Tragnar wrote: » Definitely I think it is totally disrespectful and out of place to bash so hard the person that made this whole project possible.
Xbet wrote: » And i am sorry to sound conflicting but i will address 2 of your points as it was to incorrect for me to ignore, the dark runner build became obsolete for the executioner build years ago and this was only for small group combat, if you wanted to make a difference in a fight you got a 4 bit anthalon set and went and controlled a fight, group stick and call nuke on your position, also with wow the running of mythic + and mythic dungeons the real end game content you had to group with players from your server not a lfg system so this removed a point of toxicity as the disposable player life is a fundamental cause of toxic behaviour "i wont see them again so who cares", i am sorry to have been baited into a digression of my main point
Xbet wrote: » @Noaani Ok,i have read a few of your posts let me use the world boss's for example and your desire to have a instance based "world boss", and for pure heart pve encounter you are correct its the only way to have a challenging raid is to have it static and not the potential to get bigger but only better (no zerg) to remove the pvp element so that you are able to be undisturbed while doing the encounter, but from what i see this is not the main focus of AoC the contesting and interacting with other players is the key component, "we" as a player base make the world and make the content, as such i would assume that contesting world boss's might only be for the top groups/guilds, but i did like your post where you pointed out all 4 ways of having pve content and trying to incorporate all, but this would as you said just cater to the masses "bit for everyone" when you make a game there are many things people will dislike i see from your posts you have played a few mmo's but you dislike a lot of things in them, in regards to this i think you have a very analytical brain and enjoy the thinking process, and outside of this forum thread if we spoke we might agree on many things as i do personally with some (not all but i love a debate) of your other comments.
There will be some in-depth raiding that has multiple stages that will be extremely difficult and... It would definitely be in the single digits of population that will be capable of defeating certain content... It doesn't mean that there won't be content available for the larger percentages as well... There should be a tiered level of content that players can constantly strive to accomplish. If there is no ladder of progression and everything is flat and all content can be experienced, then there is no drive to excel.
so please now i ask you how am i looking only at a small picture? i stand by i picked 2 contrasting games which is hard to do as most are based of the wow model.
Xbet wrote: » so i guess you were playing on a much higher population server?
So i think in reading your last statement related to raiding and combat tracker (the point i wanted to stay on) that you are interested in min maxing a class and your role to only focus on end game pve content that provides a challenge to you, that has been and most/all other things are just a means to that goal? just basing that on your statement starting "I only backed this game because of one statement." and if what i am saying is correct then i 100% understand your view point and desire for a combat tracker. And i would in part agree with you, that you to have a finely tuned pve content it has to be in an instance, but only because of the key word "pve" if its open world its subject to contesting, BUT if you incorporate pvp as an element into a pve encounter it could be like the early days of AA contest world boss's for 10 hours straight, they didnt despawn after 2h like they did later. (and yes the content in AA is like you stated its really simple)
Noaani wrote: » It is poor form of Intrepid to expect raids of 40 people to spend that much time guessing at what could be going wrong, rather than providing them with tools to actually work out what is going wrong. It is borderline irresponsible in regards to player time wasted.
primagoosa wrote: » Noaani wrote: » It is poor form of Intrepid to expect raids of 40 people to spend that much time guessing at what could be going wrong, rather than providing them with tools to actually work out what is going wrong. It is borderline irresponsible in regards to player time wasted. The thing is, they won't keep combat trackers out. FFXIV made it against the TOS but it's understood that you just don't talk about it in game, but if you're serious about performance you use the third party program. Even Monster Hunter World has a combat tracker. It's simply naive for them to think combat tracking won't exist. For people thinking they'll be safe from toxicity without, you must not have followed GW2, where some classes just didn't get invites to content based almost exclusively on community perception. There wasn't even a third party mod, people just timed solo kills on a particular mob to demonstrate dps potential and it was enough to keep Necros out of pubs. People are spitting into the wind if they think they can hide from toxicity with no combat tracking, and Intrepid has their head in the sand if they think they'll keep a dedicated community from developing the tools they feel they need to excel.
Tragnar wrote: » I totally agree with you @primagoosa Developers should focus on a good balance and give reasons to bring archetypes into the raid that is beyond simple dps performance. Toxicity always comes from systems that allow you to replace players with no downside for doing so.
Mip wrote: » ...