Dygz wrote: » Fantmx wrote: » Does being a casual player mean that individual is automatically inefficient in their processing? You mean Casual TIME player??
Fantmx wrote: » Does being a casual player mean that individual is automatically inefficient in their processing?
Nerror wrote: » Is it because you don't know what the word means and you are trying to hide it? Because you are clearly using it wrong in this thread. Casual doesn't mean solo by any proper definition out there. There's time-casual, like Fantmx, where they only have a couple of hours a day to play, and there's approach-casual, where they approach the game in a way such that they just log in and do whatever fancies them without thinking about optimizing what they do or the time they spend doing it, but just sort of go with the flow. The latter casual type can play 10 hours a day and still be a casual player. You could call them time-hardcore and approach-casual and it would be correct too. Fantmx would be in the time-casual and approach-hardcore category.
Ravicus wrote: » I think the term casual needs to be broken down. Solo player casual group player casual Multi account solo casual RP Casual PK casual Hours per week casual It hard to quantify the term casual as it means different things to different people.
George_Black wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Fantmx wrote: » Does being a casual player mean that individual is automatically inefficient in their processing? You mean Casual TIME player?? Here Dygz. Here is the trivial and pedantic substance that people like you dig. Now, post for the 20th time your bartle score. That way you will have covered all the front page threads with it.
George_Black wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » I think the term casual needs to be broken down. Solo player casual group player casual Multi account solo casual RP Casual PK casual Hours per week casual It hard to quantify the term casual as it means different things to different people. 2098983 casuals?
SirChancelot wrote: » Freeholds were something that a portion of players that aren't big into what you like were looking forward to. There are players in MMOs that enjoy treating it like Farmville and just enjoy the crafting and economic activities, and freeholds were what they were looking forward to... And they pretty much got told they weren't for them. I think it'll hurt the game overall to make an aspect of the game inaccessible to a major portion of players. Especially the players that would see that as their favorite part of the game. I mean, I don't care because it's not really something I want be using... But I can see why people are upset about it.
Dygz wrote: » SirChancelot wrote: » Freeholds were something that a portion of players that aren't big into what you like were looking forward to. There are players in MMOs that enjoy treating it like Farmville and just enjoy the crafting and economic activities, and freeholds were what they were looking forward to... And they pretty much got told they weren't for them. I think it'll hurt the game overall to make an aspect of the game inaccessible to a major portion of players. Especially the players that would see that as their favorite part of the game. I mean, I don't care because it's not really something I want be using... But I can see why people are upset about it. Yeah - and so I'm just wondering... Why did people spend money purchasing Freehold skins if they won't be able to use them?
Dygz wrote: » SirChancelot wrote: » Freeholds were something that a portion of players that aren't big into what you like were looking forward to. There are players in MMOs that enjoy treating it like Farmville and just enjoy the crafting and economic activities, and freeholds were what they were looking forward to... And they pretty much got told they weren't for them. I think it'll hurt the game overall to make an aspect of the game inaccessible to a major portion of players. Especially the players that would see that as their favorite part of the game. I mean, I don't care because it's not really something I want be using... But I can see why people are upset about it. Yeah - and so I'm just wondering... Why did people spend money purchasing Freehold skins if they won't be able to use them? Because the cosmetics shop did not indicate that Freehold skins were just for guilds.
George_Black wrote: » But you havent been paying attention to steven saying "these are skins. You need to have unlocked the content for them. They dont guarantee you a mount, or an armor, or a ship, or housing".
Liniker wrote: » Boneshatter wrote: » And then you won't have a game to play because there won't be enough subs. How do you explain EVE Online's 20 years of success being way more hardcore AoC will ever be?
Boneshatter wrote: » And then you won't have a game to play because there won't be enough subs.
Liniker wrote: » SirChancelot wrote: » I think it'll hurt the game overall to make an aspect of the game inaccessible to a major portion of players. Especially the players that would see that as their favorite part of the game. WoW doesn't have housing, GW2, plenty of games, housing is not something that can make or break a game. Never in history of humanity a good MMO failed because of not having housing / having bad housing or anything housing related. And if we start talking about OPEN WORLD Land / Housing 99% of games don't even have it. and BTW, Ashes WILL have instanced and node housing for everyone - it's just the freeholds. I'm sorry guys y'all are absolutely out of touch with reality if you think enough people care about this for limited freeholds even be an issue for the game. It's just getting to a point it's annoying to read the same things being repeated again, if freeholds is the hill you want to die one that's fine, just go play Palia, I can guarantee 100% Ashes will be fine, because there are enough people that want Meaningful, limited systems in an MMO.
SirChancelot wrote: » I think it'll hurt the game overall to make an aspect of the game inaccessible to a major portion of players. Especially the players that would see that as their favorite part of the game.
George_Black wrote: » Pets...? Dygz are you employeed btw? Are you doing any work? In an attempt to sound less aggresive, let me rephrase: What have you been working on for the past 5 years?
Depraved wrote: » casuals can be in a mega guild uwu
Nerror wrote: » Jesus, how many times does it need to be said and you still don't get it. It's not just about housing. It's a combination of many things. It's what you do on the freehold like animal husbandry, some crafting, processing, farming, taverns, businesses, that is now barred for the majority of the playerbase. It's how the game has been marketed differently for 6 years, it's about how other parts of the game lean so heavily into exclusivity as well. It's bad for the game overall. If it was only about housing, people wouldn't care nearly as much. I know you think this system is good for you and your mega-guild. Exclusivity like this makes the game easy-mode for that play style. I'm in both the time- and approach-hardcore category myself, but I can see past my own immediate self-interest and know that you need a large, happy and vibrant casual player base for the good and health of the game for everyone. Including for the good of hardcore players. And I am not afraid of a giving the casuals a little leg up so we can get a little more fair competition from them.
Nerror wrote: » Eve Online has tons of casual players too, both in hi-sec and null-sec. Did you even play it?
