Forum Settings
       
This thread is locked

PVP Worlds...Follow

#77 May 31 2013 at 8:10 PM Rating: Default
***
2,202 posts
WFOAssassin wrote:
Ostia wrote:


Do you honestly think those games did that good, because they had "Chocobo Racing" or "Blitzball" ? Not because you know... They are called "Final Fantasy" ?

War sold over a million copies, and it was strictly a PVP game :) Planetside sold specially well and it was a strictly PVP game. Arenas in Wow are hugely popular, to the point that blizzard stated that they could no longer contemplate removing them. GW2 still lives because of PVP.(Their PVE portion of the game is almost non existent) Swotor had huge PVP success at first, and in an ironic twist of fate, PVP sealed their doom, since it was unbalanced. Rift which sold well and was doing well until recently had a big PVP population. Games centered around Player Versus Player, have been outselling games not centered around it, for the past 5 years, look at COD ? Nobody plays it for the campaign, everybody and their unborn child plays it for the PVP(yes i know is a FPS game but is still PVP) Legue of legends is doing amazingly great, is still a strictly PVP game.

Also this notion that because Final Fantasy XIV is based on a single player series, therefore it should follow the rules of single player games, is a hypocrite one, since the moment anybody suggest the game being more "Solo Friendly" everybody is instantly out with their pitchforks yelling "This is an MMO, if you wanna play solo go play an offline game" but god forbid somebody says "Hey this is a MMO, why cant we fight each other ?" Oh because Final fantasy offline has never had that option, therefore Final Fantasy Online, needs to follow the set of rules, established by it's offline counterpart.... Smiley: lol

You guys are hilarious Smiley: lol



Did those games sell because they were PvP? We are talking MMORPG games, btw...

You are bringing up more than one issue and meshing it into the same argument. Keeping on subject, should PvP be in the FFXIV, MMORPG game? Yes, No, Why?

GW2 is dead. PvP is just something fun that people like to play because it's fun. That means someone was trying to do two things at once and failed. Also an argument as to why they should concentrate more on the FFXIV CORE game play and make PvP a fun side event but nothing so outrageous that it takes away from the other content. Your own case, GW2 proves that my theory as valid.

SWOTOR, I can't speak on it. However, again, how did that game do? Was there a shift in resources to make PvP so awesome? Then it became unbalanced and killed itself. That sounds like ever single PvP game I have ever played, CoD, Socom, Halo, DC Universe, etc. Someone finds an exploit and rides it. It ruins the new player's experience and it's something basic so it can't really be nerfed. *Again, you add to my argument that maybe spending so much resources and time on PvP is a bad idea. Something that was such a "huge PVP success" died. Why have a dead feature in your game? It becomes an eye sore, like Ballista in FFXI but they started making was to ignore that and its basically forgotten by now.

You talk about CoD, that is a PvP game, like you said, who bought it for the single player? But CoD is nothing like FFXIV or any other title that this forum would call a brother game of the same genre.

FFXIV is a MMORPG, story, party, explore, quest, level up fighter jobs, level up farming jobs. Live in an alternate world by becoming a member of its society and economy. Fight the evil that threatens to disrupt and destroy it. Will PvP hurt that aspect of the game, the main aspect of the game? I can't say and I can't say what level of PvP would be tolerated and allow the game to flourish.

All I know and feel is that open world PvP would kill it. Dedicating resources to a set of PvP servers will 100% tae people, time, money, ideas away from the main purpose of the game. I don't think you can argue that. Lots of People got fired from SE, I doubt they will hire a PvP team.


How is GW2 dead ? It sold millions of copies, people are still playing the game, the PVP aspect of the game is the most polished one, it's PVP counterpart is minimal at best, there are no raids to speak off.

Swotor again sold 2 million+ copies on launch, held to 1.7 million subs for over 6 months, and is now at the 1 million mark, again they are not bleeding money, they are in fact making money, even when they went F2P, their core problem was not the unbalanced in PVP, it was the lack of end game content that did brought them problems.

I don't know where you wanna go with the hole "Exploit" thing and nerfs... I am pretty sure PVE gets far more exploits and nerfs than PVP does by a large margin, again there is no Open World PVP anymore, you cannot name me a recent game that has Open PVP, they whoever have zones in which you can engage in open PVP, i do not see a problem with that, since if you do not enjoy getting owned, then you just do not participate, nothing is lost.... Also there is no "If" This game will have PVP.
____________________________
MUTED
#78 May 31 2013 at 8:21 PM Rating: Default
***
2,202 posts
BartelX wrote:
Quote:
For arguments sake, lets pretend you are a designer in SE, and yoshi has already stated that there will be PVP in the game, and you go up to him and you tell him "Hey Yoshida! Forget about PVP Bro! I got a better idea... And he for arguments sake says: "Ok Shoot!" and you say, let's ignore the millions of potential subscribers that data in the MMO market shows are there in order to create.... "Blitzball" What do you think his reaction will be ? I am pretty sure you will be sweeping the floors of SE headquarters the next day Smiley: lol


I'm not saying to forego PvP for blitzball or chocobo racing. I'm saying that, for a Final Fantasy MMO, I think that far more people would be interested in chocobo racing and blitzball than would be in PvP. I don't think the crowd that FF is targeted for is the entirety of the MMO customer base. It's basically people who love the FF franchise, have played FFXI, played XIV 1.0, and PS3 players. Those are their biggest target markets.

Sure they will get some interest from the rest of the MMO community, but I think we both know that's not the group they are banking on to sell subs. If it was, they wouldn't have focused on incorporating so much FF fanservice into the game. They would have probably focused a lot more on PvP and innovative new mechanics to try and dazzle players out of their current games. Heck, they aren't even planning to have PvP testing until phase 4 are they? Wouldn't you think that if they thought it was so important, they would have started testing it a lot sooner? It's not like that's going to be something that will be super easy to balance right off the bat, especially if it has all new abilities like they've claimed.


On what basis do you base this notion that XIV ARR is not designed from the ground up to carter to the casual MMO market ? Because it's Final Fantasy ? As in Final Fantasy the most casual, mainstream RPG series in the world ? Do you base it on the fact that the game has been redesigned around a Wow approach ? Do you base it in the notion that XI and ARR are as far apart as possible ? Every change to the game has been made in order to bring in the casual market, Yoshi P stated that PVP will be in the game, it just wont be at release like most of the PVE end game content will also not be on the game at release.

The fanservice could be argued that was more of a desperate move by SE to capitalize on previews FF, than it being out of their love for the series, XI had fanservice, but it was not as blatantly ripped off as in XIV, there was no villain arc based off sephiroth just for the sake to bring in people that liked that character, XI had it's own legs, ARR has yet to to have it's own personality, sadly 3 years into the game, Se has failed to address this, hopefully they will do this by release.
____________________________
MUTED
#79 May 31 2013 at 8:34 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,889 posts
Pawkeshup, Averter of Apocalypse wrote:
Name me one FF title that you play as a villain with a storyline set of missions or has a moral choice system.
That's the only option? One group must be villains and the other must be heroes? Games with Open World PVP don't even use "villain vs hero," distinctions, and both sides are essentially "questionably good with separate ideals and goals." Again, it's a complete lack of imagination or lack of faith in the writing staff to believe that "just because it hasn't been done then it shouldn't be done because it hasn't been done!"
Pawkeshup, Averter of the Apocalypse wrote:
So when people say "It doesn't feel like Final Fantasy", they mean "This series has never been about PvP, or playing the villain within the cannon of the story, it's always about reconciliation, redemption, and overcoming adversity by coming together, not by fighting among ourselves."
"This franchise has never been about online play." So you must agree that Final Fantasy XI, by virtue of the "doesn't feel like" argument, doesn't feel like a Final Fantasy game either. By extension then XIV doesn't feel like a Final Fantasy game either. Here's another example: "This franchise was never about mini-games." A motorcycle chase through a highway? Submarine battles? Card games? Underwater Rugby? We just eliminated 7 through 10 because they don't "feel like Final Fantasy games." I don't see the outrage over that, though. In fact, I see excitement over it, yet those mechanics are very clearly not Final Fantasy. You know what made them "work?" A writer. Arguably another writer could have made Open World PVP work as well. We can probably eliminate every Final Fantasy that isn't Final Fantasy 1 as "not feeling like a Final Fantasy game" if we bother.

There's no such thing as "it doesn't feel like Final Fantasy." You know what does feel like Final Fantasy, though? The developers trying new things. That's the only true constant (besides the obvious similarly objects, named or otherwise). It's pretty hit or miss, but the alternative is stagnation which is infinitely worse. Just dismissing an (hypothetical) idea simply because it hasn't been done yet is hardly a good reason to not do something.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#80 May 31 2013 at 8:38 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
***
1,163 posts
I guess I can leave it at this.

50% PvE - 50% PvP = Not good
75% PvE - 25% PvP = Probably better
90% PvE - 10% PvP = Better option

I have no way to tell you what each percent means other than the time, money, quality of game play/resources. FFXIV shouldn't be PvP heavy but it should be an option, which it is. I'm just saying, making it an open world PvP game is crazy and on the same token, dedication too much toward the PvP content will probably hurt the rest of the game. If this was a PvP game it would be different. I honestly believe that this game was not and is not meant to be PvP heavy and making it even or close to an equal resource allotment would hurt the game. That's what I feel. On top of that, I don't want Open World PvP. I won't play for very long if it went that way.

I think we are arguing opinions at this point and I think I'll step off the debate table now. Ostia, you have some points but my personal feelings about the subject won't change because of how I feel about it. Clearly that goes for you too. So, Ill back off now because we won't get any further than where we are.

P.S. I really think you just like to take the opposition. I have a friend like that and if he has any valid excuse or evidence he will argue all day with you just to get you to say, "sure, maybe you're right" or kind of what I'm doing now. Nice talk. I still think PvP content should be bonus content, not main content and since its a personal feeling I can't argue with you about it anymore.
#81 May 31 2013 at 8:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
Also no need to worry, as i understand it, yoshi has stated that once you enter PVP, you will have different abilities for your class/job, than you do for PVE, so a white mage might be only a healing battery in PVE, but in PVE he might be able to hold his own.


You may be right about whm holding its own in PvP because of specific PvP abilities... but I think you're confusing whm and cnj... Conjuror does have offensive spells.

In any event, I think the development team is handling PvP in FFXIV exactly as they should be. It's there for people who want to do it, but the PvP won't interfere with the core of the game. Having separate PvP abilities lets jobs retain their party roles, without blending everything together to the point that roles aren't as critical.
____________________________
Thayos Redblade
Jormungandr
Hyperion
#82 May 31 2013 at 8:53 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,202 posts
WFOAssassin wrote:
I guess I can leave it at this.

50% PvE - 50% PvP = Not good
75% PvE - 25% PvP = Probably better
90% PvE - 10% PvP = Better option

I have no way to tell you what each percent means other than the time, money, quality of game play/resources. FFXIV shouldn't be PvP heavy but it should be an option, which it is. I'm just saying, making it an open world PvP game is crazy and on the same token, dedication too much toward the PvP content will probably hurt the rest of the game. If this was a PvP game it would be different. I honestly believe that this game was not and is not meant to be PvP heavy and making it even or close to an equal resource allotment would hurt the game. That's what I feel. On top of that, I don't want Open World PvP. I won't play for very long if it went that way.

I think we are arguing opinions at this point and I think I'll step off the debate table now. Ostia, you have some points but my personal feelings about the subject won't change because of how I feel about it. Clearly that goes for you too. So, Ill back off now because we won't get any further than where we are.

P.S. I really think you just like to take the opposition. I have a friend like that and if he has any valid excuse or evidence he will argue all day with you just to get you to say, "sure, maybe you're right" or kind of what I'm doing now. Nice talk. I still think PvP content should be bonus content, not main content and since its a personal feeling I can't argue with you about it anymore.


Well for what is worth, i am not debating based on personal feelings, i personally care very little if the game offers PVP, or not, i actually would personally enjoy a triple triad mini game, where you can duel another person far more than PVP. The basis for my argument is that since this game failed once, and SE is a company and a company's sole purpose is to create revenue for themselves, they should prioritize the market that is tested to be there for the taking, rather than divert resources into developing something that has no grounds nor is there a market for them to bring in into their game, should they do 50/50 ? 75/25 ? 90/10 ? That is for them to figure out, but if you can take a chunk of that market and bring them into your game, is a win win, even if you do not enjoy PVP, you will be directly benefited by the inclusion of that market into the game.

Just think about it, the game failed once, they are trying to make a come back againts all odds, their chances are not 100%, not even 75% as off now, to succeed, why would they not prioritize a marked they themselves neglected in XI ? If they even pull 200-300K pvpers into the game, and in worst case scenario, they only retain around 200-300K PVE users, that is a 500-600K user base, they can make a profit, and keep the game afloat, until either fixing it to the point subscribers pour in, or they make their money back, and can silently let the game die, and retry again with the lessons learned.

P.S: I would never advocate World PVP, i am speaking about istanced PVP, world pvp no longer exist in most MMO.
____________________________
MUTED
#83 May 31 2013 at 8:55 PM Rating: Default
***
2,202 posts
Thayos wrote:
Quote:
Also no need to worry, as i understand it, yoshi has stated that once you enter PVP, you will have different abilities for your class/job, than you do for PVE, so a white mage might be only a healing battery in PVE, but in PVE he might be able to hold his own.


You may be right about whm holding its own in PvP because of specific PvP abilities... but I think you're confusing whm and cnj... Conjuror does have offensive spells.

In any event, I think the development team is handling PvP in FFXIV exactly as they should be. It's there for people who want to do it, but the PvP won't interfere with the core of the game. Having separate PvP abilities lets jobs retain their party roles, without blending everything together to the point that roles aren't as critical.


Can you not be a WHM and sub a class that offers offensive spells ? Or once you turn into a WHM you are unable to use offensive spells ?
____________________________
MUTED
#84 May 31 2013 at 9:09 PM Rating: Good
****
6,899 posts
Ostia wrote:
On what basis do you base this notion that XIV ARR is not designed from the ground up to carter to the casual MMO market ? Because it's Final Fantasy ? As in Final Fantasy the most casual, mainstream RPG series in the world ? Do you base it on the fact that the game has been redesigned around a Wow approach ? Do you base it in the notion that XI and ARR are as far apart as possible ? Every change to the game has been made in order to bring in the casual market, Yoshi P stated that PVP will be in the game, it just wont be at release like most of the PVE end game content will also not be on the game at release.


They made the game more casual friendly because they had to. FFXI is 1000x more casual friendly now than it was at launch. It's the evolution of the mmo and the mmo gamer. Even those who played FFXI back in the day don't want to see the grindy, take forever to do anything approach that was present 10 years ago. Same goes for those who played 1.0. That game was nothing BUT grind when it came out... heck it was more grindy than many Korean MMO's. It's a universal concept to make games more casual friendly, not just something that pertains specifically to the casual MMO market.

I don't see them adding fanservice as a last desperate gasp though. I see them doing it as an attempt to capture the magic that past games had and give people the nostalgia they had playing those games. That's why I'm saying FF players are their target demographic. Some of that overlaps the MMO market, a good portion doesn't. And a lot of those players don't really care about PvP... or at least not nearly as much a PvE.

You do make a fair point about the PvE content not all being in at launch, so I will concede that point. I guess we won't really know for sure how important they want to make the PvP content until we're able to test it out in phase 4. Regardless, this was a good debate and I'm glad we were able to have it civilly.
#85 May 31 2013 at 9:32 PM Rating: Default
***
2,202 posts
Once you play ARR, you will understand what i meant by a more wowish approach.

I could argue that the FF online fanbase is smaller than what people love to give it credit too... But i have done that again, and the proof is in the pudding already so Smiley: lol

Also SE themselves stated that this game was for the casuals, that was their goal, that is their goal, and that will continue to be their goal, and well you and i see their attempts at fanservice differently, i enjoyed IX approach, i really dislike yoshi's approach.
____________________________
MUTED
#86 May 31 2013 at 11:08 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Thayos wrote:
Quote:
No, a WHM should be able to heal well enough to offset the damage that a damage dealer can do, such that they are mostly evenly matched.


This may be "balanced," but it would also be kind of lame.

The white mage class would have to be horribly overpowered (your example above sounds more like a paladin than a whm) in order to maintain heals fast enough to survive a direct assault from a top-level DD.

White mages are supposed to be squishy; they're not supposed to be able to be self-sufficient. Other party members are supposed to maintain hate in order to protect the whm, so that the whm can keep protecting them... this is just one of the many aspects of party dynamics that makes Final Fantasy what it is. And, this seems like a perfect example of why the development team made the right call in not designing the game with PvP in mind.

EDIT: Also, keep in mind that a skilled whm can get off a heal or two to buy a couple of crucial, extra seconds... but seriously, white mages and black mages should NOT be able to defend themselves against prolonged, direct assaults. A whm's main talent is healing his party members... not tanking or DDing.

Edited, May 31st 2013 6:11pm by Thayos


At the risk of stating the obvious, it can't be overpowered AND balanced. The white mage would not be overpowered by being able to survive the top level DD. You must be thinking within the context of the existing game balance, which is exactly the thing I'm criticizing. Just think about it for a second-- if the healer and the damage dealer are balanced against one another, why would you think they would have to be horribly overpowered? You're assuming that it's because the amount of healing they would need to be able to put out is so large that it would be overpowered in a PvE encounter. But the thing you're forgetting is that in this approach, the PvE encounter hasn't even been designed yet. And that's the whole point! It allows you to balance the encounter when you create it.

There's nothing inherently "lame" about it, either. It's just numbers on the backend. The only difference in gameplay is that healers/supports/nukers/tanks or whatever class is seen as a must-have is no longer any more valuable than another. i.e., balanced!
____________________________
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.
#87 May 31 2013 at 11:59 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
972 posts
I am against open world PvP in any PvE core game FF or otherwise. Yet a PvP option is very important. If ARR was a single player rpg then PvP would not be Final Fantasy. This is an mmo however, Yoshi is trying to make a modern mmo, and PvP is a part of modern mmos in some shape or form. PvP is content that doesn't need constant new content created. Just look at the console shooter games. They release 12-20 maps and people play over and over. It is an avenue that gives players something else in between expansions and updates, just like crafting or minigames.

WIll ARR have the best PvP of any mmo? I highly doubt it, so any hard push distracting from PvE content for traditional mmo PvP would not be optimal. Yoshi has stated that he pushing for more traditional mmo combat. So traditional PvP would not make the game stand out from other mmos, only establish that ARR offers it.

I see old FF mingames being shunned. Well games in the FF universe is what could make FF stand out from other mmos if the mechanics are sound and unique. WoW couldn't have Chocobo jousting without infringing upon the FF universe. It could have some other kind of jousting that plays better than ARR though. Other mmos can have fun parks and casinos. But if they designed it and named it to be like the FF Gold Saucer. You can see my point.

Magitek Battle Circuit, FF tactics mmo version, triple triad, chocobo racing, and any other FF minigame you can think of is what would set ARR apart from other mmos be it good or bad. The question would be could ARR do that good in a persistent online rpg? Trying to beat other games in standard mmo type PvP might or might not be possible. But unless it did, it wouldn't incite awe. Even if it did, it would detract from PvE shooting for that goal.
#88 Jun 01 2013 at 1:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
The white mage would not be overpowered by being able to survive the top level DD.


Even in a tabletop RPG, a mage would get slaughtered by a direct assault by a pure melee damage dealer.

The strength of a white mage isn't to be self-sustaining... it's to sustain others. If a whm could withstand a direct assault by a dedicated DD, then basically, whms could be tanks in party play, which just doesn't make sense. A whm should NOT be good at taking damage, at all. That's why other party members must protect the whm while the whm is protecting them.

I don't understand why anyone would want the game balanced any other way.
____________________________
Thayos Redblade
Jormungandr
Hyperion
#89 Jun 01 2013 at 1:50 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Thayos wrote:
Quote:
The white mage would not be overpowered by being able to survive the top level DD.


Even in a tabletop RPG, a mage would get slaughtered by a direct assault by a pure melee damage dealer.

The strength of a white mage isn't to be self-sustaining... it's to sustain others. If a whm could withstand a direct assault by a dedicated DD, then basically, whms could be tanks in party play, which just doesn't make sense. A whm should NOT be good at taking damage, at all. That's why other party members must protect the whm while the whm is protecting them.

I don't understand why anyone would want the game balanced any other way.


That works fine for cooperative tabletop games where everyone is already automatically "IN" the game. It works fine for single-player games where inter-unit balance is similarly unimportant (because you as the player are playing as every character). It does NOT work well for massive multiplayer games. Narrative follows gameplay (as form follows function), not the other way around. Bad game design 101: justifying a bad gameplay decision with a narrative decision that YOU are in control of.

Aside from which, your narrative argument doesn't even make sense. I think you're confusing balance with role. WHMs are able to heal themselves and always have. It's not as though they won't be healing other players--the question is whether the efficacy of their healing as an equal member of a party far exceeds the contribution of other party members, or if it provides an equal contribution (i.e., "Is any other class roughly as viable for this position as a WHM, or is a WHM clearly better?"). It has nothing to do with their role. It's a pure question of balance. If a WHM can go toe to toe with other classes, then it will be easier to design challenging, unique encounters for PvE.
____________________________
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.
#90 Jun 01 2013 at 4:26 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,122 posts
I guess it could work if they included beastman races. Would be pretty cool if they did, really.

Edited, Jun 1st 2013 6:27am by Dizmo
#91 Jun 01 2013 at 7:09 AM Rating: Good
****
6,899 posts
Kachi wrote:
That works fine for cooperative tabletop games where everyone is already automatically "IN" the game. It works fine for single-player games where inter-unit balance is similarly unimportant (because you as the player are playing as every character). It does NOT work well for massive multiplayer games. Narrative follows gameplay (as form follows function), not the other way around. Bad game design 101: justifying a bad gameplay decision with a narrative decision that YOU are in control of.


Bad forum argument 101: claiming that everything that doesn't work for you is bad game design because YOU don't agree with it. Smiley: disappointed

Edited, Jun 1st 2013 11:29am by BartelX
#92 Jun 01 2013 at 8:12 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
262 posts
The only game that I tried out a PvP server on was DCUO. It honestly added nothing other than constant aggravation in the open world. The meeting up in the park of Metropolis doing 1v1's was pretty fun while you're waiting on an instance to pop for you to go into, but you could do that on the PvE servers by just flagging up for PvP. The "Fight Clubs" in the open world were gentleman's agreement to keep to 1v1 or 2v2 or what have you to where nobody else would jump in. But out solo'ing open world quests while leveling up was just a pain in the rear when a capped out guy felt like roaming around quest areas just because he was bored while waiting on an instance.

Arena PvPs, the Legends PvPs, and even the community driven Fight Clubs were a blast. DCUO definitely had fun fighting mechanics for PvP, but pure open world PvP servers added absolutely nothing to the game as far as I'm concerned.

I'm in the camp to keep XIV PvP server free, but have your Arenas for it definitely.
#93 Jun 01 2013 at 9:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
**
655 posts
I quit Rift due to the PVP servers. The quest hubs were to close together so unles you had a party of people questing the same time you were you would get ganked and die over and over and not be able to lvl. So I quit never looking back.

If ARR went pvp.. they would have to redo all quests and areas because right now there the same for everyone. If anyone played Tera on a PVP server knows about the high lvls ganking lowbies right outside the first main quest hub. Thus me rerolling to a pve server. Yea yea call me a carebear if u want but when i cant log on and quest there is a problem. I would prolly od the same with ARR if they added them so no skin off my back PVE servers for me. This is coming from somone who LOVES bgs and arenas just hate open world pvp. So good job SE I like where there head is at.
#94 Jun 01 2013 at 10:18 AM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
If a WHM can go toe to toe with other classes, then it will be easier to design challenging, unique encounters for PvE.


This is purely your opinion. In my opinion, if a white mage can withstand an assault as well as a paladin or warrior, then we have a serious balance problem.

Balance should not mean, Job X can do Z, so Job Y should be able to do Z, too, just in a different way. If that were the case, what we'd have would be a massively boring game (and most games nowadays are inching too close to that, anyway). Job X should be able to do things that Job Y could never do; that's how party roles are made.

Your way of balance would work better in a game like Skyrim, or maybe even Guild Wars 2, where the emphasis is on the single player. In a game that emphasizes party play though, all jobs need to have strengths and weaknesses. Mages are powerful, but squishy. That's the way it's always been, and that's how it should stay.
____________________________
Thayos Redblade
Jormungandr
Hyperion
#95 Jun 01 2013 at 10:41 AM Rating: Good
They tried something like this in DCUO, but I have a feeling they did a terrible job. There are 3 classes:

Tank
Healer
Controller

Each class also has a DD stance, which derives it's damage potential from the type of class it stems from. Tanks do superior physical damage, Healers do superior magic damage, and Controllers do superior ability damage.

The roles had a trinity of dominance: Tank beats Controller, Controller beats Healer, Healer beats Tank. This was only applicable while in role stance. Tanks did a lot of damage to squishy Controllers, Controllers could almost stun-lock Healers, and Healers healed way more damage than Tanks could dish out. DD stance was it's own kind of animal as stats and abilities changed. Grappling Hook for a Controller would bind the target and give minor hp regen for a few seconds in role stance, but would reel the target to you and deal damage in DD stance.

The problem DCUO had was severe imbalance within each role. There were Ice and Fire Tanks, but Ice was far superior to Fire. It had 2 abilities that not only gave invincibility for 3+ hits, but the hits were reflected back to the attacker at full value, while the Ice Tank was also able to deal damage on his own. Fire had no such abilities. There were Sorcery and Nature Healers. Sorcery was gimped because it could only single-target heal, or lay a circle on any surface that a character had to stand in for recovery. Nature Healers could simpy heal within a radius to themselves, and also had shield abilities and an ability to give increased magic/ability damage to all party members. Controllers were just gimp the whole time.

When it came to PVE, everything was just a zerg fest. 1-2 tanks, 3 healers, and a dozen DD. Ice Tank uses an AOE pull ability, block. Pop invincibilty, block. Use AOE pull again when losing hate, block. Nature Healers spam AOE heals while flying right above the battle. DD spam AOE damage abilities. There really was no strategy. ONE boss fight had some interesting mechanics, everything else was just a gear check.

EDIT: Weapons also had a part to play in all of this. Charged ranged attacks from Hand Blasters or Bows could stun a blocking target, but for some reason, an exploit that was never fixed (while I was playing) allowed swords to simply tap-range attack to break block. Another example of some of the problems that plagued the game.

Edited, Jun 1st 2013 12:48pm by IKickYoDog
____________________________
Our team is like a flock of woodpeckers in a petrified forest. We just need to keep working and keep an eye open for opportunity.

FFXI
Toofar - Asura (Formerly of Lakshmi (Garuda)) - WHM BLM SMN
Rafoot - Asura (Formerly of Lakshmi (Garuda)) - THF SAM BRD
#96 Jun 01 2013 at 10:43 AM Rating: Good
***
3,718 posts
silverhope wrote:
I quit Rift due to the PVP servers. The quest hubs were to close together so unles you had a party of people questing the same time you were you would get ganked and die over and over and not be able to lvl. So I quit never looking back.

If ARR went pvp.. they would have to redo all quests and areas because right now there the same for everyone. If anyone played Tera on a PVP server knows about the high lvls ganking lowbies right outside the first main quest hub. Thus me rerolling to a pve server. Yea yea call me a carebear if u want but when i cant log on and quest there is a problem. I would prolly od the same with ARR if they added them so no skin off my back PVE servers for me. This is coming from somone who LOVES bgs and arenas just hate open world pvp. So good job SE I like where there head is at.


Uh... did you know Rift offered free character transfers?

Ganking lowbies is definitely a reason a lot of people shy away from world pvp. It's also a reason people FLOCK to world pvp.

Personally, it's never been my cup of tea. When I'm out questing or farming or whatever, I just want to do that and not have to worry about someone 40 levels above me coming down and ruining my day. That's not fun for me. But I recognize that it IS fun for other people (on both sides of that scenario). I just don't think it belongs in a Final Fantasy game.
____________________________
svlyons wrote:
If random outcomes aren't acceptable to you, then don't play with random people.
#97 Jun 01 2013 at 10:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
**
655 posts
Archmage Callinon wrote:

Uh... did you know Rift offered free character transfers?


This was right when the game came out and it had more than just that issue but it was the main reason i left.
#98 Jun 01 2013 at 11:34 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
4,779 posts
I can only really give my impression on this.

It's quite simply the opposite environment I am accustomed for the Final Fantasy franchise to have. As it is, I'm going to give PvP a try to see how well its done, and I'll develop my opinion on what is currently implimented after I experience it first hand.

However beyond that I'm really not comfortable with the sort of community World PvP brings to the table. I'm with Thayos in this, I think SE should stick to their roots on this matter and encourage a more cooperative community.

If the PVP they implement winds up being better, my opinion may change. Right now, I think we should wait, sample what they have and work forward from that point based on feedback.
#99 Jun 01 2013 at 11:37 AM Rating: Good
****
6,899 posts
Thayos wrote:
Quote:
If a WHM can go toe to toe with other classes, then it will be easier to design challenging, unique encounters for PvE.


This is purely your opinion. In my opinion, if a white mage can withstand an assault as well as a paladin or warrior, then we have a serious balance problem.

Balance should not mean, Job X can do Z, so Job Y should be able to do Z, too, just in a different way. If that were the case, what we'd have would be a massively boring game (and most games nowadays are inching too close to that, anyway). Job X should be able to do things that Job Y could never do; that's how party roles are made.

Your way of balance would work better in a game like Skyrim, or maybe even Guild Wars 2, where the emphasis is on the single player. In a game that emphasizes party play though, all jobs need to have strengths and weaknesses. Mages are powerful, but squishy. That's the way it's always been, and that's how it should stay.


Amen! I don't want a pve focused game where all classes have the exact same survivability. Whats the point of even having specific group roles in that situation? It's ok to have classes with specific strengths and weaknesses, whether you like that idea or not.
____________________________
Bartel Hayward--- Ultros Server
The Kraken Club <ZAM>
50 WAR • 50 MNK • 50 MIN • 50 GSM • 50 ARM • 50 LTW • 50 CUL • 50 WVR
thekrakenclub.shivtr.com
#100 Jun 01 2013 at 1:12 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
BartelX wrote:
Kachi wrote:
That works fine for cooperative tabletop games where everyone is already automatically "IN" the game. It works fine for single-player games where inter-unit balance is similarly unimportant (because you as the player are playing as every character). It does NOT work well for massive multiplayer games. Narrative follows gameplay (as form follows function), not the other way around. Bad game design 101: justifying a bad gameplay decision with a narrative decision that YOU are in control of.


Bad forum argument 101: claiming that everything that doesn't work for you is bad game design because YOU don't agree with it. Smiley: disappointed

Edited, Jun 1st 2013 11:29am by BartelX


Lack of available high value units (e.g. healers, tanks) is a widely accepted problem in most MMOs, not just my opinion.

When you have those high value units in the game, encounter balance must be tuned higher to preserve the challenge of the game. That means that parties of low value units can't clear the content. That's what results in people sitting around with their thumbs up their asses for a high value unit (like a WHM) to appear so that they can experience content.


Thayos wrote:
Quote:
If a WHM can go toe to toe with other classes, then it will be easier to design challenging, unique encounters for PvE.


This is purely your opinion. In my opinion, if a white mage can withstand an assault as well as a paladin or warrior, then we have a serious balance problem.

Balance should not mean, Job X can do Z, so Job Y should be able to do Z, too, just in a different way. If that were the case, what we'd have would be a massively boring game (and most games nowadays are inching too close to that, anyway). Job X should be able to do things that Job Y could never do; that's how party roles are made.

Your way of balance would work better in a game like Skyrim, or maybe even Guild Wars 2, where the emphasis is on the single player. In a game that emphasizes party play though, all jobs need to have strengths and weaknesses. Mages are powerful, but squishy. That's the way it's always been, and that's how it should stay.


It's not my opinion; it's math. You can't give all the numerical power to a couple of classes and properly balance your PvE encounter systems. You can have them be unbalanced, which it sounds like is what you prefer. It leads to people favoring certain classes over others, excluding people, and waiting for high value classes to show up. So yeah, in my "opinion" (and most people's) that's bad.

Where you're completely mistaken is in saying that classes would basically do the same thing. I don't know where you pulled that from. A healer would still be a healer. A crowd control unit still focuses on crowd control. An evasive unit still specializes in evasion. Again, it has nothing to do with ROLE. It has to do with the numbers on the backend. It does not have much impact on what a WHM does in the party. It just allows parties to function without a WHM.

Edited, Jun 1st 2013 12:12pm 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.
#101 Jun 01 2013 at 1:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
**
273 posts
Kachi wrote:
BartelX wrote:
Kachi wrote:
That works fine for cooperative tabletop games where everyone is already automatically "IN" the game. It works fine for single-player games where inter-unit balance is similarly unimportant (because you as the player are playing as every character). It does NOT work well for massive multiplayer games. Narrative follows gameplay (as form follows function), not the other way around. Bad game design 101: justifying a bad gameplay decision with a narrative decision that YOU are in control of.


Bad forum argument 101: claiming that everything that doesn't work for you is bad game design because YOU don't agree with it. Smiley: disappointed

Edited, Jun 1st 2013 11:29am by BartelX


Lack of available high value units (e.g. healers, tanks) is a widely accepted problem in most MMOs, not just my opinion.

When you have those high value units in the game, encounter balance must be tuned higher to preserve the challenge of the game. That means that parties of low value units can't clear the content. That's what results in people sitting around with their thumbs up their asses for a high value unit (like a WHM) to appear so that they can experience content.


Thayos wrote:
Quote:
If a WHM can go toe to toe with other classes, then it will be easier to design challenging, unique encounters for PvE.


This is purely your opinion. In my opinion, if a white mage can withstand an assault as well as a paladin or warrior, then we have a serious balance problem.

Balance should not mean, Job X can do Z, so Job Y should be able to do Z, too, just in a different way. If that were the case, what we'd have would be a massively boring game (and most games nowadays are inching too close to that, anyway). Job X should be able to do things that Job Y could never do; that's how party roles are made.

Your way of balance would work better in a game like Skyrim, or maybe even Guild Wars 2, where the emphasis is on the single player. In a game that emphasizes party play though, all jobs need to have strengths and weaknesses. Mages are powerful, but squishy. That's the way it's always been, and that's how it should stay.


It's not my opinion; it's math. You can't give all the numerical power to a couple of classes and properly balance your PvE encounter systems. You can have them be unbalanced, which it sounds like is what you prefer. It leads to people favoring certain classes over others, excluding people, and waiting for high value classes to show up. So yeah, in my "opinion" (and most people's) that's bad.

Where you're completely mistaken is in saying that classes would basically do the same thing. I don't know where you pulled that from. A healer would still be a healer. A crowd control unit still focuses on crowd control. An evasive unit still specializes in evasion. Again, it has nothing to do with ROLE. It has to do with the numbers on the backend. It does not have much impact on what a WHM does in the party. It just allows parties to function without a WHM.

Edited, Jun 1st 2013 12:12pm by Kachi


It seems to me that your argument is that a WHM for instance, matched against a SAM, should have roughly a 50% chance of winning a one-on-one battle, all things being equal i.e. talent of the player, level, equipment, etc. Before I respond I wish to ensure I'm interpreting your position on the matter correctly.
____________________________
[ffxivsig]2041793[/ffxivsig]

I probably understood about 1/10th of what was discussed in this thread and I'm sober as a rope. (I don't know if that's actually a saying or not). -Kierk
This thread is locked
You cannot post in a locked topic!
Recent Visitors: 1 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (1)