Forum Settings
       
This Forum is Read Only

Anyone else quitting if they NGE the game?Follow

#52 Jan 02 2011 at 1:58 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
Aristio wrote:
A simple solution to the argument that quest should be giving experience points is to let them give experience points. They don't need to give skill points, but I don't think anyone would mind if they gave experience points, as physical level is not what everyone is after.

As for "Drastic changes to FFXIV," that the developers mentioned, I believe they wanted to reinvent a few things.

1) Two separate but equal UI. One that is solely made for Keyboard and Mouse, and one meant for Gamepad.

2) Game zones. Entire zones are reinvented to bring differences to them. An example of this would be Thanalan. Western Thanalan could be a beach area since it's so close to the shore. Central thanalan could be a desert area. Western could be kept exactly the same. Northern Thanalan could be turned into mountain areas, and southern thanalan could be changed into a deep canyon area. Or take the Black Shroud. Bentbranch could be turn into a "Sanctuary of Zi'Tah," Crimson bark into a "Jugner Forrest," Emerald Moss could be a marsh/swamp type area, Tranquil into an open meadow with very little trees (Think Konschat Highlands), and Nine Eves be kepted the same.

3) Tons of side quest, mini-quest, and quest lines that adds story and history for Eorzea. Would be nice if they did full voice overs for these, but I'm not holding my breath.

4) Combat system. They will either speed up the fights to make them easier than before, or slow them down and add more skill points per kill. Normal EXP mobs will require a bit of strategy and even a battle regimen thrown in. Drastic changes could even add in an auto-attack just, and get rid of stamina all together.

5) Market Wards overhaul. They could either scrap the entire idea and give us an auction house (That links to every city), make our retainers our "Moogles" of FFXIV and reserve the market wards for our "Mog House." Or, they could add a lot of features to the Wards to simulate an auction house, such as a "Buy Now" option in the search function.

6) Experience Points. Scrap the idea and just make our stats scale with level (Class Level) like in FFXI.

Or I could be dreaming and they just add new faction leves. Who knows.


1) Sounds fine, but I think the UI is okay as-is IMO.

2) Agreed

3) I could actually do without the voiceovers, but I agree that more story quests would be great.

4) I'd prefer it slowed down with more SP/XP per fight, so that it requires you to get 2-3 or more people together to XP. I kinda like the stamina system.

5) Any of these options sound fine to me, but as mentioned, I could live with the wards as-is until they fix other things first.

6) Agreed. I liked XI's system better where each class was its own class with its own stats, however I do really like the fact that XIV allows you to combine class abilities and switch jobs on the fly and I strongly feel that neither of these features should be ditched.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#53 Jan 02 2011 at 1:59 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
Aristio wrote:
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:
I think FFXIV's UI is fine.

I think the graphics are fine, but that the world should be redone to offer more variety of zone types and less copypasta.

I still think it needs an AH eventually, but I think the current market ward system is fine while they fix other things first, and if all else was in alignment, could tolerate not having one.

I think the combat system is okay, although I'd like an autoattack option. I would prefer a slower paced combat system where fights take longer and reward more xp.

I would prefer it if grouping was more heavily emphasized and guildleves were de-emphasized where the game encouraged getting a party together of variable size (anywhere from 2-3 up to 10+ if you wanted to) and that regardless of your group size, you can kill monsters appropriately targeted and weighted towards your group to provide a challenge and a reasonable amount of xp in order to level up; where guildleves were redesigned in that there are "solo only" leves and "group only" leves, where there is some content for people who don't have time to group, but where grouping is still the preferred, significantly more efficient method of leveling up.

That's what I'd like, anyway.


I'm not saying the UI, combat, or anything is bad or wrong. I'm just guessing what they could change just by going on what they mean by, "Drastic."


Yeah, the "drastic changes" things is extremely unspecific.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#54 Jan 02 2011 at 2:03 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Definitely wouldn't mind seeing a total reboot to combat and progression. I want the "more casual than FFXI" experience and the more tactical game that was promised. Right now the game isn't really either. Mostly I just want them to make combat fun... not the mindless killing spree of weaklings that it is now.
____________________________
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.
#55 Jan 02 2011 at 2:07 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,842 posts
I would like a better social UI to include search comments and linkshell options.

A LFG queue in which you select your role and the system fills in the gaps,

Group based content like dungeons and group leve.

Storylines content that is solo'ed. I had a **** of a time trying to finish Zilart because once everyone just wanted Sky access and not finish the story.

More player interact in crafting.

Better zone design in not only enviroment but in monster placement.
____________________________
FFXIV Dyvid (Awaiting 2.0)
FFXI Dyvid ~ Pandemonium (Retired)
SWTOR Dy'vid Legacy - Canderous Ordo
#56 Jan 02 2011 at 2:15 PM Rating: Excellent
*
139 posts
I think the MMO industry realize that most people like both solo play and playing with other people. That's why MMORPG try to provide solo people with good solo content while offering an incentive for party play and party-happy people with solo content for them to vent when they need their solitude moments.

This is why solo-oriented MMORPG tries to add in party stuff to make people want to team up with others. Party oriented MMOs try to put in extra solo content to help soloists get their stuff so they can occasionally team up with others. FFXI is the example that party only MMO going into a more solo friendly direction to encourage people to team up.

I could see FFXIV going NGE when the 2011 MMOs line up is starting to hit the market in full force and FFXIV still running around like a headless chicken. Reinventing itself isn't really a bad thing as long as the changes are gradual enough to keep the current player happy but innovative enough to attract new players. FFXI changed a lot from when it was 1st released 2002-2003 to what it is now.
#57 Jan 02 2011 at 2:36 PM Rating: Good
*
90 posts
dyvidd wrote:
I would like a better social UI to include search comments and linkshell options.

A LFG queue in which you select your role and the system fills in the gaps,

Group based content like dungeons and group leve.

Storylines content that is solo'ed. I had a **** of a time trying to finish Zilart because once everyone just wanted Sky access and not finish the story.

More player interact in crafting.

Better zone design in not only enviroment but in monster placement.





so far the main story and class quest can be soloed..... i've soloed them all so far with no issues.
yeah it took a couple tries to figure out what to do but i did it

so as long as they go the same route but give us more i'll be happy
____________________________

#58 Jan 02 2011 at 2:41 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
*
106 posts
In the end SE like every other company is in the business of making money. If that means changing the game to attract a wider audience then the niche following they have now then they will definitely do it. It sucks but there's really no loyalty when money is involved.
#59 Jan 02 2011 at 2:44 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
Oddwaffle wrote:
I think the MMO industry realize that most people like both solo play and playing with other people. That's why MMORPG try to provide solo people with good solo content while offering an incentive for party play and party-happy people with solo content for them to vent when they need their solitude moments.


The problem with this is that in the vast majority of situations where solo and party are both "equally acceptable options", solo is nearly always preferred. The only way for party play to be a worthwhile option is to make the benefits of partying significantly outweigh what soloing has to offer. If the results of soloing and partying are equal, then not only are people who prefer soloing going to skip grouping, but it makes it harder for people who WANT to group because there is no one for them to group with.

I -wanted- to group in WoW, in DDO, in Allods... but when everyone else is content to solo, it's hard to get a group reliably enough to progress at a reasonable rate. Players like myself who WANT to join parties find themselves saying ********** it" and HAVING to solo.

In watching my fiancee play Cataclysm, I saw someone ask for help with a quest in general chat and THREE people verbally berated the person, insisting that they didn't need help, that they should just skip that group quest, that unless you're in a dungeon or raid, grouping is a waste of time, etc... One person came to the original asker's defense with the "This is a multiplayer game; what's wrong with the guy wanting to play in a group?" and THAT GUY got flamed too.

It's an extreme example, but that's what I really hate about "solo friendly" games. Solo friendly tends to become group unfriendly. The notion that grouping is a viable progression option in a game where soloing is a viable progression option is a joke; In Lich King era WoW, I took a character from 0 to 80 in under 20 days, and doing Ulduar as far as Hodir in under 25 with less than half a dozen groups total prior to 80. If I had played that same character doing nothing but pickup dungeons, I'd be extremely surprised if I could get to 70 in a month.

I'm not totally opposed to the notion of including any solo content at all, but if soloing to level cap is a viable, reasonable option, then grouping becomes much much harder for the people who actually WANT to do that. And as I've said; it's not even a matter of the fact that I don't want any games like that; I just wish I could find ANY game where I could play it the way -I- want to.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#60 Jan 02 2011 at 2:50 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,636 posts
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:
Oddwaffle wrote:
I think the MMO industry realize that most people like both solo play and playing with other people. That's why MMORPG try to provide solo people with good solo content while offering an incentive for party play and party-happy people with solo content for them to vent when they need their solitude moments.


The problem with this is that in the vast majority of situations where solo and party are both "equally acceptable options", solo is nearly always preferred. The only way for party play to be a worthwhile option is to make the benefits of partying significantly outweigh what soloing has to offer. If the results of soloing and partying are equal, then not only are people who prefer soloing going to skip grouping, but it makes it harder for people who WANT to group because there is no one for them to group with.

I -wanted- to group in WoW, in DDO, in Allods... but when everyone else is content to solo, it's hard to get a group reliably enough to progress at a reasonable rate. Players like myself who WANT to join parties find themselves saying "@#%^ it" and HAVING to solo.

In watching my fiancee play Cataclysm, I saw someone ask for help with a quest in general chat and THREE people verbally berated the person, insisting that they didn't need help, that they should just skip that group quest, that unless you're in a dungeon or raid, grouping is a waste of time, etc... One person came to the original asker's defense with the "This is a multiplayer game; what's wrong with the guy wanting to play in a group?" and THAT GUY got flamed too.

It's an extreme example, but that's what I really hate about "solo friendly" games. Solo friendly tends to become group unfriendly. The notion that grouping is a viable progression option in a game where soloing is a viable progression option is a joke; In Lich King era WoW, I took a character from 0 to 80 in under 20 days, and doing Ulduar as far as Hodir in under 25 with less than half a dozen groups total prior to 80. If I had played that same character doing nothing but pickup dungeons, I'd be extremely surprised if I could get to 70 in a month.

I'm not totally opposed to the notion of including any solo content at all, but if soloing to level cap is a viable, reasonable option, then grouping becomes much much harder for the people who actually WANT to do that. And as I've said; it's not even a matter of the fact that I don't want any games like that; I just wish I could find ANY game where I could play it the way -I- want to.


I don't know. There are large portions of leveling in world of warcraft, where its better to go through the random dungeon finder and grind XP that way, than it would have been to solo. I say this having not played cataclysm, but it was this way for me during wotlk.
____________________________


#61 Jan 02 2011 at 2:58 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
691 posts
Actually in terms of exp/hour, in WoW it has always been more practical to just grind nonstop. I believe it only takes about...was it 8 hours or 12 with a duo grinding out exp in 1-3 different spots due to respawn timers decreasing the more often a monster is killed to get from 70-80? And about 5 hours if you abuse the out of party grinding trick for 80-85?
#62 Jan 02 2011 at 3:08 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
43 posts
ok, allow me to chime in here. First off no where in the dreaded final question was it even hinted at that the whole world would be over hauled. Read the question..... it asks if you mind if the RULES in eorzea were drastically changed. The word rules does not equal vast sweeping game breaking changes. But things like the combat system that I lol at people that claim this is not broken, At least in parties I cannot count the amount of times stamina is out and we stand there staring at the mob waiting for the opportunity to attack, or even better the mob dies and 3 seconds later you use a move you qued 6 seconds before because the ui lag is still so bad. Lets not even discuss targeting this alone would make baby jesus cry. Maybe solo or grouping on 3 hit blue mobs this is fine but meh what a waste. I agree the solo option is great in this game but as long as it is just as viable as group play people will solo before spending 30-45 mins trying to get a party together meaning party play looses. I do not want to see solo play become unavailable, but, reality check if you want to solo expect it to take 3 even 4 times as long to achieve the same goals. OK I will wrap this up, I inserted the FACT that a major overhaul was not indicated but exists only in paranoid minds, a rule change is just that and is deffinitely in order.
/END RANT
Thanks,
Big Jer


Edited, Jan 2nd 2011 4:10pm by unclejer
____________________________


#63 Jan 02 2011 at 3:33 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
11,576 posts
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:
It's an extreme example, but that's what I really hate about "solo friendly" games. Solo friendly tends to become group unfriendly. The notion that grouping is a viable progression option in a game where soloing is a viable progression option is a joke; In Lich King era WoW, I took a character from 0 to 80 in under 20 days, and doing Ulduar as far as Hodir in under 25 with less than half a dozen groups total prior to 80. If I had played that same character doing nothing but pickup dungeons, I'd be extremely surprised if I could get to 70 in a month.


See, this is where the whole shenanigan just confuses me. On one hand, WoW gets blasted for being too fast to the cap, and then people turn around and complain that they can't get to the cap fast enough. Your WotLK experience must have been before the dungeon finder addition, because not only was that probably the best thing Blizzard added to the game since at least the beginning of TBC when I started playing, it brought to light a very interesting detail: the reason people weren't grouping a lot for dungeons during the leveling process was because they all had a choice between investing time to get a party that may work well or may wind up full of a bunch of frothing lunatics that becomes not more than a chore, or they could carry on doing their own thing. With the dungeon finder addition, it's effortless. You tell the system what role you are and what dungeon you want to run and then it puts you in the queue and you carry on doing whatever you want to do until it tells you your group is ready. When you accept the group you're ported to the dungeon and when you're done with the group it ports you right back to where you were when you accepted the group, even if it was the middle of nowhere. Hint...hint hint hint...it would let you join a party that was matched for you consisting of players from multiple different realms and didn't require that you be in the right place at the right time asking for people to join your group.

There's also a very strong inclination towards running dungeons on PvP servers that you don't find on PvE servers. You can't get ganked and corpse camped by someone 50 levels above you if you're in a dungeon. I ran more dungeons while leveling up one character on a PvP realm than I ever ran leveling multiple characters on a PvE realm.

And knowing that, and having experienced that, it irks me when I see people who haven't experienced this and don't know this start coming up with their own hypothesis that this doesn't work or this is what happens when and that is what happens when and...pay attention.

A smart developer will look at what is going on in their game and try to find the barriers that are preventing people from taking part in this area of content or that area of content and remove them. We're not talking about incentives and rewards. We're talking about barriers. We're talking about things that make people say, "this is a hassle" or "this is an irritant" or flat out "this sucks." And look at all the goddam barriers SE built into the party system in FFXIV. You have to be in transaction range of someone to invite them to your group and you have to target them to send the invite. The UI setup to invite/accept is terrible. Once you're in the group you can only have one tapped mob/mob party active at a time. If the party leader moves to a different area you have to twiddle your thumbs until they get back because it won't let you tap anything. If you decide you want/need to leave and the party is still fighting you can't even leave the **** group. Mobs outside of leves (and NMs :/) are not tuned for party play.

Who designs game systems that are such a pain in the ***? SE does, that's who. 8 years with another MMO. 8 years as an MMO studio that they could have been investing at least SOME time into finding out what other companies are doing and formulate a plan that actually works. They don't have to duplicate other MMO systems to be able to take a look at the basic concepts and get a handle on the kinds of things players appreciate. If Tanaka and his original crew were worth half of what they were paid to make such a mess, they would have looked around and figured out that the key to building a successful core MMO system is to make it slick, make it simple, and make it fun. Less barriers, not more. Fewer restrictions, not more. Note that we're not talking about challenge. We're not talking about pacing of rewards. We're not talking about the actual combat mechanics and making them easy. We're talking about everything that happens before and after the fighting and what players have to overcome just to get into the fight.

If SE had managed to make it so that grouping was fluid, diverse, and entertaining beyond simply saying, "Yay! I'm in a group!", more people would be grouping. That's all there is to it. But they didn't. They made a mess. There's nothing compelling about grouping in FFXIV. There's nothing about grouping that makes me want to latch on to a group of people and follow them around and do what they do. Outside of NMs, there's no content groups get to see and experience that I can't see on my own at the appropriate level. The rewards for grouping as they currently exist do not offset the hassle of grouping and THAT is why people don't group. And you can be just like SE and assume that the solution is to just make grouping so attractive through the rewards the people feel like solo is a waste of time, or you can address the hassle of grouping and make it so that the process is so fluid and fun that even a small material reward (or even the chance of one) and a modest increase to the rate of progression is all it will take to make people want to group.

SE doesn't address hassles...they make them. They don't offer incentives to guide player behavior, they attach restrictions and penalties in this great relativistic miasma we call player motivation. SE's design concepts are and remain backwards starting from FFXI and extending into XIV and now Yoshida has a chance to correct that and he's not going to do it by making solo play LESS than what it is now.
#64 Jan 02 2011 at 3:44 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,098 posts
NGE ??? as long as this game is free they can do what they want but content seems to be whats missing , since so many people hit the level 50 cap already. NGE, this leve time is killing me a day and a half is just enough time to log on do leves and wait till the reset.
____________________________





#65 Jan 02 2011 at 3:58 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
Aurelius wrote:
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:
It's an extreme example, but that's what I really hate about "solo friendly" games. Solo friendly tends to become group unfriendly. The notion that grouping is a viable progression option in a game where soloing is a viable progression option is a joke; In Lich King era WoW, I took a character from 0 to 80 in under 20 days, and doing Ulduar as far as Hodir in under 25 with less than half a dozen groups total prior to 80. If I had played that same character doing nothing but pickup dungeons, I'd be extremely surprised if I could get to 70 in a month.


See, this is where the whole shenanigan just confuses me. On one hand, WoW gets blasted for being too fast to the cap, and then people turn around and complain that they can't get to the cap fast enough. Your WotLK experience must have been before the dungeon finder addition


I've used the dungeon finder tool and I agree that it's very nice and very convenient. I've also used it while leveling. I played WoW up until March/April of 2010. I stopped doing endgame content when the second wing of Icecrown was added because I didn't feel like wasting more time doing raids for gear that would be replaced with quest greens and then later decided that I just didn't want to do it any more at all and finally quit WoW later.

My Warrior was a combination of solo and group, pre dungeon finder. My Warlock was leveled through 99% solo and 1% grouping and my hunter was leveled through a combination of soloing and grouping with the dungeon finder tool.

In terms of time it took to get to 80, Warlock was fastest, Hunter second fastest, Warrior third fastest. Group leveling play was easier with the dungeon finder tool since, as you said, it did make grouping a lot more convenient to set up. Soloing was still faster than waiting for the dungeon finder as a damage class though. I leveled my Pally as a tank and did find the LFG tool to be more efficient than soloing, but as for a damage dealing class, solo quest grinding or just plain solo grinding was faster and more efficient than grouping, especially when you consider how long you have to sit in the queue, especially in the 50s when no one wants to do BRD, DM, Strat, and Scholo any more.

Of course that points out the other complaint that it seems like there's not much incentive to play a healer/tank class, unless you count people who aren't specced to heal or tank but queue as healer/tank "to get a group faster" and then you're left with four or five damage classes and the pally/priest/druid/warrior/death knight/shaman arguing "I don't wanna heal/tank" even though they queued as it... but then that's another gripe altogether.

So yeah, I do agree that the LFG tool makes grouping easier, but soloing is still faster than grouping to get to level cap unless you're a healer or tank. Or at least it was in LK; I haven't played post Cata.

I just wish that XIV would offer an incentive to group up for more than just a brief period of time. I mean, it's nice that they TRY to offer the incentive to group for behest/leves, but how many people, as a percentage of total players, would actually group up and kill **** outside of behest and leves? How many would just group up and kill **** in WoW outside of dungeons or quests?

Fact is, most people only want to level in the method that offers the most incentive and the best results. This is an obvious point.

The follow up is that unless there is a significant benefit to grouping, most people won't. Group play NEEDS to offer a significant bonus that soloing does NOT offer in order to get people to do it, whether that is in the form of loot from instanced dungeons or in the form of more xp/hr.

I honestly think XIV could benefit from instanced dungeons with bosses in the way that games like WoW and DDO do it where grouping benefits you in the form of gear. Not unlike how XI has Salvage/Nyzul/Limbus/Dynamis/etc, except make that a leveling option.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#66 Jan 02 2011 at 4:01 PM Rating: Good
Sage
**
447 posts
I would cry tears of joy if XIV got instanced dungeons and other large (or even small) scale PvE options.
____________________________
Djigga, please. Highland Hyurs can't jump.

#67 Jan 02 2011 at 4:03 PM Rating: Good
**
763 posts
Caleberiel wrote:
there is no sense of accomplishment in ffxiv at all... no where near the same community driven gameplay, and restrictions on leveling up...

... To claim this game only needs an AH, is like beeing trapped on a deserted island asking for nothing but a coat hanger...


Or on the desert begging for "Room Service" haha.

Gotta love Spaceballs. Mel Gibson OWNS!

Mo
#68 Jan 02 2011 at 4:05 PM Rating: Good
**
763 posts
I liked having to camp in a big area to level in parties. I think FFXIV needs to re-map BAD, cause camps just aren't happening. They stand in the middle of the walkway or in some odd corner and either way the mobs are STILL scarse even though they added more.

MO
#69 Jan 02 2011 at 4:08 PM Rating: Good
they can do whatever they want, i think i will survive, just DO NOT make me start over on my levels..
____________________________


#70 Jan 02 2011 at 4:12 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
11,539 posts
SterlingHighwind wrote:
they can do whatever they want, i think i will survive, just DO NOT make me start over on my levels..


Yeah, no matter what they -do- do, and no matter what anyone thinks they -should- do, I think that nearly everyone can agree that this is the worst possible idea.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#71 Jan 02 2011 at 4:13 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,842 posts
Honestly I think FFXIV is set to have a good balance of solo vs. group xp if they fix Party SP gains. If you want to solo you can grind your leve quest. If you want to group then join an xp group.

The question is what should be solo content and what should be group content?
____________________________
FFXIV Dyvid (Awaiting 2.0)
FFXI Dyvid ~ Pandemonium (Retired)
SWTOR Dy'vid Legacy - Canderous Ordo
#72 Jan 02 2011 at 4:25 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,576 posts
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:
Aurelius wrote:
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:
It's an extreme example, but that's what I really hate about "solo friendly" games. Solo friendly tends to become group unfriendly. The notion that grouping is a viable progression option in a game where soloing is a viable progression option is a joke; In Lich King era WoW, I took a character from 0 to 80 in under 20 days, and doing Ulduar as far as Hodir in under 25 with less than half a dozen groups total prior to 80. If I had played that same character doing nothing but pickup dungeons, I'd be extremely surprised if I could get to 70 in a month.


See, this is where the whole shenanigan just confuses me. On one hand, WoW gets blasted for being too fast to the cap, and then people turn around and complain that they can't get to the cap fast enough. Your WotLK experience must have been before the dungeon finder addition


I've used the dungeon finder tool and I agree that it's very nice and very convenient. I've also used it while leveling. I played WoW up until March/April of 2010. I stopped doing endgame content when the second wing of Icecrown was added because I didn't feel like wasting more time doing raids for gear that would be replaced with quest greens and then later decided that I just didn't want to do it any more at all and finally quit WoW later.


See, I didn't play for the gear. I played to experience the content. And I stopped playing because I always managed to get in with the "good" guilds when they were in a slump and the content became a chore to see. I could care less what happened to my gear three months/six months/a year from when I got it because that wasn't my motivation. You're not honestly expecting XIV to be any different, are you? Those days of MMO development where you get a piece of gear one day that you're still using three years later are long gone.

Quote:
In terms of time it took to get to 80, Warlock was fastest, Hunter second fastest, Warrior third fastest. Group leveling play was easier with the dungeon finder tool since, as you said, it did make grouping a lot more convenient to set up. Soloing was still faster than waiting for the dungeon finder as a damage class though. I leveled my Pally as a tank and did find the LFG tool to be more efficient than soloing, but as for a damage dealing class, solo quest grinding or just plain solo grinding was faster and more efficient than grouping, especially when you consider how long you have to sit in the queue, especially in the 50s when no one wants to do BRD, DM, Strat, and Scholo any more.


So playing solo yields faster progression than sitting on your hands waiting for something to happen. Go figure.

Quote:
Of course that points out the other complaint that it seems like there's not much incentive to play a healer/tank class, unless you count people who aren't specced to heal or tank but queue as healer/tank "to get a group faster" and then you're left with four or five damage classes and the pally/priest/druid/warrior/death knight/shaman arguing "I don't wanna heal/tank" even though they queued as it... but then that's another gripe altogether.


You're not making any sense. Queuing as a tank or a healer typically resulted in instant matches. It was the people who queued for dps that typically had the lengthy waits (lengthy being anything upwards of 5 minutes).

Quote:
So yeah, I do agree that the LFG tool makes grouping easier, but soloing is still faster than grouping to get to level cap unless you're a healer or tank. Or at least it was in LK; I haven't played post Cata.


Why the rush? Why does it matter what is faster as long as you're enjoying the process? My interpretation of what you're saying is that you prefer to group, you want to be rewarded for your preference, and you want those rewards to be relevant forever. Good luck with that.

Quote:
Fact is, most people only want to level in the method that offers the most incentive and the best results. This is an obvious point.


I would say that most people want to have fun above all else, and for the number of people I knew in WoW who would happily quest in less than optimal areas because they liked the zones or they liked the quests I'd say there's plenty of room to argue that the focus should be fun in the process and THEN scope of the reward. Most people aren't going to chase a carrot for very long if the process involved in the chasing doesn't entertain them.

Quote:
The follow up is that unless there is a significant benefit to grouping, most people won't. Group play NEEDS to offer a significant bonus that soloing does NOT offer in order to get people to do it, whether that is in the form of loot from instanced dungeons or in the form of more xp/hr.


Not true. Group play needs to be fun. That's all it needs to be. And all it needs to offer as incentive over solo play is to allow you to see and experience things in a group that are compelling enough to want to see it and that you can't see as a solo player. Rewards don't matter. Pace of progression doesn't matter. Look at all the TBC dungeons and how many people ran them time and time again because they were having fun in them. And look how many people avoided the less popular ones like Blood Furnace and Auchenai Crypts because they just didn't like them no matter what quests they had in their log for them and what those quests offered as a reward. Look at all the WotLK groups for old raids like Black Temple and Tempest Keep. Look at all the small group fun runs through Karazhan by people who just really liked the content.

It just has to be fun. That's it. That's all it has to be.

Quote:
I honestly think XIV could benefit from instanced dungeons with bosses in the way that games like WoW and DDO do it where grouping benefits you in the form of gear. Not unlike how XI has Salvage/Nyzul/Limbus/Dynamis/etc, except make that a leveling option.


Or...you know...where grouping benefits you in the form of a fun experience with a group in places that would eat your face as a solo player of the same level. Rewards are nice. Incentives are nice. If that's all the game has to offer is rewards and incentives to guide you through a ******, ****** process, that game isn't going to do very well. You too readily dismiss all reference to fun in your assessment, and that to me is nothing short of tragic. All you talk about is rewards and pace of progression. Pity.
#73 Jan 02 2011 at 4:30 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,636 posts
I think there's 2 things they should look into doing to improve groups, without harming solo play.

First is, make it faster to get people grouped up. Behest does this pretty well already. Basically take the time required to form a group down to the minimum. Their LFG system was another attempt to do this, but it didn't work so well.

Second is, reward people for grouping, however not reward them with more XP. Give them better loot drops, more crystals, faction credits, something. Not XP though, because that becomes "the way" and recreates the solo/party divide.
____________________________


#74 Jan 02 2011 at 4:36 PM Rating: Good
**
429 posts
I think I love you Aurelius.
#75 Jan 02 2011 at 4:51 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
Aurelius wrote:
See, I didn't play for the gear. I played to experience the content. And I stopped playing because I always managed to get in with the "good" guilds when they were in a slump and the content became a chore to see. I could care less what happened to my gear three months/six months/a year from when I got it because that wasn't my motivation. You're not honestly expecting XIV to be any different, are you? Those days of MMO development where you get a piece of gear one day that you're still using three years later are long gone.


Yes, I was kinda expecting XIV to be that way.

Aurelius wrote:
So playing solo yields faster progression than sitting on your hands waiting for something to happen. Go figure.


I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me here or disagreeing on my point that "So long as there isn't a tangible benefit to grouping instead of soloing, people will solo instead of grouping".

Aurelius wrote:
Quote:
Of course that points out the other complaint that it seems like there's not much incentive to play a healer/tank class, unless you count people who aren't specced to heal or tank but queue as healer/tank "to get a group faster" and then you're left with four or five damage classes and the pally/priest/druid/warrior/death knight/shaman arguing "I don't wanna heal/tank" even though they queued as it... but then that's another gripe altogether.


You're not making any sense. Queuing as a tank or a healer typically resulted in instant matches. It was the people who queued for dps that typically had the lengthy waits (lengthy being anything upwards of 5 minutes).


That's exactly what I just said; that tanks/healers get groups fast and damage classes get groups more slowly. You mean to tell me that you've never gotten a group where the person who queued as healer refused to heal or the person who queued as tank refused to tank, admitted that they only did it to get a group faster, and then expected someone else to tank/heal? If so, you're lucky. I had quite a few where the "tank" was a fury warrior or a boomkin or the "healer" was a shadow priest or a enhance shaman who only queued as healer to get a group faster and expected a ret pally or cat druid to fill the healer/tank role they queued as.

Aurelius wrote:
Why the rush? Why does it matter what is faster as long as you're enjoying the process? My interpretation of what you're saying is that you prefer to group, you want to be rewarded for your preference, and you want those rewards to be relevant forever. Good luck with that.


Yes, I prefer to group. It's a MULTIPLAYER ONLINE game, heaven forbid I don't want to play by myself.

Yes, I want to be rewarded for my performance. You're saying that you don't want to be? I thought that investing time and effort and having that result in a reward was a given.

Yes, I want my rewards to not be fleeting. I don't want to turn in my winnings before leaving a casino, I don't want to toss my paycheck in the trash every two weeks, and I don't want to play a game where every hurdle I overcome is rendered worthless by the next hurdle in front of me. this wasn't even my main point or even part of it and you and I have had this argument in the past, and you haven't gotten me to change my mind then or now.

All I look for is the ability to play a multiplayer game with other people, and the ability to be rewarded for my time and effort. You say "Good luck with that" like these concepts are alien to you. Or is your interpretation of a multiplayer game is one that you should play all alone and that you walk away from no better than you started?

Aurelius wrote:
I would say that most people want to have fun above all else, and for the number of people I knew in WoW who would happily quest in less than optimal areas because they liked the zones or they liked the quests I'd say there's plenty of room to argue that the focus should be fun in the process and THEN scope of the reward. Most people aren't going to chase a carrot for very long if the process involved in the chasing doesn't entertain them.


Okay, I'd agree with taht.

Aurelius wrote:
Not true. Group play needs to be fun. That's all it needs to be. And all it needs to offer as incentive over solo play is to allow you to see and experience things in a group that are compelling enough to want to see it and that you can't see as a solo player. Rewards don't matter. Pace of progression doesn't matter. Look at all the TBC dungeons and how many people ran them time and time again because they were having fun in them. And look how many people avoided the less popular ones like Blood Furnace and Auchenai Crypts because they just didn't like them no matter what quests they had in their log for them and what those quests offered as a reward. Look at all the WotLK groups for old raids like Black Temple and Tempest Keep. Look at all the small group fun runs through Karazhan by people who just really liked the content.

It just has to be fun. That's it. That's all it has to be.


I don't disagree that it should be fun, it most certainly should. At no point have I ever said or implied that group play should be unfun. My point was that if there's no tangible benefit to supplement the fun, most people will take the unfun route with a bigger benefit over the fun route with no benefit.

Yes, there are exceptions. The exception is not "most people".

Aurelius wrote:
Quote:
I honestly think XIV could benefit from instanced dungeons with bosses in the way that games like WoW and DDO do it where grouping benefits you in the form of gear. Not unlike how XI has Salvage/Nyzul/Limbus/Dynamis/etc, except make that a leveling option.


Or...you know...where grouping benefits you in the form of a fun experience with a group in places that would eat your face as a solo player of the same level. Rewards are nice. Incentives are nice. If that's all the game has to offer is rewards and incentives to guide you through a sh*tty, sh*tty process, that game isn't going to do very well. You too readily dismiss all reference to fun in your assessment, and that to me is nothing short of tragic. All you talk about is rewards and pace of progression. Pity.


It's a game. I assumed 'fun' should be implied. At no point in any of my posts did I ever say, hint, or imply that progression or rewards should come at the expense of fun.

Since I apparently can't imply things here, I'll spell it out:

YES, THE GAME SHOULD BE FUN. It should be fun to be in a group. It should be fun to accomplish things in a group together.

Is that better?

That fun should ALSO come with progression at a reasonable rate. That fun should ALSO come with rewards for your effort. Fun should NOT be mutually exclusive of progression or rewards. You say that I dismiss fun when I never have, and that all I talk about is pace of progression; I counter with saying that al you talk about is 'fun', as if 'fun' is mutually exclusive from rewards and progression; as if the ONLY way to progress is by NOT having fun, or as if the only reason one should be rewarded is if you -aren't- having fun; that people having fun don't deserve rewards or progression because 'fun' should be its own reward or something?

The 'fun' should be a constant.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#76 Jan 02 2011 at 4:58 PM Rating: Good
*
137 posts
The game is free and people aren't playing it. You think a few content is going to bring people flocking to this game? A game so barren of low level player that even if someone new join there isn't anything for them to do but grind alone. The reality that it is free hasn't even hit some of these folks. The game is in the bargain bin and after the purchase it is free for the time being and still people aren't buying it. That is how bad FFXIV is to the rest of the world.

SE needs to make major changes to so many part of this game. They need to just be honest with the current player base and re-launch. If you are playing now you are testing. A reset will come down the road.

Edited, Jan 2nd 2011 6:00pm by doubleax
#77 Jan 02 2011 at 4:59 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
11,539 posts
doubleax wrote:
The game is free and people aren't playing it. You think a few content is going to bring people flocking to this game? A game so barren of low level player that even if someone new join there isn't anything for them to do but grind alone. The reality that it is free hasn't even hit some of these folks. The game is in the bargain bin and after the purchase it is free for the time being and still people aren't buying it. That is how bad FFXIV is to the rest of the world.



If the game is free and people aren't playing it then it must not be appealing to most people. Content is a good place to start. Give people a reason to play your game.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#78 Jan 02 2011 at 5:07 PM Rating: Excellent
*
137 posts
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:
doubleax wrote:
The game is free and people aren't playing it. You think a few content is going to bring people flocking to this game? A game so barren of low level player that even if someone new join there isn't anything for them to do but grind alone. The reality that it is free hasn't even hit some of these folks. The game is in the bargain bin and after the purchase it is free for the time being and still people aren't buying it. That is how bad FFXIV is to the rest of the world.



If the game is free and people aren't playing it then it must not be appealing to most people. Content is a good place to start. Give people a reason to play your game.


Fix the repair system, the market, UI, crafting, traveling, chat, grouping,a little game guide, and so many more game fundametal before you look at content. Yes they have made some improvments in these area but putting a band aid on these gashing wound isn't going to stop the bleeding. They need to stich it up completly which means little use until it heals.
#79 Jan 02 2011 at 5:11 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
11,539 posts
doubleax wrote:
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:
doubleax wrote:
The game is free and people aren't playing it. You think a few content is going to bring people flocking to this game? A game so barren of low level player that even if someone new join there isn't anything for them to do but grind alone. The reality that it is free hasn't even hit some of these folks. The game is in the bargain bin and after the purchase it is free for the time being and still people aren't buying it. That is how bad FFXIV is to the rest of the world.



If the game is free and people aren't playing it then it must not be appealing to most people. Content is a good place to start. Give people a reason to play your game.


Fix the repair system, the market, UI, crafting, traveling, chat, grouping,a little game guide, and so many more game fundametal before you look at content. Yes they have made some improvments in these area but putting a band aid on these gashing wound isn't going to stop the bleeding. They need to stich it up completly which means little use until it heals.


I don't necessarily disagree, but since they changed the chat restriction from 80ish characters to 280ish characters per line, I'm not sure what else is wrong with chat, aside from the annoying times where your chat line gets wiped out by something. Well, and the fact that it's a pain to chat while fighting or crafting, but that's a flaw in the combat/crafting more than chat.

Still, you're right about the game needing a lot more work than "just content". Especially grouping. My suggestion to add instanced dungeons would be nice; "wow clone" or not.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#80 Jan 02 2011 at 5:12 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
11,576 posts
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:

Aurelius wrote:
So playing solo yields faster progression than sitting on your hands waiting for something to happen. Go figure.


I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me here or disagreeing on my point that "So long as there isn't a tangible benefit to grouping instead of soloing, people will solo instead of grouping".


Define tangible. And if you say pace of progression/material rewards, imma smack you.

Quote:
Quote:
You're not making any sense. Queuing as a tank or a healer typically resulted in instant matches. It was the people who queued for dps that typically had the lengthy waits (lengthy being anything upwards of 5 minutes).


That's exactly what I just said; that tanks/healers get groups fast and damage classes get groups more slowly. You mean to tell me that you've never gotten a group where the person who queued as healer refused to heal or the person who queued as tank refused to tank, admitted that they only did it to get a group faster, and then expected someone else to tank/heal? If so, you're lucky. I had quite a few where the "tank" was a fury warrior or a boomkin or the "healer" was a shadow priest or a enhance shaman who only queued as healer to get a group faster and expected a ret pally or cat druid to fill the healer/tank role they queued as.


So what? No MMO developer is ever going to be able to account for every aspect of player stupidity. I'm not sure you had a point to make in that. When I'd show up in a group as an enhancement shaman queued for DPS and find myself with 3 dps DKs and a boomkin, we went nowhere. The group disbanded. I wasn't about to take on a role I wasn't geared for/specced for/interested in performing and I wasn't going to run with players geared for dps trying to tank. Big deal. They have enough groups disband, they'll realize they're just wasting their own time and stop doing it.

Aurelius wrote:
Quote:
Why the rush? Why does it matter what is faster as long as you're enjoying the process? My interpretation of what you're saying is that you prefer to group, you want to be rewarded for your preference, and you want those rewards to be relevant forever. Good luck with that.


Yes, I prefer to group. It's a MULTIPLAYER ONLINE game, heaven forbid I don't want to play by myself.


So don't. Play a game where grouping is fun and there are fewer barriers to it. You aren't doing anything that entitles you to any kind of reward by grouping. You want a game that focuses on party play and penalizes solo players to make it happen, make your own MMO and do what you want. Get with the @#%^ing times, man. www.tenyearsbehind.com/lolwtf/index.html MMOs aren't about grouping. MMOs are about persistent worlds full of players who can enjoy themselves in a variety of different ways, solo or in groups of various different sizes. Period. And every MMO developer after SE with FFXI has caught on to that. It's time you catch on to that, too.

Quote:
Yes, I want to be rewarded for my performance. You're saying that you don't want to be? I thought that investing time and effort and having that result in a reward was a given.


Bullsh*t. If you want to be rewarded for your performance over someone else, then YOU...not you and your group...YOU need to be doing something that merits the reward. And if YOU and your group accomplish something above and beyond what Bob and Bob's group did, then by all means you should get something extra for your triumph, but not just because you accepted a group invite. Don't try to bullsh*t a bullsh*tter...you want a reward by simple virtue of the fact that you're in a group because if the reward is good enough people will join your group for the rewards, not the process. You haven't mentioned a **** thing about accomplishment or challenge up until now. You want an MMO developer to design systems that reward people for sharing YOUR views and YOUR preference even if it means people who DON'T share YOUR views and YOUR preferences get the shaft.

Quote:
Yes, I want my rewards to not be fleeting. I don't want to turn in my winnings before leaving a casino, I don't want to toss my paycheck in the trash every two weeks, and I don't want to play a game where every hurdle I overcome is rendered worthless by the next hurdle in front of me. this wasn't even my main point or even part of it and you and I have had this argument in the past, and you haven't gotten me to change my mind then or now.


So like...you don't cash your paycheques and spend any part of them because you want them to last forever? Did you tell your employer to stop giving you paycheques because...nono...I worked hard for this one...I don't want you to invalidate the work I put in by giving me another one.... NONO! Do NOT give me a raise! It would make all of my other paycheques before my next one seem small. I do NOT like progress! Just...let me have this one. Forever. Please.

Quote:
All I look for is the ability to play a multiplayer game with other people, and the ability to be rewarded for my time and effort. You say "Good luck with that" like these concepts are alien to you. Or is your interpretation of a multiplayer game is one that you should play all alone and that you walk away from no better than you started?


I say good luck with that because you and Tanaka are both a decade behind. Tanaka's lack of vision cost him his position. And you still don't get the point.

Quote:
I don't disagree that it should be fun, it most certainly should. At no point have I ever said or implied that group play should be unfun. My point was that if there's no tangible benefit to supplement the fun, most people will take the unfun route with a bigger benefit over the fun route with no benefit.


Dumb sheep will play a game they don't enjoy for the reward or eschew something they enjoy for something they detest on a consistent basis for the lewtz. I don't care what dumb sheep do or why they do it. I care about my entertainment time being devoted to something entertaining and not being cockblocked because I can't find a group and a dumbass developer decided to make my other options unappealing just so that I'd try to get a group.

Quote:
It's a game. I assumed 'fun' should be implied. At no point in any of my posts did I ever say, hint, or imply that progression or rewards should come at the expense of fun.


For you. No rewards or progression should come at the expense of fun...for you. Apparently you'd be more than happy to see a system where the rewards for playing the game the way you want to play it leave another substantial segment of players clawing for scraps. I'm not doing this with you. We've had this conversation before. You don't give a @#%^ about anyone's experience other than your own and you'd happily watch a developer sh*t all over anyone who doesn't share your point of view just go get your way.


Edited, Jan 2nd 2011 3:16pm by Aurelius

Edited, Jan 2nd 2011 3:20pm by Aurelius
#81 Jan 02 2011 at 5:21 PM Rating: Good
*
120 posts
I hope they remake the copy and pasted terrain along with weapons and armor breaking! Keep the leveling system though, but get those two things outta here!
#82 Jan 02 2011 at 5:22 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
703 posts
Aurelius wrote:
For you. No rewards or progression should come at the expense of fun...for you. Apparently you'd be more than happy to see a system where the rewards for playing the game the way you want to play it leave another substantial segment of players clawing for scraps. I'm not doing this with you. We've had this conversation before. You don't give a @#%^ about anyone's experience other than your own and you'd happily watch a developer sh*t all over anyone who doesn't share your point of view just go get your way.


So... how many more of us are you going to speak for? Y'know, cause we're, like, totally in agreement on everything because you, like, speak for all of us... right?
#83 Jan 02 2011 at 5:25 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,576 posts
Deila wrote:
Aurelius wrote:
For you. No rewards or progression should come at the expense of fun...for you. Apparently you'd be more than happy to see a system where the rewards for playing the game the way you want to play it leave another substantial segment of players clawing for scraps. I'm not doing this with you. We've had this conversation before. You don't give a @#%^ about anyone's experience other than your own and you'd happily watch a developer sh*t all over anyone who doesn't share your point of view just go get your way.


So... how many more of us are you going to speak for? Y'know, cause we're, like, totally in agreement on everything because you, like, speak for all of us... right?


Where did I say that?
#84 Jan 02 2011 at 5:33 PM Rating: Excellent
**
429 posts
What Aurelius is trying to get at is that there's more than one kind of person that plays MMOs. There's people who want to solo only in a persistent world, there's some people who only log in for a few minutes and want to do something worthwhile, there's people who only play with friends, and there's people who can spend 8 hours a day grouping, and everything else in between.

Yoshida's comparison of MMOs to an amusement park is very apt. You don't call a single ferris wheel an amusement park. You need to make your MMO to cater to different people, or it's going to be a miserable failure. Get out of your FFXI and pre-FFXI caves and educate yourselves on how the MMO and the online gaming world in general has evolved since 2001.
#85 Jan 02 2011 at 5:34 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
Aurelius wrote:
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:

Aurelius wrote:
So playing solo yields faster progression than sitting on your hands waiting for something to happen. Go figure.


I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me here or disagreeing on my point that "So long as there isn't a tangible benefit to grouping instead of soloing, people will solo instead of grouping".


Define tangible. And if you say pace of progression/material rewards, imma smack you.


Then smack me and let's move on.

Aurelius wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
You're not making any sense. Queuing as a tank or a healer typically resulted in instant matches. It was the people who queued for dps that typically had the lengthy waits (lengthy being anything upwards of 5 minutes).


That's exactly what I just said; that tanks/healers get groups fast and damage classes get groups more slowly. You mean to tell me that you've never gotten a group where the person who queued as healer refused to heal or the person who queued as tank refused to tank, admitted that they only did it to get a group faster, and then expected someone else to tank/heal? If so, you're lucky. I had quite a few where the "tank" was a fury warrior or a boomkin or the "healer" was a shadow priest or a enhance shaman who only queued as healer to get a group faster and expected a ret pally or cat druid to fill the healer/tank role they queued as.


So what? No MMO developer is ever going to be able to account for every aspect of player stupidity. I'm not sure you had a point to make in that. When I'd show up in a group as an enhancement shaman queued for DPS and find myself with 3 dps DKs and a boomkin, we went nowhere. The group disbanded. I wasn't about to take on a role I wasn't geared for/specced for/interested in performing and I wasn't going to run with players geared for dps trying to tank. Big deal. They have enough groups disband, they'll realize they're just wasting their own time and stop doing it.


Actually, in my experiences, what would end up happening is that none of the three people who waited 15-25 minutes while queued the way they were SUPPOSED to be (damage) would be willing to try tanking/healing in their damage gear and the group would slowly slog through the dungeon since they'd rather do that then requeue. That, or the healer or tank who WAS prepared to perform their role would just drop, leaving the other four to disband in frustration and requeue for a replacement. I agree that player stupidity messes the system up, and by now I've already forgotten what point I was making with that.

Aurelius wrote:
Aurelius wrote:
Quote:
Why the rush? Why does it matter what is faster as long as you're enjoying the process? My interpretation of what you're saying is that you prefer to group, you want to be rewarded for your preference, and you want those rewards to be relevant forever. Good luck with that.


Yes, I prefer to group. It's a MULTIPLAYER ONLINE game, heaven forbid I don't want to play by myself.


So don't. Play a game where grouping is fun and there are fewer barriers to it. You aren't doing anything that entitles you to any kind of reward by grouping. You want a game that focuses on party play and penalizes solo players to make it happen, make your own MMO and do what you want. Get with the @#%^ing times, man. www.tenyearsbehind.com/lolwtf/index.html MMOs aren't about grouping. MMOs are about persistent worlds full of players who can enjoy themselves in a variety of different ways, solo or in groups of various different sizes. Period. And every MMO developer after SE with FFXI has caught on to that. It's time you catch on to that, too.


Yes, I want a game that focuses on party play. Yes, I believe that a MULTIPLAYER ONLINE game should be a game where I play online with other players. I'm sorry, but I am not willing to accept "Get with the times" or "Catch on that everyone else wants to play by themselves" as counter argument.

I play FPS games because I want to shoot people/monsters. I play RTS games because I want to build bases and destroy my opponents. I play single player RPGs because I want to enjoy a story and a world by myself. I play MMORPGs because I want to group up with other players and tackle the game as a group.

I'm not willing to accept your counter argument here that online games are about people playing by themselves. I'm also not interested in playing an online game by myself; if I wanted to play by myself I'd play an OFFLINE game. I am not willing to change my mind on this one. Sorry. Either try a different approach with me on this one to explain why my idea is hurting -me- or give up on this point.

Aurelius wrote:
Quote:
Yes, I want to be rewarded for my performance. You're saying that you don't want to be? I thought that investing time and effort and having that result in a reward was a given.


Bullsh*t. If you want to be rewarded for your performance over someone else, then YOU...not you and your group...YOU need to be doing something that merits the reward. And if YOU and your group accomplish something above and beyond what Bob an Bob's group did, then by all means you should get something extra for your triumph, but not just because you accepted a group invite. Don't try to bullsh*t a bullsh*tter...you want a reward by simple virtue of the fact that you're in a group because if the reward is good enough people will join your group for the rewards, not the process. You haven't mentioned a **** thing about accomplishment or challenge up until now. You want an MMO developer to design systems that reward people for sharing YOUR views and YOUR preference even if it means people who DON'T share YOUR views and YOUR preferences get the shaft.


Much like the "fun" argument, I never said that I deserve a reward "just for accepting a group invite" and just because I haven't mentioned accomplishment or challenge directly, like fun, did not mean they were not implied. Do I have to spell everything out for you, or are you just going to keep throwing out strawmen arguing against things I never said and basing your argument that because I -didn't- say something, you're just going to assume my point of view on that matter? Next post you're going to argue that I think MMORPG developers should cannibalize babies because I never said they didn't.

Stick to arguing with the things I -do- say, please. Leave the strawman at home and stop assuming that just because I don't mention a given thing that I am automatically arguing whatever point you feel like trying to counter. This is the second time in as many posts you have done this.

Aurelius wrote:
[quote]I don't disagree that it should be fun, it most certainly should. At no point have I ever said or implied that group play should be unfun. My point was that if there's no tangible benefit to supplement the fun, most people will take the unfun route with a bigger benefit over the fun route with no benefit.


Dumb sheep will play a game they don't enjoy for the reward or eschew something they enjoy for something they detest on a consistent basis for the lewtz. I don't care what dumb sheep do or why they do it. I care about my entertainment time being devoted to something entertaining and not being cockblocked because I can't find a group and a dumbass developer decided to make my other options unappealing just so that I'd try to get a group.[/quote]

...okay?

Aurelius wrote:
[quote]It's a game. I assumed 'fun' should be implied. At no point in any of my posts did I ever say, hint, or imply that progression or rewards should come at the expense of fun.


For you. No rewards or progression should come at the expense of fun...for you. Apparently you'd be more than happy to see a system where the rewards for playing the game the way you want to play it leave another substantial segment of players clawing for scraps. I'm not doing this with you. We've had this conversation before. You don't give a @#%^ about anyone's experience other than your own and you'd happily watch a developer sh*t all over anyone who doesn't share your point of view just go get your way.
[/quote]

Again with arguing against the points that I've never made. I mean, ****, if you're just going to postulate whatever you want to argue against, why don't you just argue with myself and assume I've said whatever the **** you want? Less work for me.

Argue against points I've ACTUALLY made and stop trying to infer things when and where it suits you.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#86 Jan 02 2011 at 5:35 PM Rating: Decent
*****
11,539 posts
Aurelius wrote:
Deila wrote:
Aurelius wrote:
For you. No rewards or progression should come at the expense of fun...for you. Apparently you'd be more than happy to see a system where the rewards for playing the game the way you want to play it leave another substantial segment of players clawing for scraps. I'm not doing this with you. We've had this conversation before. You don't give a @#%^ about anyone's experience other than your own and you'd happily watch a developer sh*t all over anyone who doesn't share your point of view just go get your way.


So... how many more of us are you going to speak for? Y'know, cause we're, like, totally in agreement on everything because you, like, speak for all of us... right?


Where did I say that?


Wow, it sucks when people put words in your mouth, doesn't it?
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#87 Jan 02 2011 at 5:37 PM Rating: Decent
36 posts
There, there.... y'all play nice now.

We will all have strong opinions about everything about the changes to this game. But so far everyone is just speculating. Nobody knows.

No point in infecting the already small community with feuds as a result of getting personal.

Everyone has equal right to speak their mind, but keeping it general is better than making it personal. :)

#88 Jan 02 2011 at 5:40 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,576 posts
Wolfums wrote:
What Aurelius is trying to get at is that there's more than one kind of person that plays MMOs. There's people who want to solo only in a persistent world, there's some people who only log in for a few minutes and want to do something worthwhile, there's people who only play with friends, and there's people who can spend 8 hours a day grouping, and everything else in between.

Yoshida's comparison of MMOs to an amusement park is very apt. You don't call a single ferris wheel an amusement park. You need to make your MMO to cater to different people, or it's going to be a miserable failure. Get out of your FFXI and pre-FFXI caves and educate yourselves on how the MMO and the online gaming world in general has evolved since 2001.


Exactly. People stuck in the mindset that the whole point of an MMO is to experience things in a group are years behind. Grouping can be part of an MMO, and a developer should spend substantial time and effort producing content aimed towards groups, but the instant they start tuning the game to favor groups at every turn, they've missed the boat. I enjoy grouping with the right people for group content I find enjoyable. I also enjoy just logging in and running off to some place in the world and smashing things on my own while happily chatting to guildies/LS mates/whatever. There's more to social interaction in an MMO than grouping.

The genre has evolved. The naive, utopian ideals of early MMO developers have been exposed as just that: naive, utopian ideals. Clinging to the past serves no one.
#89 Jan 02 2011 at 5:40 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
Wolfums wrote:
What Aurelius is trying to get at is that there's more than one kind of person that plays MMOs. There's people who want to solo only in a persistent world, there's some people who only log in for a few minutes and want to do something worthwhile, there's people who only play with friends, and there's people who can spend 8 hours a day grouping, and everything else in between.

Yoshida's comparison of MMOs to an amusement park is very apt. You don't call a single ferris wheel an amusement park. You need to make your MMO to cater to different people, or it's going to be a miserable failure. Get out of your FFXI and pre-FFXI caves and educate yourselves on how the MMO and the online gaming world in general has evolved since 2001.


You're right that there is more than one kind of person that plays MMOs. There should, similarly be more than one type of MMO. There are amusement parks of different types for different types of people, there are different restaurants for different people, there are different movies for different people, there are different vehicles for different people, there should also be different MMOs for different types of people. The argument I see being made is that all MMOs should be designed to appeal to everyone (i.e. "the same").

While I disagree with the "all my myself with everyone else" playstyle, I admit there is a market for it. I also submit that there is a market for people who WANT to play with other people. So why not offer them a different game? Why must -all- games appeal to -all- people? Why can't some games apply to some people and other games apply to other people?

I'm failing to understand why someone is so abrasive that one game, just ONE game could be a game that only appeals to some people. I don't complain that every dance club needs to play music everyone will like or that every fast food chain needs to offer food that everyone will like... why is it necessary that EVERY MMORPG offers content that EVERYONE will like?

Edited, Jan 2nd 2011 6:44pm by Mikhalia
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#90 Jan 02 2011 at 5:44 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,636 posts
Quote:

Yes, I want a game that focuses on party play. Yes, I believe that a MULTIPLAYER ONLINE game should be a game where I play online with other players. I'm sorry, but I am not willing to accept "Get with the times" or "Catch on that everyone else wants to play by themselves" as counter argument.


Multiplayer doesn't imply grouping for every aspect of the game. Most people don't want to sit around waiting for groups to be able to participate in basic gameplay. Vanguard thought there were enough who did though to support a game, and they were kinda wrong.
____________________________


#91 Jan 02 2011 at 5:47 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,636 posts
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:
[quote=Wolfums]
I'm failing to understand why someone is so abrasive that one game, just ONE game could be a game that only appeals to some people. I don't complain that every dance club needs to play music everyone will like or that every fast food chain needs to offer food that everyone will like... why is it necessary that EVERY MMORPG offers content that EVERYONE will like?

Edited, Jan 2nd 2011 6:44pm by Mikhalia


I will say in this case, because from minute one, SE has said that this would not be that game. Therefore, I'm curious where people got the idea it would be.
____________________________


#92 Jan 02 2011 at 5:47 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
KujaKoF wrote:
Quote:

Yes, I want a game that focuses on party play. Yes, I believe that a MULTIPLAYER ONLINE game should be a game where I play online with other players. I'm sorry, but I am not willing to accept "Get with the times" or "Catch on that everyone else wants to play by themselves" as counter argument.


Multiplayer doesn't imply grouping for every aspect of the game. Most people don't want to sit around waiting for groups to be able to participate in basic gameplay. Vanguard thought there were enough who did though to support a game, and they were kinda wrong.


Multiplayer should imply grouping as a major part of the game. I agree that sitting around waiting for groups isn't fun at all, so you need to be less stringent on group requirements. Design content that can be done with 2-3 people and other content that can be done with 5-6 people and more that can be done with 10+ and so on. The flaw of XI, IMO, was that it required a group of 6, and it required a SPECIFIC group of 6 (heal, tank, refresh, DD, DD, DD) and the waiting game was worsened by this.

Design a game where 2-3 DDs can group up and still accomplish something and you have a good system.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#93 Jan 02 2011 at 5:49 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
11,576 posts
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:
Wolfums wrote:
What Aurelius is trying to get at is that there's more than one kind of person that plays MMOs. There's people who want to solo only in a persistent world, there's some people who only log in for a few minutes and want to do something worthwhile, there's people who only play with friends, and there's people who can spend 8 hours a day grouping, and everything else in between.

Yoshida's comparison of MMOs to an amusement park is very apt. You don't call a single ferris wheel an amusement park. You need to make your MMO to cater to different people, or it's going to be a miserable failure. Get out of your FFXI and pre-FFXI caves and educate yourselves on how the MMO and the online gaming world in general has evolved since 2001.


You're right that there is more than one kind of person that plays MMOs. There should, similarly be more than one type of MMO. There are amusement parks of different types for different types of people, there are different restaurants for different people, there are different movies for different people, there are different vehicles for different people, there should also be different MMOs for different types of people. The argument I see being made is that all MMOs should be designed to appeal to everyone (i.e. "the same").


Don't be silly. Designing an MMO for broad appeal doesn't mean it's going to be the "same" as every other MMO. You like to group? Great. Is there group content? Yes? Great. Enjoy your group. That's all you need to concern yourself with. What solo players are getting compared to you and what other people are doing is none of your business. You don't need separate games from group and solo play and you REALLY need to get over this notion that people who like solo play ONLY like solo play.

Quote:
I'm failing to understand why someone is so abrasive that one game, just ONE game could be a game that only appeals to some people. I don't complain that every dance club needs to play music everyone will like or that every fast food chain needs to offer food that everyone will like... why is it necessary that EVERY MMORPG offers content that EVERYONE will like?


I'm failing to understand why you'd come to a game that was marketed in large part for solo accessibility and still be talking like there was ever a hope in **** they were going to make it group centric. If SE had said from the beginning that they wanted to fill the group-only niche in MMOs, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I wouldn't be here. But that's not what they said and you **** well know it. So knock it off already.
#94 Jan 02 2011 at 5:52 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
KujaKoF wrote:
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:
[quote=Wolfums]
I'm failing to understand why someone is so abrasive that one game, just ONE game could be a game that only appeals to some people. I don't complain that every dance club needs to play music everyone will like or that every fast food chain needs to offer food that everyone will like... why is it necessary that EVERY MMORPG offers content that EVERYONE will like?

Edited, Jan 2nd 2011 6:44pm by Mikhalia


I will say in this case, because from minute one, SE has said that this would not be that game. Therefore, I'm curious where people got the idea it would be.


For one, they -are- going to be changing the game, so there is now the chance that it could be.

For two, the point was made by Aurelius that every game needs to appeal to everyone; my counterargument was the notion that 'What's wrong with ONE game that doesn't?', which, while I wish it -would- be XIV, did not necessarily mean it needed to be. If FFXIV is not that game and another game turns out to be then I'll go play that game instead. I'm really not picky as to WHICH game it is that is that way; my point has been that there should at least be SOME option for people who want that game.

Why not have elves in Star Wars because some people like elves? Why not have lasers in a Harry Potter movie because some people like lasers? Why not have a murderous killing spree in the musical Cats because some people like murderous killing sprees?

Some times, some things apply more to some people than to others. What I don't get is the people who believe that EVERY GAME, even games that they don't even PLAY needs to appeal to everyone.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#95 Jan 02 2011 at 5:53 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,636 posts
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:
KujaKoF wrote:
Quote:

Yes, I want a game that focuses on party play. Yes, I believe that a MULTIPLAYER ONLINE game should be a game where I play online with other players. I'm sorry, but I am not willing to accept "Get with the times" or "Catch on that everyone else wants to play by themselves" as counter argument.


Multiplayer doesn't imply grouping for every aspect of the game. Most people don't want to sit around waiting for groups to be able to participate in basic gameplay. Vanguard thought there were enough who did though to support a game, and they were kinda wrong.


Multiplayer should imply grouping as a major part of the game. I agree that sitting around waiting for groups isn't fun at all, so you need to be less stringent on group requirements. Design content that can be done with 2-3 people and other content that can be done with 5-6 people and more that can be done with 10+ and so on. The flaw of XI, IMO, was that it required a group of 6, and it required a SPECIFIC group of 6 (heal, tank, refresh, DD, DD, DD) and the waiting game was worsened by this.

Design a game where 2-3 DDs can group up and still accomplish something and you have a good system.


I agree that grouping should be needed for the bulk of the interesting content in a game. However, forced grouping as a leveling mechanic is done, you will not see that in a game again. People don't like to log into a game and find out they can't do what they want to because there aren't enough people available. Leave groups for the meat of the game.

____________________________


#96 Jan 02 2011 at 5:58 PM Rating: Decent
*****
11,539 posts
Aurelius wrote:
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:
Wolfums wrote:
What Aurelius is trying to get at is that there's more than one kind of person that plays MMOs. There's people who want to solo only in a persistent world, there's some people who only log in for a few minutes and want to do something worthwhile, there's people who only play with friends, and there's people who can spend 8 hours a day grouping, and everything else in between.

Yoshida's comparison of MMOs to an amusement park is very apt. You don't call a single ferris wheel an amusement park. You need to make your MMO to cater to different people, or it's going to be a miserable failure. Get out of your FFXI and pre-FFXI caves and educate yourselves on how the MMO and the online gaming world in general has evolved since 2001.


You're right that there is more than one kind of person that plays MMOs. There should, similarly be more than one type of MMO. There are amusement parks of different types for different types of people, there are different restaurants for different people, there are different movies for different people, there are different vehicles for different people, there should also be different MMOs for different types of people. The argument I see being made is that all MMOs should be designed to appeal to everyone (i.e. "the same").


Don't be silly. Designing an MMO for broad appeal doesn't mean it's going to be the "same" as every other MMO. You like to group? Great. Is there group content? Yes? Great. Enjoy your group. That's all you need to concern yourself with. What solo players are getting compared to you and what other people are doing is none of your business. You don't need separate games from group and solo play and you REALLY need to get over this notion that people who like solo play ONLY like solo play.


One: I never said that people who like solo play ONLY like solo play. What I DID say was that if group and solo play provide identical results, most people will lean towards solo play. At no point did I say that EVERYONE who likes to solo ONLY likes to solo. Is not putting words in my mouth REALLY that difficult?

Two: If solo players are getting comparable rewards to group players, then this adversely impacts my group experience, because there will be fewer groups. Every person who CHOOSES to solo INSTEAD of grouping for the reason that THEY don't feel grouping is worth it is one less person to group with. That's why I concern myself with it.

Aurelius wrote:
Quote:
I'm failing to understand why someone is so abrasive that one game, just ONE game could be a game that only appeals to some people. I don't complain that every dance club needs to play music everyone will like or that every fast food chain needs to offer food that everyone will like... why is it necessary that EVERY MMORPG offers content that EVERYONE will like?


I'm failing to understand why you'd come to a game that was marketed in large part for solo accessibility and still be talking like there was ever a hope in **** they were going to make it group centric. If SE had said from the beginning that they wanted to fill the group-only niche in MMOs, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I wouldn't be here. But that's not what they said and you **** well know it. So knock it off already.


As mentioned in the last post, and as is the main topic of this entire thread, there is the potential that the game COULD be drastically changed. So yes, there -is- now a chance, a hope, a possibility, that the game could become more group centric than it currently is. If there were no restructuring of the dev team, or if this thread were not about the POSSIBILITY of a total game reboot, I wouldn't be posting in it. But that's what happened and that's what this thread is about and you **** well know it. So knock it off already.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#97 Jan 02 2011 at 6:00 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
KujaKoF wrote:
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:
KujaKoF wrote:
Quote:

Yes, I want a game that focuses on party play. Yes, I believe that a MULTIPLAYER ONLINE game should be a game where I play online with other players. I'm sorry, but I am not willing to accept "Get with the times" or "Catch on that everyone else wants to play by themselves" as counter argument.


Multiplayer doesn't imply grouping for every aspect of the game. Most people don't want to sit around waiting for groups to be able to participate in basic gameplay. Vanguard thought there were enough who did though to support a game, and they were kinda wrong.


Multiplayer should imply grouping as a major part of the game. I agree that sitting around waiting for groups isn't fun at all, so you need to be less stringent on group requirements. Design content that can be done with 2-3 people and other content that can be done with 5-6 people and more that can be done with 10+ and so on. The flaw of XI, IMO, was that it required a group of 6, and it required a SPECIFIC group of 6 (heal, tank, refresh, DD, DD, DD) and the waiting game was worsened by this.

Design a game where 2-3 DDs can group up and still accomplish something and you have a good system.


I agree that grouping should be needed for the bulk of the interesting content in a game. However, forced grouping as a leveling mechanic is done, you will not see that in a game again. People don't like to log into a game and find out they can't do what they want to because there aren't enough people available. Leave groups for the meat of the game.


Well the argument here is: "Should leveling be considered interesting content"? I think yes. If you think no, then we're going to disagree on that.

I think leveling should be a fun, important part of the game that does comprise part of the meat of the game; not that leveling should be a prelude to the "real" game which starts at level cap. If you disagree with that statement then I could see why you would disagree with the rest of what I've said.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#98 Jan 02 2011 at 6:12 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
200 posts
SterlingHighwind wrote:
they can do whatever they want, i think i will survive, just DO NOT make me start over on my levels..



Agreed by everyone I'm sure.
#99 Jan 02 2011 at 6:19 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,636 posts
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:
KujaKoF wrote:
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:
KujaKoF wrote:
Quote:

Yes, I want a game that focuses on party play. Yes, I believe that a MULTIPLAYER ONLINE game should be a game where I play online with other players. I'm sorry, but I am not willing to accept "Get with the times" or "Catch on that everyone else wants to play by themselves" as counter argument.


Multiplayer doesn't imply grouping for every aspect of the game. Most people don't want to sit around waiting for groups to be able to participate in basic gameplay. Vanguard thought there were enough who did though to support a game, and they were kinda wrong.


Multiplayer should imply grouping as a major part of the game. I agree that sitting around waiting for groups isn't fun at all, so you need to be less stringent on group requirements. Design content that can be done with 2-3 people and other content that can be done with 5-6 people and more that can be done with 10+ and so on. The flaw of XI, IMO, was that it required a group of 6, and it required a SPECIFIC group of 6 (heal, tank, refresh, DD, DD, DD) and the waiting game was worsened by this.

Design a game where 2-3 DDs can group up and still accomplish something and you have a good system.


I agree that grouping should be needed for the bulk of the interesting content in a game. However, forced grouping as a leveling mechanic is done, you will not see that in a game again. People don't like to log into a game and find out they can't do what they want to because there aren't enough people available. Leave groups for the meat of the game.


Well the argument here is: "Should leveling be considered interesting content"? I think yes. If you think no, then we're going to disagree on that.

I think leveling should be a fun, important part of the game that does comprise part of the meat of the game; not that leveling should be a prelude to the "real" game which starts at level cap. If you disagree with that statement then I could see why you would disagree with the rest of what I've said.


I don't really think that you're wrong. I am ok with meaningful group leveling methods. Contrary to what a lot of people seem to be saying, it can exist along side solo options. I think the wow model is the best you're going to get though. What I'd like to see added (and sorry if this sounds like spanish to anyone who isn't familiar with wow), would be more open areas with elite mobs for this type of grinding experience. Ideally I'd like to see grouping SP/hour be equal to solo SP/hour, however grouping offer slightly better crystals/money rewards.

I would simply add in newer smaller areas, or corners of maps, with group mode mobs. they would be the same level, but require a 5-7 member group to kill. so say a level 20 solo mob gives a level 20 player 200SP, a level 20 group mob would give each member of the party 200SP, and have its drops increased.


____________________________


#100 Jan 02 2011 at 6:20 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
322 posts
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:
I never said that people who like solo play ONLY like solo play. What I DID say was that if group and solo play provide identical results, most people will lean towards solo play.


This times a million. Hasn't WoW taught people this is true?

My personal opinion is that anyone who cares to make the most of their time in any capacity whether it be a video game, real life, whatever (ie most people) is always going to sacrifice a degree of fun for efficiency.

I enjoy both leveling and running dungeons in WoW, but I simply don't do that many dungeons because the payoff isn't good enough. I often find I can make more experience solo questing than doing a dungeon with a group so why should I bother?

The experience? Don't make me laugh. If I can advance faster solo why would I slow myself down without an appropriate reward?

I honestly think group rewards need to be in place in all MMOs to promote grouping. You're horribly naive if you think the majority of people take the "most fun" route instead of the "pretty fun" most efficient route.
____________________________


#101 Jan 02 2011 at 6:22 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,576 posts
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:

One: I never said that people who like solo play ONLY like solo play.


Really? Sadly, when your only references to solo play are along the lines of:

Quote:
While I disagree with the "all my myself with everyone else" playstyle, I admit there is a market for it.


that's the impression that you lend. So maybe straighten up the words coming out of your mouth before they escape your mouth and be a little more succinct, k?

Quote:
What I DID say was that if group and solo play provide identical results, most people will lean towards solo play. At no point did I say that EVERYONE who likes to solo ONLY likes to solo. Is not putting words in my mouth REALLY that difficult?


Yes, they will. Unless they've got friends in the game that they trust or an LS/guild where people are putting together a group when someone feels like a change of pace. And that's their business. I don't log in to accommodate you. And if I don't know you, odds are just as good that grouping with you is going to be a disaster as they are that the group will be fun. So why would I take the chance? And is it possible to create an incentive for group play that doesn't make solo play feel like that sub-standard activity that you do when you can't find a group? It absolutely is. It has been proven that it is. Time and again. And again. And again. But you won't acknowledge that. It's not enough for you to be having fun with a group in group content, you need faster progression and better shinies. Because the dungeon finder wasn't enough to teach you that if a developer does it right you can be running group content all day long with as little as a 5 minute (or less) gap between runs. That's all it took...get rid of the barrier. Establish a system that allowed people to set up their group search with a few clicks and then go off and do other things while they wait. And if the group works out, win. And if the group doesn't work out, at least you didn't spend <x> amount of time running around trying to find people to join it. Not quite a win, but better than the traditional outcome.

But you..you're just stuck in the past and it doesn't matter what spin you try and put on it your motivations and your horribly narrow point of view are pretty clear. See, I'd like to see a game where people who prefer to group can have all kinds of fun and people who prefer to solo can have all kinds of fun and people who prefer a mix can...have all kinds of fun. But you, you happy little fascist, you...all about what you want. All about bending people to your way of doing things. All about everyone else not doing things the way you want to do them so Daddy Developer, make the bad people stop! On a server of 3-5k people you don't need 3-5k people all wanting to group for you to be able to group and have fun. You need however many people it takes to fill a group in your level range. That's it. But that's not good enough for you. You need AAAAAAAAALL of them to be put into a situation where if they're not grouping they feel like they're missing out. How wonderfully accommodating of you. **** over a few thousand peoples' experience to suit you and the people like you. Who are the minority. That show up to games asking them to do the opposite of what they said or thinking for even half a second that a failing game is going to shoot themselves in the foot and alienate a huge chunk of the people they have left to cater to the nichiest of niches.

You're smarter than that, but you're not doing a very good job of demonstrating it. You've been on about this since day one despite what SE said and you honestly even hope they're going to make a bad game worse by accommodating a niche that died out years ago? Time to give your head a shake, sport.

Quote:
Two: If solo players are getting comparable rewards to group players, then this adversely impacts my group experience, because there will be fewer groups. Every person who CHOOSES to solo INSTEAD of grouping for the reason that THEY don't feel grouping is worth it is one less person to group with. That's why I concern myself with it.


********* Don't even pretend to use that line with me. Some guy off in the opposite corner of the world having fun as a solo player and even progressing at the same pace as you isn't hurting you at all. AT ALL. You're not in gradeschool/highschool anymore. You don't need to be looking around and basing your happiness on what the other kids are doing and what they other kids are wearing and do you fit in and are you good enough and are you popular and herpa derp. Be a grown up, ffs. Live and let live. Give peace a chance. And all else failing, mind your own **** business.

Aurelius wrote:
As mentioned in the last post, and as is the main topic of this entire thread, there is the potential that the game COULD be drastically changed. So yes, there -is- now a chance, a hope, a possibility, that the game could become more group centric than it currently is.


No, there's not. Don't delude yourself any more than you already have. Yoshida hasn't been brought in to send the game back to the dinosaur ages...he's been sent in to salvage what was touted as a next-gen MMO from the pits of failure, and he's not going to do that by alienating the lion's share of potential subscribers.
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 19 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (19)