Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

I think ARR will succeed.Follow

#202 Mar 09 2013 at 2:36 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Nah, most people only need to worry about money if they're living beyond their means. Same thing as being overscheduled, really. Not enough time or not enough money are basically the same problem.
____________________________
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.
#203 Mar 09 2013 at 3:02 PM Rating: Excellent
They are not at all the same problem.

A person can have months of extra income saved up and still worry about losing a job, medical emergencies, etc.

On the other hand, spending time fighting a Notorious monster is just... Playing a game.

It is a nuisanced difference.

EDIT: Also, Kachi, your point of view completely disregard people who ARE struggling financially who play MMORPGs as a means of cheap entertainment. Unless you are in this position, you really have no right to compare gaming with gambling.

Edited, Mar 9th 2013 1:07pm by Thayos
____________________________
Thayos Redblade
Jormungandr
Hyperion
#204 Mar 09 2013 at 4:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Guru
***
1,310 posts
Kachi wrote:
Louiscool is correct on the statistical question. I'm not talking about one player getting the drop, either, but any given player. As I said, you basically have the same odds of getting lucky (less than 14 attempts) as you do being unlucky (more than 14 attempts). Statistically, they should center around a mean of 14 attempts. Using the math of combinations and permutations isn't relevant to these sorts of statistical incidences.


Actually, there's only a 36.2% chance you'll fail 14 times in a row (.93 ^ 14 = .362).

On a thousand scrolls, if I got $40 for every scroll that took less than 14 tries, and you got $60 for every scroll that took more than 14 tries, I would have thousands of dollars more than you.

And I can prove it... with computer simulation.

Below is an HTML page with a JavaScript simulator of collecting 1000 scrolls with a 7% chance of success. If you paste it into a notepad and save it as a *.htm file, you can open it in your browser to see the results (you may have to give permission for the script to run, I promise there's no virus). You'll see the average is 14 attempts, but the vast majority will be finished before they hit their 14th attempt. Around half will be done in 10 or less tries. You can run it over again by refreshing the page but the results don't really change that dramatically.
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" > 
<head> 
    <title>1000 scrolls with 7% drop rate</title> 
</head> 
<body> 
<script type="text/javascript"> 
    var MAX = 1000; 
    var tenOrLess = 0; 
    var lessThan14 = 0; 
    var exactly14 = 0; 
    var moreThan14 = 0; 
    var avg = 0; 
    var total = 0; 
 
    for (var i = 0; i < MAX; i++) { 
        var attempts = 0; 
        var success = false; 
 
        // don't stop till we get a scroll 
        while (!success) { 
            attempts++; // increment the attempts by 1 
            var oneHundredSidedDie = Math.floor(Math.random() * 100) + 1; // generates a random number between 1 and 100 
 
            if (oneHundredSidedDie <= 7) 
                success = true; // rolled a 7 or less, so got a scroll, hurray! 
        } 
 
        // okay, got a scroll, let's tally the results 
 
        if (attempts <= 10) 
            tenOrLess++; 
 
        if (attempts < 14) 
            lessThan14++; 
        else if (attempts == 14) 
            exactly14++; 
        else 
            moreThan14++; 
 
        total += attempts; 
    } 
 
    avg = total / MAX; 
    document.write("<p>Less than 14 attempts for scroll = " + lessThan14); 
    document.write("</p><p>Exactly 14 attempts for scroll = " + exactly14); 
    document.write("</p><p>More than 14 attempts for scroll = " + moreThan14); 
    document.write("</p><p>10 or fewer attempts for scroll = " + tenOrLess); 
    document.write("</p><p>Total attempts for 1000 scrolls = " + total); 
    document.write("</p><p>Average attempts per scroll = " + avg + "</p>"); 
</script> 
</body> 
</html> 



In other words, you know how sometimes it feels like most people get their drops right away and you're left behind in the land of Still-No-Drop? It's a mathematical fact!
#205 Mar 09 2013 at 5:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Sage
***
1,675 posts
I don't know about gambling or statistics (although that javascript was pretty cool), but I'll have to agree with Thayos on wanting there to be (at least a few) items, or things that are difficult to obtain.

Most times things that are difficult to obtain inherently involve timesinks or are just boring. But they add an aura of mystique and motivation; as an allusion to the real world.

However In the MMO world timesinks to a difficult end goal can be supplemented with fun activities, whereas in the real world obtaining something, like a Ferrari is almost impossible or never 'fun' to get there. Unless you consider investment banking fun.

...and (ironically) those that enjoy what they do (IRL, and are successful) don't care as much about the end goal (the Ferrari) because that isn't why they are doing what they do.

So in the end I kinda see both points, but it just makes sense to cater to what most people want; the carrot(s). And since an MMO is inherently a game, by virtue of it being separate from RL, it's already an escape free from most of the rules of the real world; where I have more control over obtaining things. And I can have 'fun' doing it.

A game has a set of rules, however in this game I am immortal, and have (over a period of time) the opportunity to obtain everything within it. I think by those standards some of the rules of psychology must differ greatly from RL; where we have a finite time on earth, limited resources and limited knowledge of how to get where we want.

I'm too lazy to carry an in depth conversation today (with Kachi, or whoever else) but I'd assume that theories of motivation and other psychological ideas would have to account for these sorts of things, like immorality and different rulesets. RL vs a game world, and concepts like these, I'm sure, aren't necessarily cookie cutter, for the lack of a better term.




#206 Mar 09 2013 at 6:29 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
@Thayos, I'm not saying they're exactly the same, but the mechanics exploit the same mentality. MMOs do it in a vacuum which mitigates real-life damage, but the mechanisms are the same. It is the substantial risk of time or money lost that generates the "thrill" of big, rare loot.

@Kierk, It seems like you didn't actually read my reply. Which I understand, but you missed some important things, namely the part about why there should be items which are difficult to obtain. We just disagree on the KIND of difficulty that should be used. Timesinks are considered fake difficulty, which is discussed in many articles, most of which aren't even technical.

@Xoie, Again, I'm talking about the population of players, not a single given player. I'm not going to check your math or your script (wouldn't know how to do the latter).
____________________________
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.
#207 Mar 09 2013 at 6:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Sage
Avatar
*
131 posts
I like moogles :3 <3
#208 Mar 09 2013 at 7:05 PM Rating: Decent
Guru
***
1,310 posts
Kachi wrote:
@Xoie, Again, I'm talking about the population of players, not a single given player. I'm not going to check your math or your script (wouldn't know how to do the latter).


It simulates the acquisition of 1000 scrolls. It shows the median is roughly around 10 attempts even though the average is 14. It's the distribution you have wrong. The average is not the halfway point between getting a scroll or not, the median is. The average is higher than the median because of a sad few people who will be very unlucky, and will have to try an exorbitant number of times which drives the average up.

I've proven this with math and a computer simulation versus your say so. If this can't convince you then you can't be convinced no matter what the evidence. But you're the one who brought up statistics, not me, and you dismissed my results even though you have nothing to refute it with.
#209 Mar 09 2013 at 7:17 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
I'm not saying you're wrong, just that your calculations were for the wrong problem, insofar as the point I was trying to make.
____________________________
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.
#210 Mar 09 2013 at 8:39 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,416 posts
I don't see why challenge is being put on a pedestal, ignoring everything else.

Difficult items can be difficult to acquire because they require commitment. Commitment is not something everyone has, and most activities where one can excel involve little difficulty but a lot of commitment for one to become proficient in. Say, learning to play the piano or learning a language.

Doing something like that can't be considered an achievement, because there is no challenge to be had (outside the commitment required)? I wholeheartedly disagree. That said, difficult items can be difficult to obtain solely through the commitment they require, and satisfaction in obtaining said items is not lost just because there weren't only challenges involving skills as a gamer.
#211 Mar 09 2013 at 8:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
Hyanmen wrote:
I don't see why challenge is being put on a pedestal, ignoring everything else.

Difficult items can be difficult to acquire because they require commitment. Commitment is not something everyone has, and most activities where one can excel involve little difficulty but a lot of commitment for one to become proficient in. Say, learning to play the piano or learning a language.

Doing something like that can't be considered an achievement, because there is no challenge to be had (outside the commitment required)? I wholeheartedly disagree. That said, difficult items can be difficult to obtain solely through the commitment they require, and satisfaction in obtaining said items is not lost just because there weren't only challenges involving skills as a gamer.


This is the attitude that caused SE to make the level 95 Empyrean weapon require fifteen hundred Heavy Metal Plates.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#212 Mar 09 2013 at 8:58 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Hyanmen wrote:
I don't see why challenge is being put on a pedestal, ignoring everything else.

Difficult items can be difficult to acquire because they require commitment. Commitment is not something everyone has, and most activities where one can excel involve little difficulty but a lot of commitment for one to become proficient in. Say, learning to play the piano or learning a language.

Doing something like that can't be considered an achievement, because there is no challenge to be had (outside the commitment required)? I wholeheartedly disagree. That said, difficult items can be difficult to obtain solely through the commitment they require, and satisfaction in obtaining said items is not lost just because there weren't only challenges involving skills as a gamer.


Uh, you're using examples of SKILLS that require a commitment to acquire. Learning to play the piano and learning a language are skills. And what makes skills meaningful is that they regularly present you with new challenges to overcome, whether it's a more technically difficult piano piece or translating sentences that require greater fluency. These are good things!

Killing the same monster over and over is like working on a factory line. It requires perseverance, yes, but it's also miserably boring to most people which is why the attrition rates are ridiculous despite relatively good pay. There are no escalating challenges; you're just doing the same things over and over. It's literally where the term "grind" comes from.
____________________________
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.
#213 Mar 09 2013 at 9:12 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,102 posts
I'd like to see both types of difficulties in the game. I don't see why it has to be one or the other. Time commitments are one of the best ways to keep players playing the game between content updates, and having the patience to see it through is difficult. Difficult fights can be some of the fun and most memorable. Again, I don't see why it has to be one or the other, when both are difficult for different reasons.

Edited, Mar 9th 2013 9:14pm by Ryklin
____________________________
------------------
#214 Mar 09 2013 at 9:25 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
It's not that I criticize the presence of timesinks (or "commitments" as I guess we're calling them now) as much as I criticize the absence of rewarding skill. It's fine if they're -alternatives- for players who want them. Too often they are the only mode of achieving your goal. And realistically, very few players choose them when presented with the option, because they're boring. Usually the only players that can stand them are those that are already irrevocably invested in the game (which in some cases actually also mimics the sunken cost fallacy gambling habits).
____________________________
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.
#215 Mar 09 2013 at 9:28 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Also, this idea that timesinks are essential to ensure that players keep playing is pretty outdated. Developers are totally capable of releasing games with sufficient content to carry through to major updates or expansions now. That's triple true for established games.
____________________________
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.
#216 Mar 09 2013 at 9:33 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
3,599 posts
Xoie wrote:
Kachi wrote:
@Xoie, Again, I'm talking about the population of players, not a single given player. I'm not going to check your math or your script (wouldn't know how to do the latter).


It simulates the acquisition of 1000 scrolls. It shows the median is roughly around 10 attempts even though the average is 14. It's the distribution you have wrong. The average is not the halfway point between getting a scroll or not, the median is. The average is higher than the median because of a sad few people who will be very unlucky, and will have to try an exorbitant number of times which drives the average up.

I've proven this with math and a computer simulation versus your say so. If this can't convince you then you can't be convinced no matter what the evidence. But you're the one who brought up statistics, not me, and you dismissed my results even though you have nothing to refute it with.


Math is hard on my head, I'll believe you.

Edited, Mar 9th 2013 10:35pm by Louiscool
____________________________


#217 Mar 10 2013 at 12:11 AM Rating: Default
***
2,202 posts
Hyrist wrote:

Quote:

Wow talk about fanboy... Damm! I hate sephiroth, i would put kuja or exdeath before him, but to say darnus was equal to sephiroth... that is just kinda sad.... sephiroth not only owned angeal and genesis in a 2vs1 like they where amateurs, but beat zack like he was a toddler, then proceded burn nibehelm down(I guess that was before owning zack) killed a flower girl, killed a president who was guarded by an army, taunted you all the way to a creater with a clone might i add, then awoke, unleashed some weapons, put a mega barrier around it, and waited like a boss till you showed up to kick his ***...

Also sephiroth Summoned his meteor, darnus meteor was already casted hundreds if not thousands of years ago, and it was not like Bahamut chose him, he was the only crazy person to try and guide the meteor back to the planet) he was basically a puppet that got to do what sephiroth did, with better CGI and stuff lol


Not fanboing, you're taking so much side story and backstory BS as trying to push up Sephrioth that you ignore the crap that belittled sephiroth too.

First off. Let's break down the accomplishments.

1. Dueling between Angeal and Genesis. All three opponents were holding back in that fight. Evidenced by the fact that Genisis forced Sephiroth to stop holding back himself by ramping up his own combat intensity (And queing his theme). The pecking order was never established between them because Angeal interrupted the fight (twice). As it was plotted that Genisis was essentially Sephiroth's equal until he started to corrode. There are several other instances in which this is indicated as well. It's symbolized entirely by having the opposing 'one wing' to Sephiroth of the same color. So no, that achievement is taken away from Sephrioth. I'm ****** they never made the sequel that was supposed to bring Genisis up as the primary antagonist for a full game - it was planned, then scrapped.

2. Zack's Sephiroth fight. He 'Beat Zack like a whelp' that's equivalent to any main villian beating the crap out of the Heros. You cite Exdeath above Sephrioth, but remember Galuf from FFV beat Exdeath down on his own (giving his life to defend his friends and grandaughter). Sephrioth on the other hand, immeidately got pelted by an emo kid in the back (who then managed to survive a stab wound through the chest to kill him). No such trite weaknesses from Nael. He wipes the floor with an entire party in one non-evaded blow. (and can do so in the actual gameplay with one good combo if you're not paying attention.)

The Rest.
It's been an ongoing debate whether or not this influence, or even Sephiroth's motivations after the point of going mad, are even his own. You claim Darnus to be the puppet of Bahamut, Sephiroth can very well be argued to be the same for Jenova. Every thing he does from the moment he discovers his origins on is an attempted replication of his mother's behavior. Even when he came back in Advent Children, he was still trying to be like 'Mother'.

In fact, if you really dig into it, it's very difficult to tell where the influence of Jenova ends and Sephiroth begins, and vice versa. But that's a discussion for another time. Suffice to say, the very self identity of both characters are muddied by the will of an external source - wherby their accomplishments are demeaned by them.

But there are some historical inaccuracies.

Meteor Meteria finds nearby space bodies and pulls them downward, it does not in fact create them. Therefore Meteor Meteria and Project Meteor are essentially the same, with the difference being that Dalamud was in fact a prison for Bahamut.

Additionally, Weapons were unleashed by the Planet, not by Sephiroth. It was reactionary to the use of Meteor meteria and Sephiroth's interference in the life-stream. The barrier around Northern Crater? Unknown if the origin source is actually Sephiroth or the Planet itself. It's existence was merely a plot device to close a loophole if it was not there.

That's not to say Sephiroth/Jenova (I tend to regard them as one entity) is not a superior villian to Nael Darnus. I'm simply putting Sephiroth as a villian into the proper light and perspective. His story has a lot of complexity that adds to the depth of his character, but tends to lessen his tale as a 'badass'. Then agian, the Villians of Final Fantasy games tend to leave a bit to be desired in the 'badass' department. Any who do wind up being heroes in disguise or victims of circumstance.



Darnus was created to be the catalyst to the Seventh Umbral Era. In that, he not only served his purpose, but played his part well. As a villian, he is derivative from Sephrioth in action, the Judges from XII in appearance, and mixed Kuja and Kefka in demeanor. This combination worked and his impact was memorable for what it was. But even I don't consider him a bonafied badass.

I could analyze the reasons why there's not much badassery in Final Fantasy but I think that's a topic for another time.

Edited, Mar 7th 2013 11:27pm by Hyrist


Hyrist wrote:

Quote:

Wow talk about fanboy... Damm! I hate sephiroth, i would put kuja or exdeath before him, but to say darnus was equal to sephiroth... that is just kinda sad.... sephiroth not only owned angeal and genesis in a 2vs1 like they where amateurs, but beat zack like he was a toddler, then proceded burn nibehelm down(I guess that was before owning zack) killed a flower girl, killed a president who was guarded by an army, taunted you all the way to a creater with a clone might i add, then awoke, unleashed some weapons, put a mega barrier around it, and waited like a boss till you showed up to kick his ***...

Also sephiroth Summoned his meteor, darnus meteor was already casted hundreds if not thousands of years ago, and it was not like Bahamut chose him, he was the only crazy person to try and guide the meteor back to the planet) he was basically a puppet that got to do what sephiroth did, with better CGI and stuff lol


Not fanboing, you're taking so much side story and backstory BS as trying to push up Sephrioth that you ignore the crap that belittled sephiroth too.

First off. Let's break down the accomplishments.

1. Dueling between Angeal and Genesis. All three opponents were holding back in that fight. Evidenced by the fact that Genisis forced Sephiroth to stop holding back himself by ramping up his own combat intensity (And queing his theme). The pecking order was never established between them because Angeal interrupted the fight (twice). As it was plotted that Genisis was essentially Sephiroth's equal until he started to corrode. There are several other instances in which this is indicated as well. It's symbolized entirely by having the opposing 'one wing' to Sephiroth of the same color. So no, that achievement is taken away from Sephrioth. I'm ****** they never made the sequel that was supposed to bring Genisis up as the primary antagonist for a full game - it was planned, then scrapped.

2. Zack's Sephiroth fight. He 'Beat Zack like a whelp' that's equivalent to any main villian beating the crap out of the Heros. You cite Exdeath above Sephrioth, but remember Galuf from FFV beat Exdeath down on his own (giving his life to defend his friends and grandaughter). Sephrioth on the other hand, immeidately got pelted by an emo kid in the back (who then managed to survive a stab wound through the chest to kill him). No such trite weaknesses from Nael. He wipes the floor with an entire party in one non-evaded blow. (and can do so in the actual gameplay with one good combo if you're not paying attention.)

The Rest.
It's been an ongoing debate whether or not this influence, or even Sephiroth's motivations after the point of going mad, are even his own. You claim Darnus to be the puppet of Bahamut, Sephiroth can very well be argued to be the same for Jenova. Every thing he does from the moment he discovers his origins on is an attempted replication of his mother's behavior. Even when he came back in Advent Children, he was still trying to be like 'Mother'.

In fact, if you really dig into it, it's very difficult to tell where the influence of Jenova ends and Sephiroth begins, and vice versa. But that's a discussion for another time. Suffice to say, the very self identity of both characters are muddied by the will of an external source - wherby their accomplishments are demeaned by them.

But there are some historical inaccuracies.

Meteor Meteria finds nearby space bodies and pulls them downward, it does not in fact create them. Therefore Meteor Meteria and Project Meteor are essentially the same, with the difference being that Dalamud was in fact a prison for Bahamut.

Additionally, Weapons were unleashed by the Planet, not by Sephiroth. It was reactionary to the use of Meteor meteria and Sephiroth's interference in the life-stream. The barrier around Northern Crater? Unknown if the origin source is actually Sephiroth or the Planet itself. It's existence was merely a plot device to close a loophole if it was not there.

That's not to say Sephiroth/Jenova (I tend to regard them as one entity) is not a superior villian to Nael Darnus. I'm simply putting Sephiroth as a villian into the proper light and perspective. His story has a lot of complexity that adds to the depth of his character, but tends to lessen his tale as a 'badass'. Then agian, the Villians of Final Fantasy games tend to leave a bit to be desired in the 'badass' department. Any who do wind up being heroes in disguise or victims of circumstance.



Darnus was created to be the catalyst to the Seventh Umbral Era. In that, he not only served his purpose, but played his part well. As a villian, he is derivative from Sephrioth in action, the Judges from XII in appearance, and mixed Kuja and Kefka in demeanor. This combination worked and his impact was memorable for what it was. But even I don't consider him a bonafied badass.

I could analyze the reasons why there's not much badassery in Final Fantasy but I think that's a topic for another time.

Edited, Mar 7th 2013 11:27pm by Hyrist


It is a fact that Sephiroth is the stronger of the 3 subjects of the Acient Project. Where the 3 of them holding back ? Yes but even then sephiroth was able to easily hold his own againts angeal and genesis, when genesis challenged Sephiroth and got serious, Sephiroth was not even breaking a sweat, angeal went in and got blasted in the face by genesis, and Sephiroth swated his attack like it was nothing, if they where all equal in power, how come Sephiroth is the only one hailed as the hero of the wutai war ? The superior soldier ? Because he is the stronger of the 3, even tho all 3 of them where part of the the same project(Just done differently) only Sephiroth is the succesfull outcome of the project, for he was injected with a much more dense dose of Jenova cells directly as a fetus, thus his phisical and magical streght is much more augmented than the other two subjects, he is also the only one to not show any degradation at all, all of genesis and angeal clones are dead and where not much to begin with, Sephiroths clone is Cloud :/

As for Zack being a Whelp, when compared to Sephiroth ? Of course, but you have to take in consideration that Zack had already killed Angeal, and had defeated genesis 2-3 times already, he was no slouch, he in fact was the second strongest 1st soldier to Sephiroth. And Sephiroth destroyed Him! And even tho sephiroth got stabed by cloud, it was a surprise attack, and then again zack did die againts a bunch of soldiers, so no metter how strong and amazing you are, you can still get canned XD!

As far as Sephiroth and Jevona, i will not comment since all that is mumbo jumbo that is never implied in any of the FFVII games, is all opinion based, for not one line of text indicates that Jenova has taken over his mind, imagine if you where sephiroth and you find out you are extra special, and that you have inherited all the powers of your mother, a intergalactic space parasite, and you could travel the cosmos... Would you give all that up to be the lapdog of a coorporation ? But then again i do see where that thinking comes from, and is a valid and intriguing argument.

As far as historical innacuracies, Meteor/Meteo has never ever been a materia/spell that draws an asteroid/meteor, it has since it's inception been a spell that SUMMONS a meteor shower, only since 7+ has meteor been a "Special" spell/summon that brings one giant Meteor( In IV it was the strongest spell and it was the first time Meteor/Meteo had any storie relevance) In fact in FFVII it is explictly said that the black materia is a Summon materia, and Sephiroth could only cast the spell in the lifetream river that was the northen crater. The meteor in XIV was casted thousands of years before Darnus was ever born, Darnus only served as a conduit to guide the meteor, nothing else.

As far as the Weapons go, you are correct, the weapons did awaken when sephiroth awoke as a reaction to him, now why did they chose to attack the population and shirna instead of the big bad guy in the crater is beyond me, but i guess they really like their mako ? As for the shield i am not entierly sure, but i do seem to recall it was sephiroth who put it up, tho it could have been the "Planet" or something, i'll have to check on that one.

As for the Sephiroth/Darnus comparions, yes darnus was by all intended purpossed created to be a sephiroth clone in XIV, but that is exactly what i am againts, he could have been XIV bad guy w/o having to rely on any of the previous main villains in the series, now do not get me wrong, there could have been a nod to sephiroth with the fire scene and all that, sure but his legion was the VII legion.... The fire scene, the meteor, how he just went CRAZAA! Etc Etc.

Also do not mention Kefka in the same sentence as Kuja or Sephiroth.. I am a VI Fanboy!
____________________________
MUTED
#218 Mar 10 2013 at 12:13 AM Rating: Default
***
2,202 posts
Kachi wrote:
Also, this idea that timesinks are essential to ensure that players keep playing is pretty outdated. Developers are totally capable of releasing games with sufficient content to carry through to major updates or expansions now. That's triple true for established games.


Kachi wrote:
Also, this idea that timesinks are essential to ensure that players keep playing is pretty outdated. Developers are totally capable of releasing games with sufficient content to carry through to major updates or expansions now. That's triple true for established games.


That is not true at all, the only developer who has been able to do that, is Blizzard.

Every game that is released for the past 6 years, has had to live up to World of Warcraft, and even i have been guilty of comparing a brand new MMO to WoW in content, and is not even fair, No new MMO will be able to launch with 10 years of content... Is just not possible.
____________________________
MUTED
#219 Mar 10 2013 at 8:55 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Ostia wrote:
Kachi wrote:
Also, this idea that timesinks are essential to ensure that players keep playing is pretty outdated. Developers are totally capable of releasing games with sufficient content to carry through to major updates or expansions now. That's triple true for established games.


Kachi wrote:
Also, this idea that timesinks are essential to ensure that players keep playing is pretty outdated. Developers are totally capable of releasing games with sufficient content to carry through to major updates or expansions now. That's triple true for established games.


That is not true at all, the only developer who has been able to do that, is Blizzard.

Every game that is released for the past 6 years, has had to live up to World of Warcraft, and even i have been guilty of comparing a brand new MMO to WoW in content, and is not even fair, No new MMO will be able to launch with 10 years of content... Is just not possible.


Reread what I said. It's easy to launch with enough content to sustain up to the next major update and/or EXPANSION. Nowhere did I say they could release 10 years of content at launch.

Games can absolutely launch with enough content to sustain play for a year or two given the average pool of resources for triple A titles. Games like GW2 prove this, even though they failed to capitalize on it by allowing players to burn through content in no time at all.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

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

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#220 Mar 10 2013 at 10:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
Games can absolutely launch with enough content to sustain play for a year or two given the average pool of resources for triple A titles. Games like GW2 prove this, even though they failed to capitalize on it by allowing players to burn through content in no time at all.


One problem with comparing FFXIV to GW2 is that both Guild Wars titles have leaned heavily on PvP content... the average GW player is pretty intense about PvP, hence the big "WvWvW" feature of GW2 (which I still haven't played yet, but really should). Meanwhile, the average FF player cares less about PvP. And if you want to talk about compelling timesink content, well, is anything more of a timesink than PvP? Not only is it supposedly addictive, but all developers really need to do to build content for PvP is provide some kind of space for it.

GW2 did have a lot of open-world content, but all the cool public quests get suffocated by ArenaNet's decision to install so many disposable quest hubs. The best way for players to level up is just to run from hub to hub, grinding away on the easy heart quests/vistas/telepoints/points of interest, and then run on to the next one. There's no incentive or reason to revisit past areas, so all of those interesting public quests are basically one-and-done for the player, too.

I think creating actual content that's not dependent on timesinks (something that ultimately isn't disposable) is pretty difficult, which is why I'm totally fine with having a certain degree of timesink in the game. Timesinks help to keep content relevant, while also building up that feeling of having to put in some effort to get something. My wife (who isn't nearly as much of a gamer as I am) is really sad about how certain timesinks have been removed from games, such as having to actually walk places, rather than hit the "fast travel" button. I'm in total agreement... in the early stages of FFXI, even having to walk from the Craig of Dem to Valkurm Dunes, and then have to watch out for goblins/tunnel bats on the way to Selbina (while also risking death from undead), was part of the game's content that didn't require any special NMs or dynamic quests to be implemented.

Ii think Yoshi-P & co. are doing a very smart thing by implementing various dungeons throughout the game that will be the optimal places for players to level up. None of that content will be disposable, considering how FFXIV players are allowed to level up more than one job at a time. It will be interesting to see what else is there to keep players busy.
____________________________
Thayos Redblade
Jormungandr
Hyperion
#221 Mar 10 2013 at 10:52 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Thayos, I'm not trying to antagonize, but you seem to have a habit of taking the examples I use to demonstrate a certain point and then strawmanning them into a wider, irrelevant argument. For example, my reference to GW2 was specifically about the quantity of PvE content. That's the only point I was making in highlighting it as an example, and comments about PvP and hubs really don't relate to that point in any way, so there's no "problem" in using GW2 as an example.

That aside, I don't disagree with your points about player transportation, hubs, etc. They're just tangential to the point I was making.
____________________________
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.
#222 Mar 10 2013 at 10:59 AM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
For example, my reference to GW2 was specifically about the quantity of PvE content.


Ah, my bad... I missed that.

However, where my argument is relevant is that FFXIV really can't lean on PvP content like other games can, because the average FF player doesn't really care about PvP. This makes life more difficult for the FFXIV dev team.

EDIT: And don't worry, you're not at all antagonizing me... I apologize if I've seemed antagonizing to you. More than anything, I just love the back-and-forth discussion between like-minded people.

Edited, Mar 10th 2013 10:06am by Thayos
____________________________
Thayos Redblade
Jormungandr
Hyperion
#223 Mar 10 2013 at 11:06 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
No problem, and I agree with your point. They don't need to rely on PvP to create sufficient content without timesinks, was mine.

Not all "timesinks" are bad. A game that's all "reward, reward, reward, reward" leaves little room for the playing part. But it is important that those inbetween parts that take time are actually playing more than working.
____________________________
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.
#224 Mar 10 2013 at 5:03 PM Rating: Default
***
2,202 posts
Kachi wrote:
Ostia wrote:
Kachi wrote:
Also, this idea that timesinks are essential to ensure that players keep playing is pretty outdated. Developers are totally capable of releasing games with sufficient content to carry through to major updates or expansions now. That's triple true for established games.


Kachi wrote:
Also, this idea that timesinks are essential to ensure that players keep playing is pretty outdated. Developers are totally capable of releasing games with sufficient content to carry through to major updates or expansions now. That's triple true for established games.


That is not true at all, the only developer who has been able to do that, is Blizzard.

Every game that is released for the past 6 years, has had to live up to World of Warcraft, and even i have been guilty of comparing a brand new MMO to WoW in content, and is not even fair, No new MMO will be able to launch with 10 years of content... Is just not possible.


Reread what I said. It's easy to launch with enough content to sustain up to the next major update and/or EXPANSION. Nowhere did I say they could release 10 years of content at launch.

Games can absolutely launch with enough content to sustain play for a year or two given the average pool of resources for triple A titles. Games like GW2 prove this, even though they failed to capitalize on it by allowing players to burn through content in no time at all.


Kachi wrote:
Ostia wrote:
Kachi wrote:
Also, this idea that timesinks are essential to ensure that players keep playing is pretty outdated. Developers are totally capable of releasing games with sufficient content to carry through to major updates or expansions now. That's triple true for established games.


Kachi wrote:
Also, this idea that timesinks are essential to ensure that players keep playing is pretty outdated. Developers are totally capable of releasing games with sufficient content to carry through to major updates or expansions now. That's triple true for established games.


That is not true at all, the only developer who has been able to do that, is Blizzard.

Every game that is released for the past 6 years, has had to live up to World of Warcraft, and even i have been guilty of comparing a brand new MMO to WoW in content, and is not even fair, No new MMO will be able to launch with 10 years of content... Is just not possible.


Reread what I said. It's easy to launch with enough content to sustain up to the next major update and/or EXPANSION. Nowhere did I say they could release 10 years of content at launch.

Games can absolutely launch with enough content to sustain play for a year or two given the average pool of resources for triple A titles. Games like GW2 prove this, even though they failed to capitalize on it by allowing players to burn through content in no time at all.


Name me one game that has been able to do it ? Not Swotor, not rift and not GW2 was able to mantain it's playerbase until its expansion release with the content from launch, either to little endgame, or content that was so easy that got burned before the expansion came.
____________________________
MUTED
#225 Mar 10 2013 at 5:09 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
So you understand that if they made the content more difficult, it would last longer, right? You seem to have answered your own question.
____________________________
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.
#226 Mar 10 2013 at 5:10 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
If nothing else, you can easily see how most of those games released with significantly more content than, say, FFXIV.
____________________________
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.
#227 Mar 10 2013 at 8:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
If you release something so difficult it takes you ten times to beat it, though, that's enough to make the majority of people rage-quit. XI got away with it, but no other MMO can.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#228 Mar 10 2013 at 9:10 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
catwho wrote:
If you release something so difficult it takes you ten times to beat it, though, that's enough to make the majority of people rage-quit. XI got away with it, but no other MMO can.


That's why you have normal modes and hard modes. But this idea that people will just ragequit when things are challenging is mostly incorrect. At least, people are no more prone to ragequit from repeated defeats than from repeated victories with no reward.

It's not as if every encounter in the game needs to have the difficulty tuned up to be very difficult. We're just talking about those elite items. And you also can't look at it through the lens of a game like FFXI. When a mob in FFXI kills you 10 times, it's probably more because the RNG, your party configuration, or your party as a whole screwed you over. The idea isn't that the mob is going to kill you 10 times statistically, but that it might take you 10 times to rally the skill needed to overcome the challenge. And if you're really good, you win on the first try. Then you move on to a more difficult encounter with better rewards.

And I would argue that FFXI didn't get away with it at all. Many people left FFXI exactly because of the **** drop rates and the punishing game design. They left in droves.
____________________________
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.
#229 Mar 10 2013 at 10:55 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,202 posts
Kachi wrote:
So you understand that if they made the content more difficult, it would last longer, right? You seem to have answered your own question.


Your claim was that Triple A studios could support and maintain a player base with release content up to the point where an expansion wouldbe released....

None of the games mentioned have been able to do that, for X or Y reasons, they have not been able to do it, Swotor for example had the most content towards leveling up, but at endgame, it was barren, Rift was a mix bag, and GW2 had the most content across the board, but easy as ****, so therefore none of them where able to hold their audience until an expansion was released....

So no ?
____________________________
MUTED
#230 Mar 11 2013 at 7:08 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
3,599 posts
catwho wrote:
If you release something so difficult it takes you ten times to beat it, though, that's enough to make the majority of people rage-quit. XI got away with it, but no other MMO can.


****, 1.0 leve quests were insanely difficult for a number of reason (like not knowing what difficulty to select, as 3 stars was good for one leve and much too hard for the next) and not being able to change difficulty at first, etc.

Rage-quitting, oh there was much of.
____________________________


#231 Mar 11 2013 at 7:57 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Ostia wrote:
Kachi wrote:
So you understand that if they made the content more difficult, it would last longer, right? You seem to have answered your own question.


Your claim was that Triple A studios could support and maintain a player base with release content up to the point where an expansion wouldbe released....

None of the games mentioned have been able to do that, for X or Y reasons, they have not been able to do it, Swotor for example had the most content towards leveling up, but at endgame, it was barren, Rift was a mix bag, and GW2 had the most content across the board, but easy as ****, so therefore none of them where able to hold their audience until an expansion was released....

So no ?


These games haven't done that but have been ABLE to do that. As you note, I can count the number of times I failed at any of the content on GW2 on one hand, for example. It's fast because it's so easy. If the content were made harder, it would take much longer to complete.

I don't know, it seems pretty obvious to me. Let's say you have a 5 mile road called Final Fantasy Street, and I tell you that you have to walk it. Meanwhile, I have a 50 mile road called Future MMO Boulevard, but I'm driving a race car. I'll surely finish before you, but that doesn't mean that I don't have 10 times as much road. If I had to walk my road, then it would take quite a while.

Even if you can't grasp this, you can easily grasp the fact that games are able to release with much more content than they could before, including much more content than games like FFXIV, or even the initial releases of FFXI, WoW, etc...

Louiscool wrote:
catwho wrote:
If you release something so difficult it takes you ten times to beat it, though, that's enough to make the majority of people rage-quit. XI got away with it, but no other MMO can.


****, 1.0 leve quests were insanely difficult for a number of reason (like not knowing what difficulty to select, as 3 stars was good for one leve and much too hard for the next) and not being able to change difficulty at first, etc.

Rage-quitting, oh there was much of.


Players will rage-quit over fake difficulty, which includes things like bad UI and problems that can't be solved with their own reasoning. Not knowing which difficulty to select because of inconsistency in the ratings would be a prime example of this. People said the same things about the quests in FFXI, which gave almost no direction towards the next step, forcing you to look online for the answer.

Players have an intuitive sense of fairness when it comes to game design. When the design doesn't seem fair, that upsets them. They're losing for reasons outside of their control. If it's fair but very difficult, they generally deal with that just fine.
____________________________
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.
#232 Mar 11 2013 at 8:35 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
3,599 posts
Quote:
Players will rage-quit over fake difficulty


Translation: Bulls**t

Players will rage-quit over bulls**t. (though many people rage-quit Demon's/Dark souls and most of that is not bulls**t)
____________________________


#233 Mar 11 2013 at 8:39 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Louiscool wrote:
Quote:
Players will rage-quit over fake difficulty


Translation: Bulls**t

Players will rage-quit over bulls**t. (though many people rage-quit Demon's/Dark souls and most of that is not bulls**t)


"Fake difficulty" is a very common term in the game design world, not something I made up. But yes, it's basically things which players see as "bullsh*t." See: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FakeDifficulty for a synopsis.

Regarding Dark/Demon's Souls, players will also rage-quit over punishment. No surprise really--you punish someone for playing your game, and eventually they'll stop.


Edited, Mar 11th 2013 7:41am by Kachi
____________________________
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.
#234 Mar 11 2013 at 9:13 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
3,599 posts
Kachi wrote:
Louiscool wrote:
Quote:
Players will rage-quit over fake difficulty


Translation: Bulls**t

Players will rage-quit over bulls**t. (though many people rage-quit Demon's/Dark souls and most of that is not bulls**t)


"Fake difficulty" is a very common term in the game design world, not something I made up. But yes, it's basically things which players see as "bullsh*t." See: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FakeDifficulty for a synopsis.

Regarding Dark/Demon's Souls, players will also rage-quit over punishment. No surprise really--you punish someone for playing your game, and eventually they'll stop.


Edited, Mar 11th 2013 7:41am by Kachi


Ha, I wasn't saying what you said was bull, I was just saying what I call it.

Sometimes referred to as DumbBullsh*tSauce
____________________________


#235 Mar 11 2013 at 10:24 AM Rating: Default
***
2,202 posts
Kachi wrote:
Ostia wrote:
Kachi wrote:
So you understand that if they made the content more difficult, it would last longer, right? You seem to have answered your own question.


Your claim was that Triple A studios could support and maintain a player base with release content up to the point where an expansion wouldbe released....

None of the games mentioned have been able to do that, for X or Y reasons, they have not been able to do it, Swotor for example had the most content towards leveling up, but at endgame, it was barren, Rift was a mix bag, and GW2 had the most content across the board, but easy as ****, so therefore none of them where able to hold their audience until an expansion was released....

So no ?


These games haven't done that but have been ABLE to do that. As you note, I can count the number of times I failed at any of the content on GW2 on one hand, for example. It's fast because it's so easy. If the content were made harder, it would take much longer to complete.

I don't know, it seems pretty obvious to me. Let's say you have a 5 mile road called Final Fantasy Street, and I tell you that you have to walk it. Meanwhile, I have a 50 mile road called Future MMO Boulevard, but I'm driving a race car. I'll surely finish before you, but that doesn't mean that I don't have 10 times as much road. If I had to walk my road, then it would take quite a while.

Even if you can't grasp this, you can easily grasp the fact that games are able to release with much more content than they could before, including much more content than games like FFXIV, or even the initial releases of FFXI, WoW, etc...

Louiscool wrote:
catwho wrote:
If you release something so difficult it takes you ten times to beat it, though, that's enough to make the majority of people rage-quit. XI got away with it, but no other MMO can.


****, 1.0 leve quests were insanely difficult for a number of reason (like not knowing what difficulty to select, as 3 stars was good for one leve and much too hard for the next) and not being able to change difficulty at first, etc.

Rage-quitting, oh there was much of.


Players will rage-quit over fake difficulty, which includes things like bad UI and problems that can't be solved with their own reasoning. Not knowing which difficulty to select because of inconsistency in the ratings would be a prime example of this. People said the same things about the quests in FFXI, which gave almost no direction towards the next step, forcing you to look online for the answer.

Players have an intuitive sense of fairness when it comes to game design. When the design doesn't seem fair, that upsets them. They're losing for reasons outside of their control. If it's fair but very difficult, they generally deal with that just fine.


Kachi wrote:
Ostia wrote:
Kachi wrote:
So you understand that if they made the content more difficult, it would last longer, right? You seem to have answered your own question.


Your claim was that Triple A studios could support and maintain a player base with release content up to the point where an expansion wouldbe released....

None of the games mentioned have been able to do that, for X or Y reasons, they have not been able to do it, Swotor for example had the most content towards leveling up, but at endgame, it was barren, Rift was a mix bag, and GW2 had the most content across the board, but easy as ****, so therefore none of them where able to hold their audience until an expansion was released....

So no ?


These games haven't done that but have been ABLE to do that. As you note, I can count the number of times I failed at any of the content on GW2 on one hand, for example. It's fast because it's so easy. If the content were made harder, it would take much longer to complete.

I don't know, it seems pretty obvious to me. Let's say you have a 5 mile road called Final Fantasy Street, and I tell you that you have to walk it. Meanwhile, I have a 50 mile road called Future MMO Boulevard, but I'm driving a race car. I'll surely finish before you, but that doesn't mean that I don't have 10 times as much road. If I had to walk my road, then it would take quite a while.

Even if you can't grasp this, you can easily grasp the fact that games are able to release with much more content than they could before, including much more content than games like FFXIV, or even the initial releases of FFXI, WoW, etc...

Louiscool wrote:
catwho wrote:
If you release something so difficult it takes you ten times to beat it, though, that's enough to make the majority of people rage-quit. XI got away with it, but no other MMO can.


****, 1.0 leve quests were insanely difficult for a number of reason (like not knowing what difficulty to select, as 3 stars was good for one leve and much too hard for the next) and not being able to change difficulty at first, etc.

Rage-quitting, oh there was much of.


Players will rage-quit over fake difficulty, which includes things like bad UI and problems that can't be solved with their own reasoning. Not knowing which difficulty to select because of inconsistency in the ratings would be a prime example of this. People said the same things about the quests in FFXI, which gave almost no direction towards the next step, forcing you to look online for the answer.

Players have an intuitive sense of fairness when it comes to game design. When the design doesn't seem fair, that upsets them. They're losing for reasons outside of their control. If it's fair but very difficult, they generally deal with that just fine.


Rift, Swotor and GW2 did not release with more content that vanilla wow... And Both FFXI and Wow released with more content than EQ...So companies have always been able to release games with more content that their predecesors, they just have not done it, because "Excuses"
____________________________
MUTED
#236 Mar 11 2013 at 2:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
4,773 posts
You know, it's not that hard to highlight a duplicated set of text and delete it. It's not unlike removing quote towers...
#237 Mar 11 2013 at 5:19 PM Rating: Default
**
639 posts
If it is to succeed, add Blue Maje job. Heck the world could be reborn in the ashes of the blue mages who rise. Like some people pointed out they look over jobs liek DRG and are excited to play. Blu is like a moster master of secrets job that would capture me and I am sure many others.

#238 Mar 11 2013 at 6:20 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
Ha, I wasn't saying what you said was bull, I was just saying what I call it.


I got that, though in your defense, I considered that my reply might not convey that I understood what you were saying and decided, "Oh well." I figured we'd just have an exchange like this one where you said you weren't antagonizing me and I replied that I didn't perceive any offense. So, kinda my bad, really.

Quote:
Rift, Swotor and GW2 did not release with more content that vanilla wow...


Have you actually played these games? I can't account for Rift, but SWTOR and GW2 definitely released with more content than vanilla WoW. They just didn't pace their content as well.
____________________________
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.
#239 Mar 11 2013 at 9:35 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,202 posts
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
Ha, I wasn't saying what you said was bull, I was just saying what I call it.


I got that, though in your defense, I considered that my reply might not convey that I understood what you were saying and decided, "Oh well." I figured we'd just have an exchange like this one where you said you weren't antagonizing me and I replied that I didn't perceive any offense. So, kinda my bad, really.

Quote:
Rift, Swotor and GW2 did not release with more content that vanilla wow...


Have you actually played these games? I can't account for Rift, but SWTOR and GW2 definitely released with more content than vanilla WoW. They just didn't pace their content as well.


Kachi wrote:
Quote:
Ha, I wasn't saying what you said was bull, I was just saying what I call it.


I got that, though in your defense, I considered that my reply might not convey that I understood what you were saying and decided, "Oh well." I figured we'd just have an exchange like this one where you said you weren't antagonizing me and I replied that I didn't perceive any offense. So, kinda my bad, really.

Quote:
Rift, Swotor and GW2 did not release with more content that vanilla wow...


Have you actually played these games? I can't account for Rift, but SWTOR and GW2 definitely released with more content than vanilla WoW. They just didn't pace their content as well.


I actually played all 3, Rift, Swotor and GW2 did not lauch with more content than vanilla wow.... Did you play vanilla WOW ?
____________________________
MUTED
#240 Mar 11 2013 at 10:07 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,202 posts
GW2 has 9 Dungeons, Vanilla WOW had 29 that is 20 more istances... GW2 Has 0 Raids, Vanilla WOW had 7, that is 7 more raids.... GW2 has 25 Zones, Vanilla WOW had 41 Zones, that is 16 more zones.... GW2 has PVP, WvsW and some other **** i never tried, Vanilla WOW had 3 battlegrounds and PVP, GW2 has more content than vanilla WOW on PVP.

Also Everquest had 1200 Quest by the time WOW went into Alpha, by the time Vanilla WOW launched it launched with 2600 Quests.... Seriously doubt that GW2 has more than 2600 quests with an inferior number of zones, dungeons and raids.

____________________________
MUTED
#241 Mar 11 2013 at 10:38 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Er, I guess if you're not going to count any of the dynamic events, mission branches, etc. And at a certain point, I don't count another 20 "Keel ten moose" as 20 more quests. ****, you might as well count repeatable quests and just say that it has "Infinity quests!"
____________________________
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.
#242 Mar 11 2013 at 10:52 PM Rating: Excellent
***
3,448 posts
Ok.. Vanilla WoW didn't launch with all that crap.

Battlegrounds were added later, most of the raids were added later (I believe it launched with Molton Core and, like, Stratholme).

Everquest having 1200 quests when WoW went into alpha is meaningless when you're talking about what a game launched with. WoW also had 2 factions, which is 1 more than EQ, why not mention that? WoW was a quest-centric game. The entire point was to quest your way to greatness, so of course they launched with a ton of them.

GW2 has an entirely different questing system than WoW so comparing those directly isn't entirely fair either. GW2 and SWTOR also have story quests that lead your character along a developing story arc. SWTOR has 8 of these, GW2 has (I believe) 5 with some variants based on character creation choices, that's 8 and 5 more than WoW has EVER had.

You need to define what you're talking about when you're talking about content or your point makes no sense.
____________________________
svlyons wrote:
If random outcomes aren't acceptable to you, then don't play with random people.
#243 Mar 11 2013 at 10:54 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*
82 posts
Ostia wrote:
GW2 has 9 Dungeons, Vanilla WOW had 29 that is 20 more istances... GW2 Has 0 Raids, Vanilla WOW had 7, that is 7 more raids.... GW2 has 25 Zones, Vanilla WOW had 41 Zones, that is 16 more zones.... GW2 has PVP, WvsW and some other sh*t i never tried, Vanilla WOW had 3 battlegrounds and PVP, GW2 has more content than vanilla WOW on PVP.

Also Everquest had 1200 Quest by the time WOW went into Alpha, by the time Vanilla WOW launched it launched with 2600 Quests.... Seriously doubt that GW2 has more than 2600 quests with an inferior number of zones, dungeons and raids.



Vanilla WoW launched with 15 instances, Maraudon and Dire Maul were added later. There were no battlegrounds when WoW launched, Alterac Valley and Warsong Gulch were added in patch 1.5 with Arathi Basin coming in with 1.7. There are also only 4 classic WoW raids, none of which were out at launch; Blackwing Lair - 1.6, Zul'Gurub - 1.7, Ahn'Qiraj - 1.9, and Naxx - 1.11.

http://www.wowwiki.com/Patches/1.x

Edit: Callinon beat me. Completely forgot about Molton Core and Onyxia's Lair which were available at launch.

Edited, Mar 12th 2013 1:00am by Seraphaniim
____________________________
FFXIV - Goblin - Seraphan Amatsuka
#244 Mar 11 2013 at 11:00 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Thanks; I thought those numbers sounded ridiculously off, but couldn't be bothered to look it up.
____________________________
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.
#245 Mar 12 2013 at 4:14 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,202 posts
Archmage Callinon wrote:
Ok.. Vanilla WoW didn't launch with all that crap.

Battlegrounds were added later, most of the raids were added later (I believe it launched with Molton Core and, like, Stratholme).

Everquest having 1200 quests when WoW went into alpha is meaningless when you're talking about what a game launched with. WoW also had 2 factions, which is 1 more than EQ, why not mention that? WoW was a quest-centric game. The entire point was to quest your way to greatness, so of course they launched with a ton of them.

GW2 has an entirely different questing system than WoW so comparing those directly isn't entirely fair either. GW2 and SWTOR also have story quests that lead your character along a developing story arc. SWTOR has 8 of these, GW2 has (I believe) 5 with some variants based on character creation choices, that's 8 and 5 more than WoW has EVER had.

You need to define what you're talking about when you're talking about content or your point makes no sense.



Vanilla WOW is defined as WOW pre-BC.... Hence Vanilla..... Also battlegrounds where added 2 months later..... LOL! Also EQ was a quest centric game for it's time, just because WOW outdone it, does it not mean that it was not the wow of it's time Smiley: wink And yeah those story arcs you mention are present in wow, just different presentation and all, unless you are gonna tell me WOW had no story and GW2 actually had more content than vanill wow lol (Which btw it does not even beats "Launch WOW"
____________________________
MUTED
#246 Mar 12 2013 at 4:16 AM Rating: Default
***
2,202 posts
Seraphaniim wrote:
[quote=Ostia]GW2 has 9 Dungeons, Vanilla WOW had 29 that is 20 more istances... GW2 Has 0 Raids, Vanilla WOW had 7, that is 7 more raids.... GW2 has 25 Zones, Vanilla WOW had 41 Zones, that is 16 more zones.... GW2 has PVP, WvsW and some other sh*t i never tried, Vanilla WOW had 3 battlegrounds and PVP, GW2 has more content than vanilla WOW on PVP.

Also Everquest had 1200 Quest by the time WOW went into Alpha, by the time Vanilla WOW launched it launched with 2600 Quests.... Seriously doubt that GW2 has more than 2600 quests with an inferior number of zones, dungeons and raids.



Please learn what the term Vanilla WOW means then correct me noob


____________________________
MUTED
#247 Mar 12 2013 at 6:27 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
3,599 posts
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
Ha, I wasn't saying what you said was bull, I was just saying what I call it.


I got that, though in your defense, I considered that my reply might not convey that I understood what you were saying and decided, "Oh well." I figured we'd just have an exchange like this one where you said you weren't antagonizing me and I replied that I didn't perceive any offense. So, kinda my bad, really.


That's so 'meta' of you.

____________________________


#248 Mar 12 2013 at 8:54 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Oh no! A statement of ambiguous intent! This was not anticipated in my calculations!
____________________________
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.
#249 Mar 12 2013 at 9:01 AM Rating: Good
***
3,448 posts
Quote:
Vanilla WOW is defined as WOW pre-BC.... Hence Vanilla..... Also battlegrounds where added 2 months later..... LOL! Also EQ was a quest centric game for it's time, just because WOW outdone it, does it not mean that it was not the wow of it's time And yeah those story arcs you mention are present in wow, just different presentation and all, unless you are gonna tell me WOW had no story and GW2 actually had more content than vanill wow lol (Which btw it does not even beats "Launch WOW"


Fair enough, because of your post immediately above that, I assumed you were talking about WoW at launch rather than WoW prior to its first expansion.

In that case though, don't you think you should wait for those other three games to put out expansions so you can do a real comparison? I believe only Rift has done that at this point.
____________________________
svlyons wrote:
If random outcomes aren't acceptable to you, then don't play with random people.
#250 Mar 12 2013 at 9:05 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
That IS what we were talking about. He's just changing gears as convenient to his argument.
____________________________
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.
#251 Mar 12 2013 at 9:41 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*
82 posts
Ostia wrote:

Please learn what the term Vanilla WOW means then correct me noob


As other have pointed out, we were assuming you were talking about WoW at launch. Maybe you should consider making your arguments a little more definitive in the future so as to not confuse people?

Edit for prettiness

Edited, Mar 12th 2013 11:42am by Seraphaniim
____________________________
FFXIV - Goblin - Seraphan Amatsuka
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 71 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (71)