The waaaa-factor - Page 7

Ravanos · 12-13-2007, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pagansaint

Nope but you did say "when i see PVE'r act" so the only logical inference to be made is that is from the point of view of a PvP'er.

I am a PVPer though i don't play it on EQ2 for the very reason you pointed out. It was more of a general statement concerning PVE'ers and them being skillful and hardcore. you see it in every game ... "oh we beat X dragon, were the best players ever!"

people talk about how much skill it takes to organize a raid. Only one person has to do that the rest of you slobs just sit there and do your job.

Caswydian · 12-13-2007, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kryme

for the risk vs reward thing. Why not make it like EQ1 again. You die...you lose exp and have a chance to lose your lvl. You have to go on a corpse run or have a necro get it for you. Now i'm not just talking about making instances like this...make the whole game like it! Raiding, grouping and soloing. So that way when you die, you lose more than just some gold on repairs. EQ1 FTMFW!

In such a system, soloers tend to be risking more than groupers, however, as they have less options to recover from a death.

asdfjkl · 12-13-2007, 04:43 PM

Raiders should have much better loot. But the best loot should come from the most challenging raid content and should only be able to be tackled by the best players. (and yes, I am an elitist).

I agree with OP, but would even take it one step further to demand more challenging raid content that will separate the truly talented raiders from the raiders that raid 10-hours a day 6 days a week and are successful ONLY because they spend so much time playing game.

My personal pet peeve in any MMO is content that rewards time played (i.e. faction grinds, LONG raids with little to no truly unique encounters, gear=success, etc.). Uberness of your loots should not have a direct correlation to your time played. I am adamantly opposed to the concept that time served should generate some rewards (it sounds more like a prison sentence than a video game).

pagansaint · 12-13-2007, 04:44 PM

To ravanos:

Yeah, after UO/DAoC/AC/even GW EQ2 PvP makes me laugh.

In general + Ravanos:

The thing is, there is a line that content crosses at a point from only the raid leader needing to know what is going on, to where everyone needs to know what is going on, how to time their abilities, when to joust, when to eat it, how to eat it if necessary, how to get the abilities out in the best order for the current situation.

That line is crossed in the top end zones before they are nerfed down like they have always been a couple months into the expansion(when you start seeing lesser guilds clearing the content) and for a good many of the contested fights.

Admittedly some of the contested mobs are just loot pinatas once the timing is down. Others require anywhere from a few people coordinating to it being mandatory for everyone to be on top of their game.

Caswydian · 12-13-2007, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asdfjkl

Raiders should have much better loot. But the best loot should come from the most challenging raid content and should only be able to be tackled by the best players. (and yes, I am an elitist).

I agree with OP, but would even take it one step further to demand more challenging raid content that will separate the truly talented raiders from the raiders that raid 10-hours a day 6 days a week and are successful ONLY because they spend so much time playing game.

My personal pet peeve in any MMO is content that rewards time played (i.e. faction grinds, LONG raids with little to no truly unique encounters, gear=success, etc.). Uberness of your loots should not have a direct correlation to your time played. I am adamantly opposed to the concept that time served should generate some rewards (it sounds more like a prison sentence than a video game).

Would raiding alone be enough to sustain a game? That is, would there be enough money flowing in to keep the servers running and the developers paid if not for legions of soloers and other non-raiders?

pagansaint · 12-13-2007, 05:00 PM

Yes.

Look at GW

It had no subscription fee and was able to deliver continuous updates, fixes, changes and expansions based solely on the income made from the original sale and sale of the expansions.

The same system could theoretically applied to a raiding only MMO.

Even though I think a raiding only MMO would fall on its face due to being no real way for anyone to get started and no progression to speak of other than maybe some sort of lottery/Pick up Raid type deal till people find clans/guilds which would be so frustrating I would see people trashing the game after a week or two.

Your incessant economic arguments are growing rather tiresome.

pagansaint · 12-13-2007, 05:03 PM

Not to mention you quote someone, start an argument about the economics of something they said, with no input on the gameplay, no input on how the game is BEING played, and finally all you are doing Caswydian is de-railing the thread.

Stop please.

sadre · 12-13-2007, 05:25 PM

omg not another thread! The last one was just getting to that level of dizzying endless madness we all so love and cherish. you bazstard!

sadre

Lillin · 12-13-2007, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pagansaint

Yes.

Look at GW

It had no subscription fee and was able to deliver continuous updates, fixes, changes and expansions based solely on the income made from the original sale and sale of the expansions.

The same system could theoretically applied to a raiding only MMO.

Even though I think a raiding only MMO would fall on its face due to being no real way for anyone to get started and no progression to speak of other than maybe some sort of lottery/Pick up Raid type deal till people find clans/guilds which would be so frustrating I would see people trashing the game after a week or two.

Your incessant economic arguments are growing rather tiresome.

This is not well thought out.

You use GW's sales as a supporting point to prove a raiding MMO would sustain itself in theory. Um Guild Wars isnt a raiding MMO. Its mostly a solo instancing like diablo 2. Sure you can group but its not even necessary. So you just proved a solo online game does well, not a raiding one. GW's tapped the casual market, so they got large enough numbers to support thier game. Raiding crowd would not support these same figures, its a minority and quite a drastic one.

In all honesty if people are wanting a raid centric game why did you come to eq2, a game tokened as the eq for casual players. You can play eq1 and get all the hardcore you can possibly stand there.

Edwin Ahe · 12-13-2007, 09:06 PM

Quote:

In all honesty if people are wanting a raid centric game why did you come to eq2, a game tokened as the eq for casual players. You can play eq1 and get all the hardcore you can possibly stand there.

Maybe because it`s just a bit old?