logical rationale" is fairly small.


That's a problem, and I'm surprised that you've managed to be happy with any one MMO for any period of time.

AntiMe wrote:
1. Changes that make one class better or worse against another class in PvP
These types of changes are unnecessary. Almost always.
...
2. Changes that make one class better or worse compared to another class in PvE
These changes are also generally unnecessary.


These are strange to me. You're saying you don't want PvP or PvE to be balanced. What? I never want to play a game with a PvP component where I have to run away immediately when I see a certain class. I never want to have to play a game where I can't experience content with the class I love simply because it's been developed to be entirely useless. That's just bad design.

AntiMe wrote:
If it were up to me, every class would have a different style, and each bring different, unique buffs and/or debuffs to situations. None of this non-stacking buffs BS, that's just one more thing that hinders immersion.


That's a difference between what your game design philosophy would be, and what Blizzard's philosophy is. They don't want to invest time into classes and specs no one will play. You would. I don't understand why you would, but whatever.

That being said, class homogenization is one of their concerns. They may have taken it too far for you, but they haven't for me and many other players. Playing my mage feels drastically different from playing my druid which feels drastically different from playing my hunter, and there's still other classes I want to level just because I want to experience their unique playstyle.

[quote=AntiMe] the imperfection is what makes the classes unique and fun. [/quote]

For you. It sounds more and more like your problem isn't that Blizzard takes into account customer feedback, but that they make changes you don't like and you use customer feedback as a scapegoat for your discontent.

I would never find a game fun where I have to put every last effort into performing at my max, and still not even compare to the sheer efficiency of the moron who's doubling my DPS or healing capacity in a raid while just pushing several buttons, and they only play that class because they read it was OP on the forums.

FFXI used to be far more like that and it took them far too long to fix it IMO. Blizzard has swung just too far to the other side for my taste, but they've begun to actually fix it, and I've never seen player skill and knowledge be such a huge factor in performance before in the games I've played. I want to be rewarded for doing my research and doing things right, not for spending two weeks leveling an alt so I can faceroll through the game and act like it's some major accomplishment.

Edited, Jul 12th 2009 7:55pm by CBD
____________________________
Mazra wrote:
When you cast Moonfire on someone, it's not some Druid base on the moon launching a precision deathbeam across space to strike people
#43 Jul 12 2009 at 4:36 PM Rating: Good
7 posts
Quote:
FFXI has an amazing social system, where you can actually see a person walk by you... and like omg remember them when you see them again.


I like how throughout this whole thread this premise is argued as if it's a game feature. I'd like to remind the good people of this forum that this is, in fact, a feature of the human brain that complexly varies from person to person. Please see for referance: http://www.brainhealthandpuzzles.com/images/labeled_diagram_human_brain.jpg
#44 Jul 12 2009 at 5:44 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
469 posts
Quote:
You're ignoring the fact that there are a huge number of people out there that complain about griefing, and you don't see Blizz giving in to those complaints and reinstating DKs. Meanwhile, you're saying that they only removed them because of customer complaints. I hope you see how this makes absolutely no sense.

You're taking everything I say in absolutes. You're going to need to stop that. Additionally: a LOT more people complained about DKs than they do about griefing now.

Quote:
You disagree that Blizzard wants a certain number of people to see their end-game content?

You started the sentence with "any good game designer..." That's what I was disagreeing with.

To be clear, I mostly disagree because "any good game designer" isn't entirely accurate. It's not bad if a large percentage of your playerbase sees endgame content, but in a game like wow, it's different. It's not really bad for them to want more people to see endgame, but it's not a universal given that it's good.

Quote:
For you. It sounds more and more like your problem isn't that Blizzard takes into account customer feedback, but that they make changes you don't like and you use customer feedback as a scapegoat for your discontent.

Did you read what I said about the changes they made being too coincidental? I think it was a couple posts ago. Don't ignore parts of my points in order to try and make me look foolish.

Quote:
That being said, class homogenization is one of their concerns. They may have taken it too far for you, but they haven't for me and many other players. Playing my mage feels drastically different from playing my druid which feels drastically different from playing my hunter, and there's still other classes I want to level just because I want to experience their unique playstyle.

Yeah I read that homogenization is a concern of theirs, also. Somewhere in the pally review. But that statement just seems at odds with some of the decisions they've made over the years. I mean, obviously, when I say "the classes are similar" I'm talking about little things, so far, but still. If homogenization is something they're truly trying to avoid, some of their decisions make me scratch my head.

Quote:
Blizzard feels that classes with low representation should be given utility so that they are more popular in arena. ... Blizzard feels that one spec shouldn't be more desirable in raids over another spec. If you disagree, that's fine. That's not a reason to start claiming they're catering to their customer base.

But see, it's exactly my point. The fact that their design is influenced by the popularity of a spec (especially in arena) is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about.

Quote:
Maybe everything was fine and dandy with the numbers, but if one of your classes that you invested a ton of development time into is barely getting played, something is wrong.

That's partly what I'm arguing against here. I don't think this statement is true. Make your class awesome the way you think is awesome, not the way you think lots of people will play it. Put time into making it as good as you can, and let the game roll as it wants to.

Quote:
Blizzard is constantly making changes that the community doesn't want. Blizzard is constantly making changes that may be very unpopular because they feel it's better for the game. At this point you're pretending they don't simply because you want to believe that's the case.

No. I stand by what I said before. The depth of the RNG nerf in FFXI was vast. Blizzard's unpopular decisions involve miniscule changes. Four seconds off HoF, counterspell on the GCD. The FFXI RNG nerf would be the equivalent of "Paladin magical shields have been removed from the game." Only, it made more sense from a design standpoint than that would. Blizzard stated that they thought 10 seconds on HoF was still overpowered. They just didn't have the balls to nerf it to a point where they thought it was truly balanced, because they knew their players would have a little hissy fit.

Quote:
These are strange to me. You're saying you don't want PvP or PvE to be balanced. What?

Change the sentence a little. I don't want PvP or PvE to be balanced based on the popularity of mechanics.

Quote:
That's a difference between what your game design philosophy would be, and what Blizzard's philosophy is. They don't want to invest time into classes and specs no one will play. You would. I don't understand why you would, but whatever.

I would invest time into classes that not many people would play because they would be awesome. Wii Sports sold 45 million copies, and Ico sold .6 million copies. Maid in Manhattan was once the #1 movie in america. Aggregate opinion is not a good indicator of quality.

Edited, Jul 12th 2009 9:47pm by AntiMe
#45 Jul 12 2009 at 11:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
****
4,512 posts
AntiMe wrote:
You're taking everything I say in absolutes. You're going to need to stop that. Additionally: a LOT more people complained about DKs than they do about griefing now.


You've been supporting your discussion with a lot of conjecture and and exaggeration. You'll have to excuse me for assuming that you continue it throughout the majority of your post.

AntiMe wrote:
To be clear, I mostly disagree because "any good game designer" isn't entirely accurate. It's not bad if a large percentage of your playerbase sees endgame content, but in a game like wow, it's different. It's not really bad for them to want more people to see endgame, but it's not a universal given that it's good.


I didn't say any good game designer has a goal for a high portion of their player base to see the endgame. I said they have goals for how many people see end game period.

The FFXI devs created Absolute Virtue to be a cockblock. That's why he hasn't been nerfed. Promyvion bosses weren't created to be cockblocks, and not enough people were able to defeat them. That's why they were nerfed.

AntiMe wrote:
Did you read what I said about the changes they made being too coincidental? I think it was a couple posts ago. Don't ignore parts of my points in order to try and make me look foolish.


I'm not trying to make you look foolish, and I did read what you wrote.

I don't really know how to explain how silly it is to say it's no coincidence. You're acting as though anything the players feel is wrong is automatically perfectly fine, and should Blizzard agree it's wrong they're catering to their customers.

AntiMe wrote:
If homogenization is something they're truly trying to avoid, some of their decisions make me scratch my head.


Granting two new classes an ability that another two (IIRC) classes already had, an ability that needed to be spread at that, is hardly rampant homogenization or anything to be concerned about.

AntiMe wrote:
But see, it's exactly my point. The fact that their design is influenced by the popularity of a spec (especially in arena) is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about.


It's a tool for PvP balancing. This class is underrepresented. Why? Because it doesn't bring the PvP utility needed. What can we do to fix this? We have a debuff we need to give to other people.

They aren't buffing feral druids to the extreme simple because they're underrepresented. You can't ignore the possibility of a problem just because class representation was your first clue.

AntiMe wrote:
Make your class awesome the way you think is awesome, not the way you think lots of people will play it. Put time into making it as good as you can, and let the game roll as it wants to.


The way they think is awesome is to have people playing the class they want, not the class that will bring the best buffs.

AntiMe wrote:
The depth of the RNG nerf in FFXI was vast. Blizzard's unpopular decisions involve miniscule changes.
...
They just didn't have the balls to nerf it to a point where they thought it was truly balanced,


This isn't proof of anything other than Blizzard hasn't made such drastic errors in their balancing to have to nerf a class into the ground like FFXI did.

Who are you to judge what is truly balanced to them? Oh, right, an unhappy customer who wants the company to listen to them. Interesting.

AntiMe wrote:
I would invest time into classes that not many people would play because they would be awesome.


That's you and by far not the majority of the players, and certainly not what the Blizzard devs want.

AntiMe wrote:
Aggregate opinion is not a good indicator of quality.


You're trying to compare things that are popular for a short amount of time or have a one-buy deal to a game that has managed to hold a increasingly vast number of subscribers over a very long period of time.

Edited, Jul 13th 2009 3:07am by CBD
____________________________
Mazra wrote:
When you cast Moonfire on someone, it's not some Druid base on the moon launching a precision deathbeam across space to strike people
#46 Jul 13 2009 at 10:27 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
469 posts
Quote:
Who are you to judge what is truly balanced to them? Oh, right, an unhappy customer who wants the company to listen to them. Interesting.

No need to get all snippy. All I've done is express my opinion.

Anyways this argument isn't really suppose to be about blizzard. I don't care about blizzard. Not at all. They have their system with wow, and it works for them. Whether they're catering to their players too much or not, their system for making changes in their game is pretty much set at this point. They're not going to change it, and I don't particularly want them to change it, or care if they do. This was originally about FFXIV, and if they should develop their game similarly to warcraft. My thought is that warcraft has gathered some deep errors in design philosophy, if they didn't have them to begin with, one of which is the tendency to make design decisions based on popular opinion. I believe that designing a game based around popular opinion leads to design choices that degrade quality, and that's why I think Blizzard does some things wrong.

Not from an economic standpoint, oh no. If you want to make money, you cater to the masses. End of story. That may be what Square is trying to do, but my hope is that they're just trying to make their game good, and I think in order to do that, they need to be very careful when changing their game based on opinions of their fans.

Quote:
You're trying to compare things that are popular for a short amount of time or have a one-buy deal to a game that has managed to hold a increasingly vast number of subscribers over a very long period of time.

I was using an analogy to support my point. I do that a lot. If everyone gauged aggregate opinion in order to see what steps they should take in game design, they would think that it's a great idea to make games more like Wii Sports, and less like Ico. Sadly, that is actually what is happening in the gaming industry, but I'm not here to talk about that.

Quote:
I didn't say any good game designer has a goal for a high portion of their player base to see the endgame. I said they have goals for how many people see end game period.

Ohhhh, I actually did misread that. Like, for real. Yeah, that's fair.

Quote:
You're acting as though anything the players feel is wrong is automatically perfectly fine, and should Blizzard agree it's wrong they're catering to their customers.

Well, if this is actually what is happening, I'm wrong. They aren't catering to their customers, they're just not attempting to find innovative solutions to the problems they find. But again, I don't believe this is what actually happens.

Quote:
Granting two new classes an ability that another two (IIRC) classes already had, an ability that needed to be spread at that, is hardly rampant homogenization or anything to be concerned about.

Three classes had it, but your point is still valid. There are other examples, though. But there are other things, as well. Proliferation of the "Replenishment" buff is a fairly good example. Originally, the only true good mana battery was shadow priest, but other class specs have since been brought to give the same kind of mana regen. Paladin, lock, mage, priest, and hunter now all give replenishment. And you'll say "yeah but it fit in with their design of lich king." Which is true. My reply to that is that they can't have it both ways. If they want to avoid homogenization, giving replenishment to half the classes in the game doesn't really coincide with that goal. I'm not really sure how this relates to them catering to their players, because nobody asked for replenishment, but I guess we partly got onto this topic.
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 25 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (25)