Kneczhevo wrote: » What a well written and passionate post. ☺️ Unfortunately, I see it more as a troll needing a therapy session. I have no idea what topics you brought up, I don't chase names. I chase comments. What I gathered (from this thread), you are a PVEer? And you're not happy about your responses to your suggestions? I'm not rereading your other thread. We all want a great game, period. Some have great ideas, some don't. If your idea is not getting into people's heads, you are doing something wrong or it's a dumb idea. Accept it and move on. Try a new approach, don't cry to the forums. You come to a PvP community, and expect carebear treatment? Lmao. Get real. I'm a carebear with fangs and claws. Grow a pair.
bigepeen wrote: » Tarnish wrote: » Good Evening, I wanted to address some of the comments but not go into too much as this community seems riddled with people who do not want new ideas or new age things in this MMO. This would be insanely long if i were to do that. Just know i read them and none of you have swayed any of the arguments i have on MMOs and what they should and should not have. I wish i could get your trust that i am very knowledgeable of MMOs and can often tell when one will flop or be successful. I know it is something that is earned over a long period of time and being correct about topics. Really hope you're not just trolling with these posts, but regardless, I really think that we don't need separate topics for this discussion... I'm not a mod though. Tarnish wrote: » My feedback is simple, I see some big flaws that should not be capable. I understand the games still in alpha however as we all know MMOs have 2 legs to stand on, PVE and PVP. I like PVP however PVE is MY passion. If any MMO is going to be successful it needs both. Every example and most of the future content appears to have PVP involved with the PVE. Anyone who has played a MMO should know why that does not make sense. Some is good, too much is bad. Some of the ideas i really like however the thought of others seem fun in theory however having experience with the topic i can see the cons of it and know how it will play out long term. I'm not sure what you mean by the first sentence. I understand that your preference is for PvE, however this is very subjective and doesn't necessarily reflect everyone else's preferences. People need to realize that not every game needs to be centered around their passion. We would have a very boring catalogue of games if every game were built to one person's preference. Not every game needs to have X% of PvE and (100-X)% of PvP content. For example, FFIV basically has non-existent PvP and yet it is the 3rd most popular MMO right now. In fact, there are plenty of popular PvE-centric MMOs right now and I would consider that part of the market saturated. If that's your style of MMO, then please play those games rather than spending effort trying to turn every game into a PvE game, there are already literally hundreds of those for you to choose from. I believe that alternative models to this can be successful, and I like the direction that AoC is going with no P2W microtransactions, extensive crafting content, innovative node systems, naval content, huge player driven economy, player-owned houses, etc... A lot of games with more PvP failed because P2W was implemented and the player population started dropping off a cliff, or games that are just generally low on content in general. The latter won't be a problem if Intrepid just delivers on the scope that they already have planned. Tarnish wrote: » Anyone who has played a MMO should know why that does not make sense. Some is good, too much is bad. Some of the ideas i really like however the thought of others seem fun in theory however having experience with the topic i can see the cons of it and know how it will play out long term. If you are really sincere about your feedback, can you please provide concrete examples for ideas that have obvious cons? I think if the cons were so obvious, then developers would not even consider implementing them in games. It may be obvious to you, but saying that "anyone who has played a MMO should know why that does not make sense" isn't very productive feedback.
Tarnish wrote: » Good Evening, I wanted to address some of the comments but not go into too much as this community seems riddled with people who do not want new ideas or new age things in this MMO. This would be insanely long if i were to do that. Just know i read them and none of you have swayed any of the arguments i have on MMOs and what they should and should not have. I wish i could get your trust that i am very knowledgeable of MMOs and can often tell when one will flop or be successful. I know it is something that is earned over a long period of time and being correct about topics.
Tarnish wrote: » My feedback is simple, I see some big flaws that should not be capable. I understand the games still in alpha however as we all know MMOs have 2 legs to stand on, PVE and PVP. I like PVP however PVE is MY passion. If any MMO is going to be successful it needs both. Every example and most of the future content appears to have PVP involved with the PVE. Anyone who has played a MMO should know why that does not make sense. Some is good, too much is bad. Some of the ideas i really like however the thought of others seem fun in theory however having experience with the topic i can see the cons of it and know how it will play out long term.
Tarnish wrote: » Anyone who has played a MMO should know why that does not make sense. Some is good, too much is bad. Some of the ideas i really like however the thought of others seem fun in theory however having experience with the topic i can see the cons of it and know how it will play out long term.
GodsThesis wrote: » Hold up, Isn't this just a differently-worded duplicate of the first thread, except now we got more than one paragraph? You should just respond to people that dislike your ideas in your threads if you think your own seem better, regardless of how they type or their tone. If you find your ideas worth defending then you should be able to defend them against the worst.
Hurf Derfman wrote: » A part two?? Your viewpoints are exactly the sort of thing I would expect from the elitist Warcraft raiding manufacturing and processing facility. Right down to the entitlement. DPS meters introduced exclusion during Karazhan. Deadly boss mod, or as I called it, "run away little girl" couldn't keep the dps from standing in void zones no matter how many raid members installed it. When the item score mod was introduced during ICC it made the exclusion and toxic elitism from the dps meter introduction look like sweet apple pie. During Cata Blizz tried to make raid content with the assumption that everyone will have DBM, and as a result created some if the most unfun dungeons and raids in WoW history. Guilds fell apart players quit for good and LFR was born. Current year wow a typical guild only lasts as long as the current content patch.
Hurf Derfman wrote: » AoC concepts translated into WoW speak. 10 man raids and 5 man dungeons= A full party is 8 players. 1tank, 1, healer, 1, buffer (bard) and 5 dps/off heals/tanks. A raid group is up to 40 players, that's 5, 8 man groups. World Boss, requires 40 players to down. Oddly enough this used to be the case in WoW, and will be the case in AoC. In AoC 80% of the dungeons will be open world, and may have a world boss in them. There will be pvp. The other 20% will be instanced. But we only know that cause Steve said so and hasn't provided any info beyond that. So imagine BRD and BWL from classic WoW being combined and open world. You're likely going to have to find a middle ground for playing PVP and "raiding" at the same time.
CaptnChuck wrote: » Challenging PvE content is indeed a big question mark when it comes to AoC. I also agree with you on your point about WoW. A lot of people say that this game isn't a WoW 2.0, but what they don't realize is that WoW has the largest MMO player-base out of all other MMORPGs. So if you want to be successful, you have to be able to attract its player-base as well. That's the reason why FF14 became so successful. The challenging PvE content in FF14, attracted a ton of players from WoW. So I hope that Steven understands this. Sacrificing a bit of social activity, for challenging PvE content, isn't really a bad trade-off in my books.
bloodprophet wrote: » I remember when they launched the first Raid. We were standing at the door and watching the scene play out. PvP started as they were halfway through. We were waiting for the door to open. Some people got made because they didn't want to be flagged and pvp. It killed our guild before even getting in the door. I am with you and hope there are some epic fights that you can focus on just the fight and not have to worry about griefers. But I also like the scramble sometimes as well. First time we did Kragga's palace right after it came out. We were at the end of our raid time when we got to Karaga. We decided to pull to see the fight and give it a try. At the end me healing and 1 melee dps running around eeked out a victory purely through the scramble. Was a good night.
Tarnish wrote: » CaptnChuck wrote: » Challenging PvE content is indeed a big question mark when it comes to AoC. I also agree with you on your point about WoW. A lot of people say that this game isn't a WoW 2.0, but what they don't realize is that WoW has the largest MMO player-base out of all other MMORPGs. So if you want to be successful, you have to be able to attract its player-base as well. That's the reason why FF14 became so successful. The challenging PvE content in FF14, attracted a ton of players from WoW. So I hope that Steven understands this. Sacrificing a bit of social activity, for challenging PvE content, isn't really a bad trade-off in my books. I agree, I think in the long run it will benefit the community.
Tarnish wrote: » GodsThesis wrote: » Hold up, Isn't this just a differently-worded duplicate of the first thread, except now we got more than one paragraph? You should just respond to people that dislike your ideas in your threads if you think your own seem better, regardless of how they type or their tone. If you find your ideas worth defending then you should be able to defend them against the worst. post a topic and i will break it down, I am trying to figure out where the community disagrees the most and take it from there.
Dreoh wrote: » I know I also have a tendency to write long comments, but yours comes off as rambly and a bit entitled. I'm not going to offer feedback on the content since our friends here have already done so in ample capacity, so instead I'll say that if you intend to get more positive or even just more logical and comprehensive responses to do away with the entitlement, and focus entirely on the arguments you're making instead of who you are as a person. To add on that, utilize paragraphs more to better increase readability and help add emphasis to your points. People tend to only read the first 1 or 2 lines of a paragraph as the rest of it becomes tedious to look at. Lastly, try to keep your arguments concise and too the point for maximum impact and for less of a chance of misinterpretation.
GodsThesis wrote: » Tarnish wrote: » GodsThesis wrote: » Hold up, Isn't this just a differently-worded duplicate of the first thread, except now we got more than one paragraph? You should just respond to people that dislike your ideas in your threads if you think your own seem better, regardless of how they type or their tone. If you find your ideas worth defending then you should be able to defend them against the worst. post a topic and i will break it down, I am trying to figure out where the community disagrees the most and take it from there. You don't tell me what to do just as I can't tell you what to do. So you should probably stop that nonsense. I am assuming you meant to write it in a suggestive tone though, not a commanding one. Given the way you type, probably just poor wording on your part.
Hurf Derfman wrote: » If my army burns your node to the ground your dungeon just went away with it. Warcraft's business model is attracting new players with new expansions, not retention of old fans. This has been the case since Activation bought em. Less than 10% of their massive player base are actually "hardcore" raiders. The overwhelming majority are LFR hero's.
Tarnish wrote: » GodsThesis wrote: » Tarnish wrote: » GodsThesis wrote: » Hold up, Isn't this just a differently-worded duplicate of the first thread, except now we got more than one paragraph? You should just respond to people that dislike your ideas in your threads if you think your own seem better, regardless of how they type or their tone. If you find your ideas worth defending then you should be able to defend them against the worst. post a topic and i will break it down, I am trying to figure out where the community disagrees the most and take it from there. You don't tell me what to do just as I can't tell you what to do. So you should probably stop that nonsense. I am assuming you meant to write it in a suggestive tone though, not a commanding one. Given the way you type, probably just poor wording on your part. you know what they say about assumptions. lol
