morphwastaken wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Being an internet detective on things you have no idea about when talking to someone that does know what they are talking about requires a lot more than a basic google search. I had some idea, and then learned a little extra from a search. You, on another hand, neither have a clue, nor bother to put even slightest effort to learn, Mr. "L2 a fairly poor example for this kind of thing".
Noaani wrote: » Being an internet detective on things you have no idea about when talking to someone that does know what they are talking about requires a lot more than a basic google search.
I'm sure it was both exciting and rewarding when dragon got first enabled. Just shows how different item design and risk/reward can be, how much weight an item can carry, social and political aspects of it. How different is our perspective and mentality. Getting Ring of Baium 4 years after release would probably still be more exciting than getting dragon weapon 2 weeks after. It's that different.
Noaani wrote: » If any encounter in any game still has top end loot after 4 years of being killed, the game developer should be embarassed. Yep, who needs that extra depth an meaning!? Why keep content relevant!? After all, you have to add an ⬆️ item for people to have a reason to P2W more, right!?
Noaani wrote: » If any encounter in any game still has top end loot after 4 years of being killed, the game developer should be embarassed.
Noaani wrote: » morphwastaken wrote: » Noaani wrote: » the demand is the same You have more people quite literally fighting for an item. How is it same demand? More people showing up doesn't mean more demand. Demand is in how many people want the item. If it is the best in slot, everyone of that class wants the item - thus the demand is everyone of that class. The people that show up to try and get the item are those that think they are in a position to get it. If you create a Ven Diagram of these two groups, you would have a large circle that is 1/8th of the servers population (assuming the item is only of use to one class), with a smaller circle partially overlapping that represents the people that think they are in a position to defeat the encounter.
morphwastaken wrote: » Noaani wrote: » the demand is the same You have more people quite literally fighting for an item. How is it same demand?
Noaani wrote: » the demand is the same
Noaani wrote: » Maybe it would be, but it also points out how poor of an ongoing development of the game L2 had. Why should content be kept relavent? Developers should be making new content for us to play to have new experiences and new mechanics to play.
morphwastaken wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Maybe it would be, but it also points out how poor of an ongoing development of the game L2 had. Why should content be kept relavent? Developers should be making new content for us to play to have new experiences and new mechanics to play. Are you pretending?
Noaani wrote: » So, with all those content drops, why were people still after a 4 year old ring? Developers can add fancy names to patches all they want, the fact that they never put in items to replace those that people were using is what actually speaks here. A proper content cycle should see a vaiable upgrade to every item on every concievable build on every class in the game happen at least three times - in raid content alone.
morphwastaken wrote: » Noaani wrote: » So, with all those content drops, why were people still after a 4 year old ring? Developers can add fancy names to patches all they want, the fact that they never put in items to replace those that people were using is what actually speaks here. A proper content cycle should see a vaiable upgrade to every item on every concievable build on every class in the game happen at least three times - in raid content alone. There are different ways to add new powercreep to chase, new systems and content that uses old as a base, or even something that simply goes in parallel to it. For example: L2 had Life Stones that would let you augment your old gear with new stats. Slightly off-topic: This made me consider another very cool aspect of balancing around group play. For example: entire party working together for a while to get a new armor set for a healer - felt good and rewarding for everyone involved, not just the healer, since party was acting as baseline singular unit (at high-end, at least). And if your healer stays alive - so do you. Content made for one class/character was shared among everyone involved in the group. Group of 8 players will have so much more content they will want to do, compared to single player. It definitely made it feel like there was more and faster progression, than there actually was. Your last paragraph makes no sense to me, but i don't know how to better explain it to you, specially if you did not experience a game with good content patches. I can say that you don't need to change entire gear set(even once) to feel character progression and motivation to continue playing. You just don't. New content could even be entirely horizontal progression, but it is good still to have at least some power to chase sprinkled in. This part feels very much like "AoC should increase the time it takes to reach lv cap" topic we had. Similar idea here. If gear is boring and meaningless, and there is nothing else to look for - naturally you would want to change it often to feel like it's going anywhere. And when you leave old content behind - it greatly reduces the feeling of progression, because you don't go to re-experience as much of it again, now that you got stronger. Pumping out new content, to feel like there is a lot of progression - ends up having opposite effect, if old content is made irrelevant in the process. Not saying that new content is bad, just that it should try to not make old content obsolete. Otherwise it's just a hamster wheel.
morphwastaken wrote: » You are doing new content for the most part, you just come back to old one.
Noaani wrote: » Yeah, but you shouldn't be coming back.
Noaani wrote: » morphwastaken wrote: » Noaani wrote: » morphwastaken wrote: » PvE sets baseline risk/reward. PvP modifies it further. How does PvP modify the reward? It increases the risk, makes it less likely that you get the reward. You realize that his is MY argument, right? More people coming for PvP means more risk, but also means less reward (due to a lower statistical chance of you winning that reward). You are literally making my argument for me here.
morphwastaken wrote: » Noaani wrote: » morphwastaken wrote: » PvE sets baseline risk/reward. PvP modifies it further. How does PvP modify the reward? It increases the risk, makes it less likely that you get the reward.
Noaani wrote: » morphwastaken wrote: » PvE sets baseline risk/reward. PvP modifies it further. How does PvP modify the reward?
morphwastaken wrote: » PvE sets baseline risk/reward. PvP modifies it further.
Noaani wrote: » morphwastaken wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Maybe it would be, but it also points out how poor of an ongoing development of the game L2 had. Why should content be kept relavent? Developers should be making new content for us to play to have new experiences and new mechanics to play. Are you pretending? So, with all those content drops, why were people still after a 4 year old ring? Developers can add fancy names to patches all they want, the fact that they never put in items to replace those that people were using is what actually speaks here. A proper content cycle should see a vaiable upgrade to every item on every concievable build on every class in the game happen at least three times - in raid content alone. There should be no need or desire to go back to previous content once new content is out - assuming you killed it at least one time. I mean, I really don't care about that list. All that tells me in conjunction with you also telling me that a single ring is valued four years after it was released to live servers is that those additional content drops are either really poorly itemized, or are very small. My assumption based on what I've read online about them (mostly from here ) is that they were about the average size of an EQ/EQ2 patch - not expansion, patch.
morphwastaken wrote: » I just tried to explain why coming back is very good, idk if anyone has better explanation. Two reasons for me: more content that is relevant at the same time is great for variety; and you get stronger feel of progression. What would be a reason not to come back?
Noaani wrote: » The number of times I've seen people like George on these forums complain about how stale PvE is in MMO's
Noaani wrote: » The specific comments George has made in the past against PvE is that it is boring to go after the same mob for the hundredth time. In that, I have no option but to believe him as that is more than double the number of times I've killed any one raid encounter. Then there is the notion that you shouldn't have time. Four years after an encounter is released, I expect the game to have no less than 200 new raid encounters - ideally closer to 250. Players having a reason to go back to four year old content is developers showing a total lack of respect for players time.
Dygz wrote: » Seems to me that including PvE-Only gameplay would have made L2 even more successful than it already is.
Azherae wrote: » Quality vs Quantity clash incoming... Even if you were gonna 'win' it, morph, do you actually WANT to?
NiKr wrote: » Yall will never convince Noaani that having old content be meaningful is a good thing, while he will never convince yall that 200 bosses is cool cause it gives you gear to kill another 100 bosses.
morphwastaken wrote: » Why not both? New content is great. Keeping old content relevant is also great. 4 years is pretty extreme, i was just making an example. At some point old content has to go for one reason or another, but does not hurt to try and keep it around for as long as it seems reasonable.
NiKr wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Quality vs Quantity clash incoming... Even if you were gonna 'win' it, morph, do you actually WANT to? You never do futile exercise in futility. Though this particular discussion did light up a bulb over my head, that I don't think I pointed out before. Raid jewelry is horizontal progression. Mages are always strong in pretty much all games. In L2 your jewelry was the main way to defend against them. Pretty much every patch on that list added new vertically stronger jewelry, but only epic boss stuff had additional horizontal stats (crit dmg, cd reduction, stun chance+, etc). So even though you could always get vertically better jewelry - you'd more often than not go for the epic ones, if you had access to them. And as Depraved mentioned, there'd only be a few dozen pieces of said jewelry a year (~28h respawn, ~36, ~36, ~48, 48, 5days, 8days, 11days - all except for the one of the 36 were super valuable, and the 28 one had 30% chance drop). So if you wanted to get it you'd need to go back and fight for those bosses again. The issue of this entire discussion though is that Noaani doesn't care about the pvp part of the encounters. He just wants new pve content. While all L2 players cared about the pvp meaning behind the content. All those epic bosses had week-long drama swirling around them. Guilds rose and fell because of them. Sometimes even castle ownership was traded for them. So it's simply a difference in what people find meaningful: the content itself or all the things that are related to it. This is also why this discussion will always be silly. Yall will never convince Noaani that having old content be meaningful is a good thing, while he will never convince yall that 200 bosses is cool cause it gives you gear to kill another 100 bosses.
