Curse Sites

Help

Sign In
Don't have an account? Create Account

aguliondew

Member Since 02 Mar 2012
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 02:35 PM

Find content

#1588658 Linearity and Streamlined content's effect on the MMORPG

Posted Iron Legionnaire on 10 July 2012 - 04:58 PM

fr0st2k, on 10 July 2012 - 04:33 PM, said:

I never asked that they recreate EQ. However, WoW picked a path to deviate from regarding loot and combat while completely ignoring the idea of giving the player an immersive and customized world

I can't agree with that because I found WoW back then pretty immersive and a nice world. I believe WoW got worse over time when it began concentrating more and more on raids, which I hate. Then again, raids are a big deal in EQ from what I heard.

fr0st2k, on 10 July 2012 - 04:33 PM, said:

EVE Online for example is one game that seeks to do this, focusing heavily on economy.

EVE Online is a very different kind of game and is nothing like EQ. It's a World MMO, you are correct. But so is GW2, and so was, long ago, WOW.

fr0st2k, on 10 July 2012 - 04:40 PM, said:

Its very annoying and sad that I need to waste my time doing this. I wish we could just stay on topic without the trolls.

It's very likely that you're the troll, actually. But, go on, continue with your patronizing attitude.

fr0st2k, on 10 July 2012 - 04:40 PM, said:

The main difference between the original MMORPG concept and the current hybrid model is in how designers manage players in game time. The content is so structured and streamlined that it removes the feeling of immersion that you felt when you first loaded up Everquest and heard everyone yelling "Boaaat!!!"

This... doesn't say anything whatsoever.

a) what is the hybrid model? Hybrid between what?

what do you mean by streamlined and structured? In what was was EQ different? Do you mean that EQ used different zoning or something? From what I know, EQ was mostly islands, and WoW's zoning was in large part a response to technical limitations. If you think that's not "immersive", you should play some older games where we had pixels and 2D corridors everywhere.

One could argue zoning is not acceptable in this day and age in GW2's case, but WoW is an old game.

c) "Boaaat!!!" ? This is what I meant.... I DID NOT PLAY EQ. Wtf do I know what your nostalgic "ooh, boat" means? What if WoW was just as immerse for me as EQ was for you except instead of screaming something about a boat I was going insane over how large the world is and how I'm apparently on a giant tree stump.

fr0st2k, on 10 July 2012 - 04:40 PM, said:

MMORPGs should focus on the world. GW2 has such amazing art direction, and the landscapes are beautiful, however, it means nothing when you can simply skip it all to get to your next quest marker.

a) in what way does EQ focus on the world in a way that WoW doesn't?

in what was does GW2 not focus on the world? because GW2 looks very world-focused to me right now.

fr0st2k, on 10 July 2012 - 04:40 PM, said:

GW2 is shaping up to be a different kind of MMO, but its still going in the wrong direction. Its expanding on WoW's manipulation of the genre, but its still a tangent from the original MMORPG genre, and thus, its still going to feel the same.

This is not an explanation. it's a statement.

You are saying that it's going in the wrong direction. How?

You are saying it's expanding on WoW's manipulation of the genre. How?

How did WoW manipulate the genre?

What should GW2 have done?

Where are your arguments? All you do is just state things. I can run around stating things, too. Let's try this:

"EQ is a boring and low-quality game. EQ was mostly designed for people with too much free time. EQ poisoned the well with its trinity system (crap, that's argumentation, I can't do this...)."

If you ever turned in an essay like this to a teacher you'd get an automatic D, dude, this is like the worst forum writing I've seen in a while. It's on the same level as saying "EQ is for mature players, WoW is for kiddies", and thinking that's sufficient without providing any argumentation whatsoever.

fr0st2k, on 10 July 2012 - 04:40 PM, said:

The world felt bigger, scarier, and more real.

Again, a pointless statement.

a) how do you know it's not your subjective opinion?

I haven't played EQ, how am I supposed to base my perception of WoW against someone's perception of EQ?

The only thing I got from this is "EverQuest has harsh death penalties" except you never said that. You just said EQ was scarier. Without explaining why. You have to understand that for non-EQ players, what you're saying is an alien language.

fr0st2k, on 10 July 2012 - 04:40 PM, said:

The world is built around the gameplay mechanics, instead of the other way around.

In what way, where, how? Are you gonna discuss this or what?

fr0st2k, on 10 July 2012 - 04:40 PM, said:

The true successor to the MMORPG model will be a game that focuses its mechanics on letting players decide what to do in game. Build the world, then give the players tools to control it, and stay out. MMORPG's should be social experiments, and the fun should come from seeing what happens each day.

Players can't control shit in EQ. I seriously have no idea what you mean.

Your main argument seems to be that MMORPG's are not world-based enough, which is OK except GW2 is the most world-based thing that came out recently. Furthermore, WoW wasn't bad in that respect at all, either. Nor is it fair to say WoW manipulated the genre. The stagnationis not caused by WoW, it's caused by companies that do not dare challenge WoW.

Sandboxes are a different story and there are a lot of issues with them, and many people do not like them for various reasons. For instance, a lot of people are casual, and do not have time to sit and dig something for 30 hours so they can advance a tiny little bit. Some people want to jump in and have fun, and you are nobody to chastize them for that. I like EVE, but it's a very different game, I play it with a different mindset, and it does not at all satisfy the same niche as GW2 does or WoW did for me.

fr0st2k, on 10 July 2012 - 04:40 PM, said:

I had not reason to. The post was to bring attention to the different path that MMO's are taking and to discuss whether or not its best for the genre. Surely its a successful model, but can there be an equally successful model not based around combat?

Seems plenty of reason.

Go take AP English Lit and come back once you learned how to write. Also take some ethics or something so you learn to respect others.

#1417555 Water Magic. Deadly or... Not?

Posted lolAirborne on 06 May 2012 - 07:56 PM

TYphoon34, on 06 May 2012 - 01:30 AM, said:

I'm pretty sure a ranger could be effective with 1 weapon. Same with mesmer and necro. In fact, I think all the other classes could do fine with just one weapon.

As for a single attunement, I think you are not understanding or you joined in the argument a bit late. Many people who expressed a like for one attunement will use it as their main attunement, the attunement they will spec 20-30 trait points into in order to make it the most effective. In other words, they will use this attunement 50%-80% of the time (depending on the person). The other 20-50% of the time will be those super specialized moment when you need a certain skills.

Furthermore, attunement dancing is reserved for builds that specialize in dancing. With the addition of the 15 second cooldown on attunement swap, dancing simply isn't effective unless you spec heavily into it. Dancing is now reserved for situational moments, almost, perfect storm moments.

To conclude, attunement dancing is dead. It's that simple. Unless you spec like crazy, your average run of the mill elementalist won't be doing much four attunement dancing. Majority of elementalist will focus on one or two elements, maybe three. WIth these 1-3 traits in place, attunement dancing could even hinder your build, (unless you spec for dancing). So, stop saying that elementalist were made to use all four attunements. It annoys me to no end when people say, YOU MUST USE ALL FOUR ELEMENTS OR YOU NOOB! It's simply not true, in fact, if you aren't built a certain way, I would say using all four attunements is the worse thing you can do.

Thank you for this. I am so sick of hearing about this "meta" and the game isn't even out yet. And for some reason people seem to forget about Traits.... I swear... I hate being on forums with closed minded individuals.

mutecow, on 06 May 2012 - 01:14 PM, said:

No, this statement is just plain wrong. And stupid, really stupid.

they will never be as effective with 1 weapon as they would be with 2. Especially in structured where more weapon skills = more synergy combos with your teammate. an extra stun in your 2nd weapon means you can do X +1 stun frenzy + hundred blades combo instead of X, having one extra knockdown in your 2nd weapon means you can help your teammate avoid X +1 stun+frenzy+hundred blades combo.

You have 15 other skills to use during that 15 sec cooldown. saying the cooldown makes it unfeasible to switch is plain absurd.

Eles are balanced around having 20 skills. If you choose to gimp yourself by only using 5, don't expect to play well.

thats a dumb justification. every single action i nthe game can hinder you. hundred blades will root you for 6 seconds, thats a potential hinder right there. should warriors NEVER use it?

good eles learn to adapt, bad eles dont and die. Its their own fault. l2p, not whine.

lol I just had to laugh because your examples are rather off the wall and aren't even relevant to what I was saying originally. And I LOVE how you can sit here and basically say that having a main attunement is "stupid". If that is the case, I am just banging my head against the wall trying to explain this. Stance dancing isn't the "end all, be all" strategy to the Elementalist.

mutecow, on 06 May 2012 - 04:59 PM, said:

how are you getting 20 stacks of vul on a boss when the debuff only last 6 sec? You need to attack 10 times per 6 seconds.

Disregarding the possibility of that happening. If you have 20 stacks of vul on your enemy, you could have switched to another attunment to land a big dmg combo hit or 2 on the boss before the vulnerability drops. It would have been much more efficient. the point is not whether fire, air or earth is better than water, its whether water + fire or water + earth or water + earth +air or ... is better than water.

Not to mention you're essentially sacrificing dmg for survivalbility. Vulnerability is only useful if you can attack and isnt killed. Later on in the game bosses would require you to use blind/stuns/knockdowns to interrupt their attacks. Having vul on them means nothing if you're dead.

lol You are speaking as if you know about these bosses that happen to force you to need stuns/blinds/knockbacks. Which I am sure is just speculation. So please, do not try to make up information to try and prove your point. Furthermore, there is a dodge mechanic for a reason.

DeanAdamFry, on 06 May 2012 - 05:44 PM, said:

Well there are those traits where it's attunement focused but that's to boost your favorite attunements damage or overall potential, it doesn't mean you have to stay in it 24/7 and why should I waste a utility slot for a skill that's already in my weapon set? That's just pure idiotic.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying, you can trait anything you want it's totally up to you but don't make up your own rules and say "I'm just going to be a Water mage and not switch to the other attunements" because that is not how the elementalist is designed so feel free to focus on fire and air or water and earth if you will but don't consider one attunement to beat all because you need to switch to the other attunements depending on the situation to be effective.

This isn't a discussion of builds but rather how you play the elementalist and if some of you only want one arm and no legs rather than having two arms and two legs then be my guest but don't expect to play at the same level as someone who is effectively using all his arms and legs.

I don't think you are understanding where some of us are coming from. It's like you are ignoring the Trait system all together. As well as the fact that each trait line powers up certain stats. So... if you want to be an effective condition damaging Elementalist, your best bet is to focus on Earth. So what is so wrong with "maining" in an attunement. Why is it SO hard to fathom?

LUDAK987654, on 06 May 2012 - 06:25 PM, said:

Uh i have afeeling that u just want devs to make water just according to your needs ,and when they do that ,you will find another fault that you havent seen before ,
l
ike om why im dieing  so fast now when  have powerfull staff in my hand and all chills and vound effects,oh i need some heals...
Other classes also have to chose  they rolles u cant have everything at once and in a same weapon skill build other wise every1 would run OP staff water ele and pwn on sight with 1 finger on kb.

as i see it they offered for each proffession a way to be either support or condition dmg or crit dmg or what ever u choose but to be able to do all thet with just one weapon set and  just one elemnt is kind of broken

I have discussed this over and over. And if you fully read my OP, I am sure you would have known where I was coming from. So... sorry you wasted your time.