Tragnar wrote: » Mojottv wrote: » Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » The fewer people you bring, the more profitable the encounter is. This would only be true if we assume that it is a given that we will kill the encounter. If content is actually hard, and takes many attempts to actually figure out and then kill, then this point isn't really relevant. well one guy figures it out, posts on internet, then everyone knows and not much to figure out then. You just come prepared. Difficulty from missing information is not the only difficulty in existence. Bosses can be hard even when you know everything about them and to your disappointment Steven agrees that missing information about a boss is not the driving difficulty for raids - otherwise he wouldn't say that raids are clearable only by fraction of the community
Mojottv wrote: » Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » The fewer people you bring, the more profitable the encounter is. This would only be true if we assume that it is a given that we will kill the encounter. If content is actually hard, and takes many attempts to actually figure out and then kill, then this point isn't really relevant. well one guy figures it out, posts on internet, then everyone knows and not much to figure out then. You just come prepared.
Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » The fewer people you bring, the more profitable the encounter is. This would only be true if we assume that it is a given that we will kill the encounter. If content is actually hard, and takes many attempts to actually figure out and then kill, then this point isn't really relevant.
mcstackerson wrote: » The fewer people you bring, the more profitable the encounter is.
Mojottv wrote: » Tragnar wrote: » Mojottv wrote: » Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » The fewer people you bring, the more profitable the encounter is. This would only be true if we assume that it is a given that we will kill the encounter. If content is actually hard, and takes many attempts to actually figure out and then kill, then this point isn't really relevant. well one guy figures it out, posts on internet, then everyone knows and not much to figure out then. You just come prepared. Difficulty from missing information is not the only difficulty in existence. Bosses can be hard even when you know everything about them and to your disappointment Steven agrees that missing information about a boss is not the driving difficulty for raids - otherwise he wouldn't say that raids are clearable only by fraction of the community Well, when it comes to bosses, to beat a difficult boss, you need to know its mechanics, have appropriate number of players with all required classes and having those players required gear. I don't really know what else would boss difficult if you know and have everything you need.
Noaani wrote: » Mojottv wrote: » Tragnar wrote: » Mojottv wrote: » Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » The fewer people you bring, the more profitable the encounter is. This would only be true if we assume that it is a given that we will kill the encounter. If content is actually hard, and takes many attempts to actually figure out and then kill, then this point isn't really relevant. well one guy figures it out, posts on internet, then everyone knows and not much to figure out then. You just come prepared. Difficulty from missing information is not the only difficulty in existence. Bosses can be hard even when you know everything about them and to your disappointment Steven agrees that missing information about a boss is not the driving difficulty for raids - otherwise he wouldn't say that raids are clearable only by fraction of the community Well, when it comes to bosses, to beat a difficult boss, you need to know its mechanics, have appropriate number of players with all required classes and having those players required gear. I don't really know what else would boss difficult if you know and have everything you need. I kind of feel sorry for you if you are unable to understand the difference between knowing how to do something, and actually being able to do it. There is more than just knowledge in almost any activity - and gaming is no exception. If you can't look at your life and see activities that are difficult for reasons other than knowledge of said activity, then you really need to branch out more. Based on your assumption that knowledge is all that is needed, I assume you can sink infinate freethrows? I mean, all you need to be able to do that is knowledge, right? The thing there is, a raid encounter is more like trying to sink all of those freethrows while a scripted robot is attempting to block you.
Tragnar wrote: » Presumption that at least 50% of players are able to perform non 1 button rotation correctly while paying attention to their position, reacting to random dangers and remembering when to switch targets is unrealistical. Majority of MMO playerbase is unable to perform above actions without mistakes for a prolonged amount of time.
Mojottv wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Mojottv wrote: » Tragnar wrote: » Mojottv wrote: » Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » The fewer people you bring, the more profitable the encounter is. This would only be true if we assume that it is a given that we will kill the encounter. If content is actually hard, and takes many attempts to actually figure out and then kill, then this point isn't really relevant. well one guy figures it out, posts on internet, then everyone knows and not much to figure out then. You just come prepared. Difficulty from missing information is not the only difficulty in existence. Bosses can be hard even when you know everything about them and to your disappointment Steven agrees that missing information about a boss is not the driving difficulty for raids - otherwise he wouldn't say that raids are clearable only by fraction of the community Well, when it comes to bosses, to beat a difficult boss, you need to know its mechanics, have appropriate number of players with all required classes and having those players required gear. I don't really know what else would boss difficult if you know and have everything you need. I kind of feel sorry for you if you are unable to understand the difference between knowing how to do something, and actually being able to do it. There is more than just knowledge in almost any activity - and gaming is no exception. If you can't look at your life and see activities that are difficult for reasons other than knowledge of said activity, then you really need to branch out more. Based on your assumption that knowledge is all that is needed, I assume you can sink infinate freethrows? I mean, all you need to be able to do that is knowledge, right? The thing there is, a raid encounter is more like trying to sink all of those freethrows while a scripted robot is attempting to block you. thank you, i feel sorry for myself for wasting my time with answering you... Don't compare computer game, with an actual sport, you're not actually comparing a competitive computer game... its an mmo for crist sake... any person who playes decently, can learn to outsmart npc quite easily, especially when they know how said npc works. I'm npt talking about 10yo kids...
mcstackerson wrote: » Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » The fewer people you bring, the more profitable the encounter is. This would only be true if we assume that it is a given that we will kill the encounter. If content is actually hard, and takes many attempts to actually figure out and then kill, then this point isn't really relevant. False, it is also true when you are wiping on the encounter as it means fewer repair costs overall. It's also easier to learn the encounter with less people as there are fewer people who can screw up. This is also another vacuum scenario. We have established there is a reason to optimize your dps as you can make content more profitable.
Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » The fewer people you bring, the more profitable the encounter is. This would only be true if we assume that it is a given that we will kill the encounter. If content is actually hard, and takes many attempts to actually figure out and then kill, then this point isn't really relevant. False, it is also true when you are wiping on the encounter as it means fewer repair costs overall. It's also easier to learn the encounter with less people as there are fewer people who can screw up. This is also another vacuum scenario. We have established there is a reason to optimize your dps as you can make content more profitable. So, you think it would be a good idea for guild size to fluctuate based on content? With new content guilds should look to recruit entire other guilds as alliance partners to get the encounter, and then boot those guilds out of said alliances once the content is easier? I personally think this is a really good way to ensure the short life of any PvE aspects of Ashes. Guilds need stability to stay together, and guilds that stay together keep MMO's live for decades. The more I participate on these forums, the more I am convinced that people only expect this game to last 12 - 18 months.
mcstackerson wrote: » Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » The fewer people you bring, the more profitable the encounter is. This would only be true if we assume that it is a given that we will kill the encounter. If content is actually hard, and takes many attempts to actually figure out and then kill, then this point isn't really relevant. False, it is also true when you are wiping on the encounter as it means fewer repair costs overall. It's also easier to learn the encounter with less people as there are fewer people who can screw up. This is also another vacuum scenario. We have established there is a reason to optimize your dps as you can make content more profitable. So, you think it would be a good idea for guild size to fluctuate based on content? With new content guilds should look to recruit entire other guilds as alliance partners to get the encounter, and then boot those guilds out of said alliances once the content is easier? I personally think this is a really good way to ensure the short life of any PvE aspects of Ashes. Guilds need stability to stay together, and guilds that stay together keep MMO's live for decades. The more I participate on these forums, the more I am convinced that people only expect this game to last 12 - 18 months. Guild size doesn't have to fluctuate. The raid isn't the only activity for people to do. The thought is if you can do it with less players, your other members can do other activities to help them progress. As I said, more loot doesn't drop. You don't need to go with fewer players, it's just an option. Even if you can do current content with fewer players, that doesn't mean you don't want to have other players ready and geared up for the next stage of content. There are also reasons outside of pve to keep people around like pvp and crafting. Oh, another, I don't think this game will appeal to my interests so it will fail argument. Cute.
Noaani wrote: » Also, I am not saying this game doesn't appeal to me and so will fail. SWTOR never appealed to me, but I never once thought it would fail. I am also not saying that Ashes will fail, I am saying that Ashes would fail if some of the things people on these forums think will be true of Ashes actually ended out being true.
Snyx wrote: » narcissistic. Your view, my view and someone else view has the same weight in the eyes of the developers..
Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » The fewer people you bring, the more profitable the encounter is. This would only be true if we assume that it is a given that we will kill the encounter. If content is actually hard, and takes many attempts to actually figure out and then kill, then this point isn't really relevant. False, it is also true when you are wiping on the encounter as it means fewer repair costs overall. It's also easier to learn the encounter with less people as there are fewer people who can screw up. This is also another vacuum scenario. We have established there is a reason to optimize your dps as you can make content more profitable. So, you think it would be a good idea for guild size to fluctuate based on content? With new content guilds should look to recruit entire other guilds as alliance partners to get the encounter, and then boot those guilds out of said alliances once the content is easier? I personally think this is a really good way to ensure the short life of any PvE aspects of Ashes. Guilds need stability to stay together, and guilds that stay together keep MMO's live for decades. The more I participate on these forums, the more I am convinced that people only expect this game to last 12 - 18 months. Guild size doesn't have to fluctuate. The raid isn't the only activity for people to do. The thought is if you can do it with less players, your other members can do other activities to help them progress. As I said, more loot doesn't drop. You don't need to go with fewer players, it's just an option. Even if you can do current content with fewer players, that doesn't mean you don't want to have other players ready and geared up for the next stage of content. There are also reasons outside of pve to keep people around like pvp and crafting. Oh, another, I don't think this game will appeal to my interests so it will fail argument. Cute. This would suggest that the game won't cater to actual raiding guilds. If you join a raiding guild, and your guild is raiding, you should be raiding. That is why the guild exists, and why you are a member of it. You can accept the occasional evening when there are more players online than there are raid spots, but no one player should have to deal with that any more than once a month. Also, I am not saying this game doesn't appeal to me and so will fail. SWTOR never appealed to me, but I never once thought it would fail. I am also not saying that Ashes will fail, I am saying that Ashes would fail if some of the things people on these forums think will be true of Ashes actually ended out being true.
mcstackerson wrote: » I also mentioned the cap doesn't have to be placed somewhere a normal raid could reach, it could be higher just so it prevents an excessive number of people from burning quickly.
Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » I also mentioned the cap doesn't have to be placed somewhere a normal raid could reach, it could be higher just so it prevents an excessive number of people from burning quickly. The issue here is that the cap still needs to be high enough for multiple full raids to be able to compete in regards to DPS for loot rights - unless there is a system in place where each raids DPS is calculated individually to determine loot rights, but the cap is still in place over all. What we have now is an overly complex solution to a problem that we created ourselves and that doesn't even need to exist.
mcstackerson wrote: » It's not really a problem, it's just something you don't like. I'm trying to recommend something that could help the devs to have what they want, open-world content, and what you want, content to not easily zerged down.