Forum Settings
       
1 2 Next »
This Forum is Read Only

new sp obtain system and your expectationFollow

#52 Nov 24 2010 at 11:28 PM Rating: Decent
*****
11,576 posts
tylerbee wrote:
It holds plenty of water. If you'd played EQ, FFXI


I did play FFXI. For three years. So start over without the assumption. If all you've got as the foundation for your opinion is assumption, don't even bother.

Edit: Actually, it's not even assumption that undermines your opinion. It's ignorance:

Quote:
I believe a true MMO involves heavy focus on grouping and I believe that if you don't enjoy that then MMOs aren't the genre for you, maybe something like WoW would be more suited (a solo game, not a true MMO).


Ignorance. Pure ignorance. You have no bloody clue what you're talking about. WoW end-game is 90% group oriented. Arena is group oriented. Heroic dungeons are group oriented. Raiding is group oriented. The only activities you've got for solo players at the level cap are rep grinds. And all the way through from level 1 to the cap are dungeons that are group oriented and PvP instances that are group oriented. If you want to group with friends, family, or strangers while leveling, you can do that. I know a lot of people who did exactly that. They'd group up and knock out quests together just for sh*ts and giggles. There was nothing stopping them from doing so. And if they wanted to just plug away solo, they could do that too.

But if you'd been around as long as I have and had a chance to experience this for yourself in order to form a clue, you wouldn't be spouting off as you are.

I don't mind opinions, but I @#%^ing hate ignorance, so go find a clue before you come back with your hippy, "this is just my opinion" diatribe.


Edited, Nov 24th 2010 9:38pm by Aurelius
#53 Nov 24 2010 at 11:53 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
322 posts
Aurelius wrote:
tylerbee wrote:
It holds plenty of water. If you'd played EQ, FFXI


I did play FFXI. For three years. So start over without the assumption. If all you've got as the foundation for your opinion is assumption, don't even bother.

Edit: Actually, it's not even assumption that undermines your opinion. It's ignorance:

Quote:
I believe a true MMO involves heavy focus on grouping and I believe that if you don't enjoy that then MMOs aren't the genre for you, maybe something like WoW would be more suited (a solo game, not a true MMO).


Ignorance. Pure ignorance. You have no bloody clue what you're talking about. WoW end-game is 90% group oriented. Arena is group oriented. Heroic dungeons are group oriented. Raiding is group oriented. The only activities you've got for solo players at the level cap are rep grinds. And all the way through from level 1 to the cap are dungeons that are group oriented and PvP instances that are group oriented. If you want to group with friends, family, or strangers while leveling, you can do that. I know a lot of people who did exactly that. They'd group up and knock out quests together just for sh*ts and giggles. There was nothing stopping them from doing so. And if they wanted to just plug away solo, they could do that too.

But if you'd been around as long as I have and had a chance to experience this for yourself in order to form a clue, you wouldn't be spouting off as you are.

I don't mind opinions, but I @#%^ing hate ignorance, so go find a clue before you come back with your hippy, "this is just my opinion" diatribe.

Edited, Nov 24th 2010 9:38pm by Aurelius


I'm sorry, I don't have time to argue with snarky kids

Read over my post a few more times and you might begin to understand

Edited, Nov 25th 2010 12:54am by tylerbee
____________________________


#54 Nov 25 2010 at 3:27 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,120 posts
Sorry tylerbee, but you seem to want your "opinion" to be more of a rule that decides how people play rather than just an opinion. That's where I, and I think quite a few others, disagree with you. Despite some decent tip-toeing, I still read "I want forced group play and those who don't should GTFO" out of that.

What attracted me, and lots of others, to XIV was that they were trying new things. I think what most people want is something that makes the majority happy without it hurting the way they like to play. I get it if that's a concern for you, making solo play more viable = less people wanting to group. But would you rather group up with other like-minded people who love to grind or end up with someone like me stuck in your party ******** about it because it's forced on me?Smiley: grin

I'll do some Smiley: deadhorse here, but I loved Campaign in XI. To me that brought the solo/group aspects closer together in a friendlier, and definitely funner way. I could do it sporadically on my own time, and still meet some interesting people along the way. I know a lot of people agree on loving Campaign, but we don't say "Campaign or GTFO".

Giving us multiple ways of leveling is a good thing for all. People can do what they like, when they like...
____________________________

#55 Nov 25 2010 at 4:59 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
322 posts
TwistedOwl wrote:
Sorry tylerbee, but you seem to want your "opinion" to be more of a rule that decides how people play rather than just an opinion. That's where I, and I think quite a few others, disagree with you. Despite some decent tip-toeing, I still read "I want forced group play and those who don't should GTFO" out of that.


I never said people couldn't disagree, as I have stated numerous times it is just my opinion. I'm an old school MMO player and I believe people should be rewarded for grouping over solo'ing. That's all there is to it, people should have the option to solo but grouping should be far more attractive in terms of rewards - BOLD IN MY OPINION BOLD.

TwistedOwl wrote:
What attracted me, and lots of others, to XIV was that they were trying new things. I think what most people want is something that makes the majority happy without it hurting the way they like to play. I get it if that's a concern for you, making solo play more viable = less people wanting to group. But would you rather group up with other like-minded people who love to grind or end up with someone like me stuck in your party ******** about it because it's forced on me?Smiley: grin


Yeah see, we disagree again here. I don't want the majority to enjoy it. I want it to be niche, like MMOs used to be. I don't want it to become a flavor of the month MMO. This game over all others has reminded me of my old school MMO days the best when I was hanging in EQ or FFXI when it was first released and the MMO community was small, friendly, polite and everyone was interested in exploring and interacting together instead of chasing levels. If they start to change it up and cater to the majority then it'll lose that sparkle and become like WoW, something that just doesn't feel like a "real" mmo to me anymore. Regarding the group question, it doesn't really apply. I have nothing against solo'ing if it isn't as efficient as grouping, but when you start making solo'ing as efficient as grouping and eliminating the need for group play that is when a problem arises.

TwistedOwl wrote:
I'll do some Smiley: deadhorse here, but I loved Campaign in XI. To me that brought the solo/group aspects closer together in a friendlier, and definitely funner way. I could do it sporadically on my own time, and still meet some interesting people along the way. I know a lot of people agree on loving Campaign, but we don't say "Campaign or GTFO".

Giving us multiple ways of leveling is a good thing for all. People can do what they like, when they like...


Optional storyline quests to fill in gaps are fantastic, especially when they can be done in groups. The ability to do them to cap? Nuh uh. Community killing and antisocial.

I know if you let people "do what they like when they like" it pleases the majority. I'm a part of the minority who is against it because then you get a game like WoW. Everyone solo quests to cap, noone speaks in "insta-dungeons", everything is so streamlined it loses the community feel that makes MMOs so great - in my opinion.
____________________________


#56 Nov 25 2010 at 5:04 AM Rating: Good
***
3,416 posts
Quote:
I don't really care what you think is or isn't possible.


My opinion doesn't really matter, but it is not as simple as you make it look like.

Quote:
If everyone wants to group so badly, why does the developer need to tune the game to make solo play tedious, painful, and inordinately slow in terms of progression?


Because the two aren't equal. Grouping comes with it's own downsides that do not exist when soloing, and the mechanics need to encourage people to get over these downsides by making grouping The better playstyle.
____________________________
SE:
Quote:
We really want to compete against World of Warcraft and for example the new Star Wars MMO.

#57 Nov 25 2010 at 5:12 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
2,153 posts
FFXIV solo or casual friendly?

Solo: only for crafters and DoL.

Casual: the LulZ.

Unless you are happy lurking around at 1-digit-levels for a month or two, of course.
#58 Nov 25 2010 at 5:51 AM Rating: Good
***
2,120 posts
tylerbee wrote:
TwistedOwl wrote:
Sorry tylerbee, but you seem to want your "opinion" to be more of a rule that decides how people play rather than just an opinion. That's where I, and I think quite a few others, disagree with you. Despite some decent tip-toeing, I still read "I want forced group play and those who don't should GTFO" out of that.


I never said people couldn't disagree, as I have stated numerous times it is just my opinion. I'm an old school MMO player and I believe people should be rewarded for grouping over solo'ing. That's all there is to it, people should have the option to solo but grouping should be far more attractive in terms of rewards - BOLD IN MY OPINION BOLD.

TwistedOwl wrote:
What attracted me, and lots of others, to XIV was that they were trying new things. I think what most people want is something that makes the majority happy without it hurting the way they like to play. I get it if that's a concern for you, making solo play more viable = less people wanting to group. But would you rather group up with other like-minded people who love to grind or end up with someone like me stuck in your party ******** about it because it's forced on me?Smiley: grin


Yeah see, we disagree again here. I don't want the majority to enjoy it. I want it to be niche, like MMOs used to be. I don't want it to become a flavor of the month MMO. This game over all others has reminded me of my old school MMO days the best when I was hanging in EQ or FFXI when it was first released and the MMO community was small, friendly, polite and everyone was interested in exploring and interacting together instead of chasing levels. If they start to change it up and cater to the majority then it'll lose that sparkle and become like WoW, something that just doesn't feel like a "real" mmo to me anymore. Regarding the group question, it doesn't really apply. I have nothing against solo'ing if it isn't as efficient as grouping, but when you start making solo'ing as efficient as grouping and eliminating the need for group play that is when a problem arises.

TwistedOwl wrote:
I'll do some Smiley: deadhorse here, but I loved Campaign in XI. To me that brought the solo/group aspects closer together in a friendlier, and definitely funner way. I could do it sporadically on my own time, and still meet some interesting people along the way. I know a lot of people agree on loving Campaign, but we don't say "Campaign or GTFO".

Giving us multiple ways of leveling is a good thing for all. People can do what they like, when they like...


Optional storyline quests to fill in gaps are fantastic, especially when they can be done in groups. The ability to do them to cap? Nuh uh. Community killing and antisocial.

I know if you let people "do what they like when they like" it pleases the majority. I'm a part of the minority who is against it because then you get a game like WoW. Everyone solo quests to cap, noone speaks in "insta-dungeons", everything is so streamlined it loses the community feel that makes MMOs so great - in my opinion.


This discussion pretty much brings to mind a question I've been asking myself since beta. Would SE's efforts to please everyone backfire and turn more people off instead? I think this and upcoming updates are crucial in determining just where the game's headed. You obviously have a strong opinion on this particular part of it and how it affects your enjoyment of the game. And that's cool. For me it's more about future content and how insultingly easy the current content is that's a major concern, but that's for another discussion. Anyway, you have a lot of varying opinions all expecting the game to be the way they like it. Hopefully they can find some balance that makes enough people happy. Like you say, them going too far in the wrong(from your opinion) direction could chase you off. Others may feel the same about their opinion on the matter. Doesn't do anyone good if they get their way, but are left alone with no one to play with...



Edited, Nov 25th 2010 7:02am by TwistedOwl
____________________________

#59 Nov 25 2010 at 6:04 AM Rating: Decent
**
821 posts
For me MMOs are completely about building up communities and bonds with other ppl. Getting together whenever something fun comes around and experience it together.

In the end the MOST fun I ever had in MMOs are the stuff I experienced together with others, not solo.
Just imagine the FFXIV Main Storyline involves some group fights so far...wouldn't it be dozen times better then running around solo?
That was what made CoP the best expansion ever. It was heavily group focused and challenging. 2 things I look for the most in MMOs.

And please stop arguing about WoW...its just BS...this is not WoW and it certainly doesn't want to be WoW.

@Aurelius: If you played WoW from vanilla to now...you would know that WoW in vanilla was heavily more group focused then it is now! You even had to form a group with Tank+Healer to farm buffood...and if you played WoW before WotLK, you should know that WoW was group oriented outside of endgame/arena and such as well. The whole "casual solo" **** was which destroyed WoW for me in WotLK. In WoW you were never forced to build any bonds with anyone if you didn't want to. Which is just stupid...its an MMO...you should have to rely on others to progress in any way. If you can achieve 80% of stuff solo/ignoring others...its just dumb IMO. You can put yourself in the dungeon/raidfinder...get autogrouped and never have to say one **** word. People won't mind anything, as long as the boss dies...
#60 Nov 25 2010 at 6:06 AM Rating: Excellent
*
216 posts
tylerbee wrote:
I don't want the majority to enjoy it. I want it to be niche, like MMOs used to be. I don't want it to become a flavor of the month MMO. This game over all others has reminded me of my old school MMO days the best when I was hanging in EQ or FFXI when it was first released and the MMO community was small, friendly, polite and everyone was interested in exploring and interacting together instead of chasing levels.
I had very different experiences back when I played EQ and FFXI at their respective launches. Virtually all the players I interacted with were excited about having a new game world, but first and foremost their focus was raising their level as fast as possible.

In EQ they wanted to group and camp the orc camp in East Commonlands. Group and camp the dervish in North Ro. Go and camp for crocodiles in the Oasis. Go and camp.... etc.

It was the same in FFXI. Group up and camp rarabs, or group and camp those giraffe things (name slips my memory), group and camp goblins, or fish, or crabs, etc etc.

Notice a trend? Sitting in one spot and killing mobs as they spawn or are pulled to the group is not exploring, and in my opinion it is not fun. As with most MMO's, I don't recall players being chatty in those groups, because they weren't there to socialize. They were there to get XP. As soon as XP would slip, players would abandon groups for another one.

And not to nitpick, but back in the day Everquest was the flavor of the month MMO. It was the largest of the English-speaking MMO's for quite a while, and was pretty much the WoW of it's day. Lineage 1 was the only other MMO that matched (and exceeded, I believe) its subscription numbers back in it's "glory days", but the majority of it's subscriptions were overseas.

As someone who started played MMO's before "Brad's Vision" and Everquest were even first publicly discussed, that pre-Everquest time is what I'm pining for. Back before Everquest shifted the MMO genre towards the forced-party equipment-centric grind-to-endgame job that the genre became.

In some ways FFXIV reminds me of the old Ultima Online days, before EQ's influence on MMO's. Not so much in the actual gameplay, but in the freedom given to the player. It's about creating an online world, rather than an online leveling gauntlet. Back over a dozen years ago we were already smiths sitting around town making weapons and armor, which we would then sell on our private merchants. Or miners chipping away at mountainsides, leading our packhorses back to town as they were filled to the max with raw ore. Or tailors making outfits and dyeing them in our guild colors. Or sailing around the ocean on our personal boats, fishing or exploring isolated islands.

That is what MMO's are about. They aren't about levels. They aren't about forced grouping. They're about being able to log into an online gameworld that is populated by hundreds or thousands of other players, and feeling like your character belongs there. The games that focus on grinds make you feel like you're a tourist, and that your character doesn't actually belong there. It's just visiting.

Something a lot of people may not realize is that Ultima Online had no quests. You couldn't even form groups, since there was no group system. It had no levels, but instead a skill system where you would get better at skills by using them. You could raise your skill to 100.0 on your own rather easily and quickly, but because the "grind" wasn't the focus of the game, that was irrelevant. You could also kill mobs on your own, but that was also irrelevant, because it was rare to see anyone adventuring alone. This was partly because of the dangers of other players picking you off if you're alone, but also because it was fun to play with others. You weren't forced to, you wanted to.

That's what FFXIV needs. It doesn't need to militantly dictate how players should play the game. It should make all options viable and enjoyable, then leave it up to the player to decide how they want to approach it. Whether you level up faster solo or in a group shouldn't even factor into the equation. What should matter is are the players have fun?

You say you want to recapture that feeling where players were interested in exploring and interacting together rather than chasing levels, but the whole time you have been arguing about exactly that. Players can already group up to explore and interact, but the concern that you've expressed time and time again is that solo players shouldn't level faster than grouped players. It almost seems like you're being your own worst enemy by arguing for exactly what you don't think players should be focused on.
#61 Nov 25 2010 at 6:36 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,416 posts
Quote:
That is what MMO's are about. They aren't about levels. They aren't about forced grouping. They're about being able to log into an online gameworld that is populated by hundreds or thousands of other players, and feeling like your character belongs there.


Actually, MMO's are games, first of all. And games need developer made content. Games need proper game mechanics. Games need to feel like games, not 3D chat rooms. MMO's are 'less' games than any other genre, and more of a 3D chat rooms/worlds, but that doesn't mean the game part is not just as important as before. The chat room can make up for subpar game mechanics, but it won't replace them.

You have a very romantic point of view about the genre, but the reality is not as pretty as you paint it.

You say abstract things like

Quote:
What should matter is are the players have fun?


but offer no solution or practical approach as to how this can be achieved. The games don't just suddenly "become fun".

You talk about the game militantly dictating how it should be played and consider that a negative aspect, but that is what games are all about. The limitations developers impose on us while making the game itself solid. To control the development and point it to the right direction. This is not a bad thing, and it exists in every game out there, and always will. The game itself will become better that way, because the companies making them are working with limited resources, limited manpower and limited time. No company exists that can make a game without limitations, because games need a focus, and everything outside of that focus needs to be restricted- due to limitations on the company's end, financial, creative, or both.

Edited, Nov 25th 2010 3:38pm by Hyanmen
____________________________
SE:
Quote:
We really want to compete against World of Warcraft and for example the new Star Wars MMO.

#62 Nov 25 2010 at 6:59 AM Rating: Excellent
*
216 posts
Hyanmen wrote:
Actually, MMO's are games, first of all. And games need developer made content. Games need proper game mechanics. Games need to feel like games, not 3D chat rooms.
I had hoped that would be self-evident by referring to it as a gameworld...

Hyanmen wrote:
You have a very romantic point of view about the genre, but the reality is not as pretty as you paint it.
If you talk to pre-Trammel UO veterans, I am sure many would confirm that what I described was reality "back in the day". It may sound like a romantic point of view now, but for a time that was how the genre was. If it had been up to me, Everquest would have never hit the market. Thinking about where MMO's could be today if they had grown out from UO's design rather than EQ's... it's almost depressing to think about.

Hyanmen wrote:
You say abstract things like

Quote:
What should matter is are the players have fun?


but offer no solution or practical approach as to how this can be achieved. The games don't just suddenly "become fun".
The discussion at hand isn't about laying out a complete game design, it is about the SP system.

What I said there is only abstract if you ignore the sentence preceding it: "Whether you level up faster solo or in a group shouldn't even factor into the equation."

Hyanmen wrote:
You talk about the game militantly dictating how it should be played and consider that a negative aspect, but that is what games are all about. The limitations developers impose on us while making the game itself solid. To control the development and point it to the right direction. This is not a bad thing, and it exists in every game out there, and always will.
I never said games should not have limitations. This was related to the prior quote.

What I was saying is the answer to the solo/group SP should not be that SE implements forced grouping. That they should make both soloing and group play viable and enjoyable, then let players decide which they want to do.
#63 Nov 25 2010 at 7:10 AM Rating: Default
***
3,416 posts
Quote:
It may sound like a romantic point of view now, but for a time that was how the genre was. If it had been up to me, Everquest would have never hit the market. Thinking about where MMO's could be today if they had grown out from UO's design rather than EQ's... it's almost depressing to think about.


Frankly, and I don't mean this in a bad way, there is no future for such "games" in anywhere else than in people's minds. It is just not realistically feasible to make a "game" like UO in this day and age. UO itself wasn't very much of a game at all, and that is the problem. A 3D chatroom with swords just doesn't cut it, or if it does, it shouldn't be marketed as a "game".

More importantly, you have a point when you bring up the issue that modern MMO's are now ignoring games such as UO and, while it would not be practical to make a game based on UO's concept alone, there are things that can be taken from that game and brought to a modern-era MMO rather easily. But, and this is the most important thing, the game has to be a game first, and "UO" second. With proper game mechanics, proper content, and proper limitations. Within that frame, some good concepts and ideas from UO can be applied, quite successfully in-fact.

Quote:
What I was saying is the answer to the solo/group SP should not be that SE implements forced grouping. That they should make both soloing and group play viable and enjoyable, then let players decide which they want to do.


I understand, but your UO example is not a practical one for reasons stated above. Game mechanics are important, and they also decide whether soloing or group play (or both) will be viable, or not.

And for that we need to analyze the game mechanics themselves, to understand whether this would be possible in practice or only in our concept. The "perfect solution" would be, of course, that "both will be just as viable and enjoyable", but I have not come across a concept that would work that way in practice. It is not easy to build game mechanics around that concept and make it work. In fact, I would argue that it is impossible, at least with the current way MMO's (all games, really) function.
____________________________
SE:
Quote:
We really want to compete against World of Warcraft and for example the new Star Wars MMO.

#64 Nov 25 2010 at 10:17 AM Rating: Default
Pbarbs+ 3 Coblyns of you choice = profit
#65 Nov 25 2010 at 10:46 AM Rating: Decent
*****
11,576 posts
Hyanmen wrote:

More importantly, you have a point when you bring up the issue that modern MMO's are now ignoring games such as UO and, while it would not be practical to make a game based on UO's concept alone, there are things that can be taken from that game and brought to a modern-era MMO rather easily. But, and this is the most important thing, the game has to be a game first, and "UO" second. With proper game mechanics, proper content, and proper limitations. Within that frame, some good concepts and ideas from UO can be applied, quite successfully in-fact.


You're just...being you again. On one hand you talk about how you don't know how this could be done or that could be done and then you turn around and go on and on about proper this and proper that.

Here's a guideline you can throw into your mix of all things "proper": you don't have to control one group of people in order to appease the minority.

All this talk of how an MMO "should" be played. MMOs "should" be this and "should" be that.

And around and around we go. Back and forth with the "why is your opinion so important that a group of people 'should' be driven away just to appease you by forcing others to play the way you want to play?" "Because that's how an MMO 'should' be played."

Bloody ridiculous.

The logic just doesn't work. That's a fact. It's why this argument has been played out so many times here in the past already. Not because they're two opposing opinions, but because one group seeks to have their opinion imposed on another and they can't back up their wishes with any sound reasoning.

The previous guy with his, "ahhh! ahh! This is just my opinion can't we all get along?!?!" (passive aggressive...bad mojo)...talking about how if you want to play solo play DA:O with a chat client and you're good to go and then when he talks about all the things he likes about grouping in an MMO, he's only using it for a chatroom. He likes sending messages to people on his contact list and chatting to them on the way to where they're going and getting to know them while waiting for the group to fill out and... and and... and and and...

Makes me wonder if he actually enjoys the combat...all he talks about is yammering back and forth with people. But solo players are apparently the ones who just need a standalone game and a chat client? Really?

So there should be some sort of system in place now where you get the most xp if you're in a group fighting things really, really slowly but you're making heavy use of the chat features in the game? Is that what it's about?

See, game developers are in the business of entertaining us. That's what we pay them to do. Period. That's why it's called a game. It's entertainment.

And when they take this concept called "grouping" and look at all the things that dissuade people from taking part in said groups, the solution isn't to force them to do it anyways, the solution is to make the process as painless as possible. Do you know why the dungeon finder feature was such an overwheleming success for Blizzard? Because it took all of the tedium out of forming a group. You can go do whatever it is you want while you're queued. The system automatically finds a tank and a healer and 3 dps, ports you to the instance, and then when it's all over it returns you to precisely where you were right before you were ported to the instance. No fuss, no muss.

And we can argue all day long about how people shnouldn't need to be ported and shouldn't need to this or that and you know what? It doesn't @#%^ing matter. It worked. That's what mattered. It clearly demonstrated that if you strip out all the elements about grouping that prevent the group from even getting off the ground in the first place, people will group like crazy or, at the very least, the minority seems less visible because you can draw people from across several realms and expand the pool of candidates for any given bit of content. If only 2 people are looking for a Deadmines party on your entire realm you can still run the dungeon without having to beg and plead people who don't want to run it to go with you.

See the difference between forcing and facilitating? One drives people away, the other makes them say, "Wow, that's so cool."

But SE can't do any of that right now. They can't create an LFG tool where you can state a specific objective and have a group formed to tackle that objective, because there are no specific objectives in the game right now. "Grind <x> mob in <y> location" is not a specific objective that you can easily code for. And beyond that, what could they possibly do? Match based on battlecraft leves in your journal? Not really.

There's no valid argument for forcing people to group. There's preference combined with a touch of fascism. It's not necessary.

Edited, Nov 25th 2010 8:48am by Aurelius
#66 Nov 25 2010 at 11:23 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,416 posts
Quote:
And when they take this concept called "grouping" and look at all the things that dissuade people from taking part in said groups, the solution isn't to force them to do it anyways, the solution is to make the process as painless as possible.


This talk about "forcing" seems quite silly to me. In the end games are there to entertain us, yes, but in the end we have the ability to decide which type of entertainment we want.

At the end of the day nobody is forced to do anything.

Now, with your talk about "painless" I need to bring up yet another point- convenience. That's what this is all about. MMO's need to be convenient, because that is always good. Oh, but let me give you a reason why this is not the case;

Convenience comes with a sacrifice. Usually that sacrifice means that the social aspects have to go- the "world" has to go, because the "world" is inconvenient in itself.

Dungeon finder is the best example you could have brought up. That feature, alone, makes the game turn into more of an online RPG. Why is that? Because online RPG's are the pinnacle of convenience- hubs, easy to look for groups, dungeons to teleport to instantly, everything is close-by.

Yet does that sound like the perfect solution to you? Is that what you want to replace MMO's with? You talk like Blizzard has "got it", and as far the majority's opinion goes, yes they have (because in the end majority likes convenience (and gameplay) over anything else). But that is not an answer for an MMORPG.

I'm not against this trend, not at all. I like online RPG's. But I also like MMORPG's, just as much, and Dungeon finder is not the answer. Ultimate convenience is not the answer.

Granted, there is a lot for MMO's to do to make grouping better without turning the game into Phantasy Star Online.. but there will always be inconvenience linked with grouping. You can't get around that.

Now do you want to force others to play the game the way they don't want to? "That's how MMO should be played", that's what you're going to say? I don't agree. Why should I be driven away just to appease you by making everything convenient? Especially when a proper online RPG would beat WoW's "convenience" any day with a better gameplay to boot. If this is the "right" direction for MMO's, the whole genre should die off. Other genres simply do everything better.

Edited, Nov 25th 2010 8:25pm by Hyanmen
____________________________
SE:
Quote:
We really want to compete against World of Warcraft and for example the new Star Wars MMO.

#67 Nov 25 2010 at 12:19 PM Rating: Decent
*****
11,576 posts
Hyanmen wrote:

This talk about "forcing" seems quite silly to me. In the end games are there to entertain us, yes, but in the end we have the ability to decide which type of entertainment we want.


That's exactly what people are talking about when they're talking about tuning solo play to be so slow and unrewarding that if your goal involves progressing your character, you don't feel like solo is a viable option.

Quote:
At the end of the day nobody is forced to do anything.


You're right. People can simply choose not to play. And if it's going to come down to that, I'd rather people choose not to play because their preference places them in the minority and the people they choose to rely on to get done what they want to do aren't available than to drive people away because the developer is trying to "encourage" people to do things a certain way by making the alternatives unattractive.

Quote:
Now, with your talk about "painless" I need to bring up yet another point- convenience. That's what this is all about. MMO's need to be convenient, because that is always good. Oh, but let me give you a reason why this is not the case;

Convenience comes with a sacrifice. Usually that sacrifice means that the social aspects have to go- the "world" has to go, because the "world" is inconvenient in itself.


If it takes stripping out inconvenience for the sake of enabling players to have fun, I don't see why that's an issue. Again it comes down to choice. If you want to go explore and do this or that and you can find a group of like-minded individuals who enjoy doing it the same as you, awesome. If you need other people and nobody wants to join you, that tells you something.

Quote:
Dungeon finder is the best example you could have brought up. That feature, alone, makes the game turn into more of an online RPG. Why is that? Because online RPG's are the pinnacle of convenience- hubs, easy to look for groups, dungeons to teleport to instantly, everything is close-by.


So what? People are having fun. They're enjoying themselves. They're participating in the content. It works. That's the fundamental question a developer needs to ask: "Does it work?" Yes? Then it's good.

Quote:
Yet does that sound like the perfect solution to you? Is that what you want to replace MMO's with? You talk like Blizzard has "got it", and as far the majority's opinion goes, yes they have (because in the end majority likes convenience (and gameplay) over anything else). But that is not an answer for an MMORPG.


Nobody in their right mind would say that WoW is not an MMORPG. It doesn't suit everyone's tastes and that's fine, but it's an example of something that works. You contradict yourself. You can't look at an enormously successful feature in an MMORPG and say it's not the answer for MMORPGs.

Quote:
I'm not against this trend, not at all. I like online RPG's. But I also like MMORPG's, just as much, and Dungeon finder is not the answer. Ultimate convenience is not the answer.

Granted, there is a lot for MMO's to do to make grouping better without turning the game into Phantasy Star Online.. but there will always be inconvenience linked with grouping. You can't get around that.


Yes, and if on any given day you don't feel like dealing with that inconvenience, you should have viable alternatives so that you don't have to. That's part of what makes a winning MMO is not putting your players in too many situations where they log in feeling there's nothing worthwhile to do.

Quote:
Now do you want to force others to play the game the way they don't want to? "That's how MMO should be played", that's what you're going to say? I don't agree. Why should I be driven away just to appease you by making everything convenient?


Because you can manufacture your own inconvenience if that's important to you. Don't want to port? Run. I'm not going to mock you or look down my nose at you because you'd rather take a little longer and enjoy the sights. That's a choice you have. I'm talking about preserving choice for everyone. You and others like you are talking about restricting choice for others so that YOU can play the game the way YOU want to.

Can you not see the difference?
#68 Nov 25 2010 at 12:22 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
322 posts
Ultimately pretty much everyone has a favored MMO, style and experience they are biased towards and are fighting for FFXIV to become that MMO.

PS: Hyanmen, I agree with everything you've said. Blizzard has simply stripped 95% of the social feeling from WoW along with any sense of accomplishment that may have existed because of how they've made it so "accessible" (read: overly convenient and easy where everything is handed on a plate). Its all very impersonal and lacks the MMO spirit in its current incarnation. I do hope we see more MMOs like we envision in the future ;)



Edited, Nov 25th 2010 1:27pm by tylerbee
____________________________


#69 Nov 25 2010 at 12:26 PM Rating: Decent
*****
11,576 posts
tylerbee wrote:
Ultimately pretty much everyone has a favored MMO, style and experience they are biased towards and are fighting for FFXIV to become that MMO



No, ultimately pretty much everyone has something they're looking for in an MMO and if they have any interest in FFXIV at all, they're hoping it will accommodate them. Only one group appears to be hoping the entire game is tuned to support only one approach to MMO gaming. A lot of us are perfectly happy to let you do what you enjoy doing while we do what we enjoy doing and if we cross paths in the process great, if not, great. I enjoy grouping. Sometimes. Not all the time, though. So it benefits me if there is abundant, entertaining group content to be enjoyed and it also benefits me if there is a viable avenue of solo progression for those times when I just don't feel like grouping for whatever reason.
#70 Nov 25 2010 at 12:41 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,416 posts
Quote:
That's exactly what people are talking about when they're talking about tuning solo play to be so slow and unrewarding that if your goal involves progressing your character, you don't feel like solo is a viable option.


That is why there should be multiple games for people to play, not every game made from the same mold.

Quote:
I'd rather people choose not to play because their preference places them in the minority

...drive people away because the developer is trying to "encourage" people to do things a certain way by making the alternatives unattractive.


These are, essentially, the same thing. The correct answer is to provide more games that appeal to every group, instead of trying to make a McD's of MMO's that tries to do everything.

Quote:
If it takes stripping out inconvenience for the sake of enabling players to have fun, I don't see why that's an issue.


Ah, "fun". It is so subjective it's not even worth arguing about.

Yes, some type of games are more "fun" for the majority, yet does that mean the minority should be ignored? If that were the case, the whole genre should die off.

Quote:
So what? People are having fun. They're enjoying themselves. They're participating in the content. It works. That's the fundamental question a developer needs to ask: "Does it work?" Yes? Then it's good.


Some people are having fun. Some people aren't. Some might be having more fun somewhere else.

Like I said, it's not the "end-all" answer, because there simply isn't one.

Quote:
Nobody in their right mind would say that WoW is not an MMORPG.


It is less of an MMORPG and more of an Online RPG. I can't help it if people don't see the difference between the two. If they did, nobody would want a company to make MMO's anymore. Because Online RPG's can do all that WoW attempts to do, only better.

The real problem here is that everything is labeled under one "MMORPG" banner which is deceiving. It's like calling Roman Catholics, Lutherans and Greek Catholics simply "Christians", ignoring all the blatant differences. But what can you do.

Quote:
Yes, and if on any given day you don't feel like dealing with that inconvenience, you should have viable alternatives so that you don't have to.


Oh yes, I'm all pro-choice. I'm simply saying said choices can not exist in just one game. There is no perfect solution.

Quote:
You and others like you are talking about restricting choice for others so that YOU can play the game the way YOU want to.


Actually, what I'm talking about is prioritizing. You make a huge living world full of stuff to do, then apply instant teleports and dozens of instances and battlegrounds for people to do 90% of the time.

Now, why would you even bother creating this huge world, when majority are going to skip it anyway? Why fight against your own design? That's the greatest difference between MMO's and Online RPG's; how the development is prioritized.

If your efforts are not worth the investment, you should focus on more important things. If this "huge world" you created takes a ton of your resources, while applying limitations to your game simply because the servers need to be able to handle hundreds of players simultaneously, why bother? The game's focus is all upside-down.

These games would be so much better were they not MMO's at all. They're trying to turn themselves into something they aren't, while destroying a large part of what made them appealing in the first place- social, yet inconvenient environment.

"So what? They're having fun!". Yes, and they would be having even more fun if things were done properly. That's the problem. Now these games aren't really MMO's, yet they're not exactly online RPG's either. They're just crap.
____________________________
SE:
Quote:
We really want to compete against World of Warcraft and for example the new Star Wars MMO.

#71 Nov 25 2010 at 12:41 PM Rating: Good
***
1,949 posts
Rinsui wrote:
FFXIV solo or casual friendly?

Solo: only for crafters and DoL.

Casual: the LulZ.

Unless you are happy lurking around at 1-digit-levels for a month or two, of course.

Where do you get those estimates? Seriously,
1-10 is a matter of 4-5 hours soloing. Rank 1 to 5 is within the first hour, not even touching leves.

I solo for the most part in the game, join duo with LSmate from time to time, and joined 3 big groups in total since launch, none of which were better SP/hour than I can get on my own (and so terribly more boring).

Check my sig and my lodestone profile if you want. Pugilist, for instance, is a job I played pretty much exclusively solo since I like it so much. Rank24, and I only started playing it two weeks ago.
http://lodestone.finalfantasyxiv.com/rc/character/status?cicuid=1637629
____________________________
FFXIV: Cloe Delisle Scholar, officer of the SWAGGER Free company, Sargatanas server.
#72 Nov 25 2010 at 12:44 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
322 posts
Aurelius wrote:
tylerbee wrote:
Ultimately pretty much everyone has a favored MMO, style and experience they are biased towards and are fighting for FFXIV to become that MMO



No, ultimately pretty much everyone has something they're looking for in an MMO and if they have any interest in FFXIV at all, they're hoping it will accommodate them. Only one group appears to be hoping the entire game is tuned to support only one approach to MMO gaming. A lot of us are perfectly happy to let you do what you enjoy doing while we do what we enjoy doing and if we cross paths in the process great, if not, great. I enjoy grouping. Sometimes. Not all the time, though. So it benefits me if there is abundant, entertaining group content to be enjoyed and it also benefits me if there is a viable avenue of solo progression for those times when I just don't feel like grouping for whatever reason.


The reason I am concerned is because of how difficult to find a party is now, I am hoping that is just due to the broken SP that people are doing nothing but solo (DoH/L) but in a few hours I guess we'll soon see.

____________________________


#73 Nov 25 2010 at 12:53 PM Rating: Decent
*****
11,576 posts
Hyanmen wrote:

That is why there should be multiple games for people to play, not every game made from the same mold.


Again, you entirely miss/dodge the point. You want all this inconvenience and all this ******** and all this tuning to encourage people to play the way you want to play. Well guess what? If they need a mountain of incentive to play it the way you want to play, then they obviously didn't want to play it that way that bad, did they? So way to be a good sport and a nice guy, asking for the developers to make people miserable to suit you.

Well played, old chap. Jolly good show.

Quote:
These are, essentially, the same thing. The correct answer is to provide more games that appeal to every group, instead of trying to make a McD's of MMO's that tries to do everything.


Then you go right on ahead and do that. SE has already told us who they're aiming for with this one. They told us when they announced the game. Nobody should be arguing like they have any plans to do the opposite now.

Quote:
Quote:
If it takes stripping out inconvenience for the sake of enabling players to have fun, I don't see why that's an issue.


Ah, "fun". It is so subjective it's not even worth arguing about.

Yes, some type of games are more "fun" for the majority, yet does that mean the minority should be ignored? If that were the case, the whole genre should die off.


Again, YOU'VE TOTALLY MISSED THE POINT.

ONE SOLUTION: SOMETHING FOR EVERYONE.

OTHER SOLUTION: SOMETHING FOR ONLY A SELECT GROUP.

Have I lost you yet? Apparently that's where I always lose you, so read it again.

You're not being ignored. (You're being thick and obtuse, but you're not being ignored). You have options to play the game the way you want to play it (with groups). Trouble is, you put yourself at the mercy of other people and if they don't want to play the way you do, you're ******* So out of several thousands people, are you trying to tell me you can't find 5 who want to play the game the way you do and can stand to be around you long enough to get it done? Really? You don't want grouping to be made easier so that more people are inclined to take part...you want it to be everything you want even though anyone with a clue knows that what you want DOESN'T WORK.

You end up with an SMO...a Slightly Multiplayer Online game, because only a small number of people wanted progression to come at a reasonable pace in groups only.

Your double talk bores me. Carry on.
#74 Nov 25 2010 at 12:55 PM Rating: Excellent
tylerbee wrote:


All i'm saying is that MMOs should be focused on group play and reward it. Don't you agree a massively multiplayer online game should be focusing on socializing and doing things together instead of solo? I never once said you should not be able to solo at all, but if all you are doing is logging on to solo then that is one big fat failure of an MMO.

If we can't agree on at least that much then what an MMO is these days is lost on me, send me back to EQ days.

Edited, Nov 24th 2010 6:16pm by tylerbee


There's more to be gained from a massive online community than just teaming up with people to physically advance in the game. There's socializing with people in your linkshell, there's the marketpalce and economy, there's the *option* to group if you want to and have the time/are in the situation irl to warrant it, and I'm sure there are others. Each of those are big reasons why I play MMOs instead of single player RPGs even though I solo a lot more than I group.
____________________________
http://www.pbpmap.com/ - play by post rpgs at their best!


#75 Nov 25 2010 at 12:59 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
322 posts
Some people prefer different playstyles and having "something for everyone" directly conflicts with certain people and their playstyles.

It isn't really that hard to understand, he is right in that there should be a multitude of different MMOs with different pulls as people expect different things from an MMO.

I hate most of the stuff put in WoW since BC and don't consider it an MMO anymore, the game is popular with the majority, but that doesn't make it superior or right.

Just look at Justin Bieber.
____________________________


#76 Nov 25 2010 at 1:02 PM Rating: Decent
*****
11,576 posts
tylerbee wrote:
Some people prefer different playstyles and having "something for everyone" directly conflicts with certain people and their playstyles.


Then maybe what you should do is pay attention to what developers say they're wanting to offer in their games and when they say they want players to be able to enjoy the game solo on in groups, you should just look elsewhere instead of coming back after the fact and advocating that solo players should be heavily restricted in order to encourage grouping.
#77 Nov 25 2010 at 1:07 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
322 posts
Well, good luck to Square Enix.

Right now the game is extremely hardcore for an MMO in comparison to other options on the market. It takes a buttload of time to level and people are dropping like flies. I personally think this is because the game is niche and only caters to hardcore players and casuals will eventually drop off unless some huge changes are made.

Despite what SE have said time and time again, do you really believe the game will be a viable option to casual players in its current state?

PS: I don't think heavily restricted is what I ever said. I just said you should be rewarded for grouping and to elaborate further I think a 30-40% XP increase would be fair.
____________________________


#78 Nov 25 2010 at 1:07 PM Rating: Default
***
3,416 posts
Quote:
If they need a mountain of incentive to play it the way you want to play, then they obviously didn't want to play it that way that bad, did they?


Not just them, me as well. If soloing is so easy that the downsides of grouping (which dungeon finder isn't going to magically fix) mean too much hassle for too little gained, I will solo with the rest of them. They are not equal. A big part of grouping is to be sure that it feels worth it, because it's not always the most pleasant experience. Just how you want to feel like your soloing is worth it.

Quote:
Then you go right on ahead and do that. SE has already told us who they're aiming for with this one.


Yeah, they did... yet I see in the end they seem to be aiming the game for me instead. Not going to complain.

Quote:
You have options to play the game the way you want to play it (with groups).


Yes. I have the option to do things the inefficient (if not even slower) way, or the better, 'less of a hassle' way.

Like I have said, several times now, grouping and soloing are not equal. Your miracle "fix" does make them equal yet then I might as well play an online RPG instead. Those are my options.

Edited, Nov 25th 2010 10:08pm by Hyanmen
____________________________
SE:
Quote:
We really want to compete against World of Warcraft and for example the new Star Wars MMO.

#79 Nov 25 2010 at 1:30 PM Rating: Excellent
***
3,178 posts
Considerations for partying with the new set SP per mob system:

Level Gap:
Does every party member receive SP regardless of Rank?
-or-
Does each party member receive SP based on their relative Rank vs. Mob's Rank?

If so, the lowest Rank player will be getting the most SP. This leads to power leveling.
Does this mean the return of (Let's try to keep the levels of our party members close.)?
Will the SP bonus for having player within 5 Ranks still be active?

Party size limit:
If a 6 man team can take down 1 enemy per minute for X amount of SP, and a 15 man party can take down 2.5 mobs per minute for (2.5 x X) SP, then 15 man parties are superior. Unless SP goes down as party size goes up. Currently you get a bonus to SP for large parties, the opposite.

Does that mean you have to recruit 15 players to have a good party?

Basically, There is a large amount of balancing that needs to occur to pull this off. It really messes with the ability to have a randomly sized party that is equally effective as another size.

I truly hope these things have been considered and balanced as well as possible, and that there is a more complete explanation of the system that coincides with the update.


Edited, Nov 25th 2010 2:32pm by RufuSwho
#80 Dec 02 2010 at 2:52 AM Rating: Good
6 posts
It's Kinda Simple let me break it down with the new system of SP

It's

TIME TO KILL MOB ( TTKM )
+
Battle Regimen
+
Numbers of mobs in the given zone

EX: A party of 6-10 Lv. 30's Old system killed black efts every min or so 200-500 sp.. ( slow but highish SP )
New system: Same party Same Mob.. Adding Battle Regimens ( Added De-buffs + attack Bonuses ) = Killing mobs faster less SP ) But over time its more SP

So back to the Equations here

Faster mob killing = more SP overall
Instead of taking a min or 2 every kill for 2-500 SP
your killing Easy mobs less people for 80 SP every 3-5 seconds = More Lvl's

But hold it there 1 flaw to quickness~! you say!?

true Camps with Low amounts of mobs = less SP over time = slow lvl

So find highly populated Spots

mines, Cellers, Etc

Were mobs are plentiful and or fight groups of harder mobs but just add battle regimens such *** crabs and black efts.



All in all

More mobs less time Faster kills = Your rank and more SP

At Lv. 30 In copper mines you can trio dobs nonstop for 80 sp every 3-5 seconds given you have the DPS and or Group to do it you can always add more members!


hope this kinda clears it up


____________________________


#81 Dec 02 2010 at 2:58 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
322 posts
I think everyone understands, its just mind numbingly boring killing mobs that fast

Group play should be where its at, but actually solo is more enjoyable now as you get to use more than 1-2 skills
____________________________


#82 Dec 03 2010 at 1:16 AM Rating: Decent
*
72 posts
Wow,

great topic, very nostalgic for me when you guys talk about old games. Please keep posting, hopefully the people from different camps can really empathize the differences here.

(1 advice for the strongly opinionated, people will not see things your way when you try to force it through with insults, skewered logic and statistics. Present your point in objective light and people 'will' understand.)

To the topic subject, I'd like to say yes, it has met 50% of my expectation. Reduce the amount of sp required across the board for all levels and its 100%. I like to level many jobs, I like being versatile, but the climb from 40-50 atm is quite daunting atm haha.

(just a brief calculation here : 80-100 sp per mob per... min? thats 6k/hr and 10-15hrs per level. wow... for a game that i think will require many class specific actions, I hope SE will reduce it a little).

Why this game is good?
- This game does not facilitate perfect knowledge. You can figure out the mechanics yourself, you have to know your 'community' to get the stuff you want, its great. A very good social touch, plus you get all the funny 'myths' and theories about this virtual world from other players. :D

(as an 'old man' who thinks the young generation treats real people like computer npcs IRL. yes... i think its good for them to learn to be polite and be 'of use' to others to get what they want :p).

- As a working adult now, to say committing ~24 hrs a week can be quite tough at times. That is 3 weekday nights and 1 weekend for 'big events'

This game lets me progress with that small time i have. I hope people can understand how sad it can be when there is so little time left for the things you love (gaming) after you leave school. For them, gaming is not a phase they can grow out of, it is not something you leave behind after college. (WoW forums called them... serious casuals?)

====================================================================================================

I have a question for tylerbee specifically. From your many posts, you seem to advocate greater rewards for group play, especially in terms of skill points. (because of your fondest MMO memories being forming great xp/sp groups?) I know 'a bit' about where you're coming from because I've played FFXI, many other MMOs and other games too.

My question is, if the reward came in other forms. Would it be equally acceptable to you? Because the rewards are in place atm for group play. Its just not sp.

Players can access gear and material beyond their level only through a group, because well... the over level(led) monsters that you can kill as a group... drop them. Solo players have to wait till the level difference is smaller before they can even attempt it, isn't that a reward in a way?

Or did I totally misunderstand you here?

Thanos Soluna of theFlyingDutchman, Wutai






#83 Dec 03 2010 at 1:47 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
322 posts
renmabiao wrote:
I have a question for tylerbee specifically. From your many posts, you seem to advocate greater rewards for group play, especially in terms of skill points. (because of your fondest MMO memories being forming great xp/sp groups?) I know 'a bit' about where you're coming from because I've played FFXI, many other MMOs and other games too.

My question is, if the reward came in other forms. Would it be equally acceptable to you? Because the rewards are in place atm for group play. Its just not sp.

Players can access gear and material beyond their level only through a group, because well... the over level(led) monsters that you can kill as a group... drop them. Solo players have to wait till the level difference is smaller before they can even attempt it, isn't that a reward in a way?

Or did I totally misunderstand you here?

Thanos Soluna of theFlyingDutchman, Wutai


You're absolutely correct in obtaining better items to sell by fighting higher level mobs in a group and I like your way of thinking. I guess it'd be reward in itself if money was scarce or those items were sought after but right now it is pretty tough to sell anything. Although in theory it sounds great to be able to do that, the market just isn't there unforunately.

The main thing is what kept me playing FFXI for two years was the great group play. That doesn't exist here but all other facets of the game amuse me greatly. I'd love to see them sort out SP rewards for party play to be on par with FFXI so we can see some solid strategy and tactics when fighting against epic monsters but right now it just isn't there, which is unfortunate since this is the biggest factor in me staying with the game.









____________________________


#84 Dec 03 2010 at 12:47 PM Rating: Decent
*
89 posts
As a mage I am over the moon about this!

I have not leveled in like 3 weeks (long story) but im in the 40s so i am where its raptor-time and now my SP is gimped from 500 a kill to (i dont know what) im glad yes GLAD.

Should we get 500 a kill? every kill? NO thats bloody wrong. I want to put effort into my grind not mindlessly heal for 500 a time.

Ontop of that solo is now open to me, i can solo like a champ but the SP wasnt worth it! Barbs was useless (gimped SP) nukes where useless (gimped SP)

SE made an impossible system to balance, you cant have a number randomly generated on classes so different and keep it balanced. And if you think you can please feel free to do the maths and send it to me or post it here.

But yea im happy :) (thus the smiley face)
1 2 Next »
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 18 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (18)