Jump to content

  • Curse Sites
Help

Stellarthief

Member Since 19 Nov 2012
Offline Last Active Dec 17 2012 10:45 AM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: GW2 longevity?

29 November 2012 - 06:31 PM

View Postraspberry jam, on 29 November 2012 - 04:55 PM, said:

SW:ToR was never supposed to be the next big thing, except in Bioware hype. If you believe in Bioware hype, you have, as already established, no grasp on reality. Actual big titles will affect any current title in the same genre, period.
And plenty of people cancel their WoW subs all the time, for all kinds of reasons, including playing something else. Some of those people then resub. Again you have no grasp on reality when you say these things.
Also please use legible grammar, I am literally unable to make sense of your final paragraph.

Then don't read it, you make it out as if I care.  You also assume I am a native english speaker.  Attacking grammar is a big move by a big guy like you.

And SW:ToR was most certainly supposed to be the next big thing with the largest budget ever for an MMO.  What else is there to believe other than company hype, media hype?  Everyone was hyping the game.

Bioware titles are always a big budget, big ticket item these days. They have big budget for the game itself, big advertising budget and generate big hype.  Doesn't matter what platform or genre.

Of course people cancel and resub to WoW, did I say otherwise? No, I said that a new big ticket game that isn't even out or established is unlikely to make a WoW player cancel their sub in favour of something new and untried.  It's unlikely to make anyone cancel their sub to move to something new before they figure out if it's for them or not.  The WoW players I know in GW2 are still subbed to WoW, many already having gone back.

In Topic: the mistakes Anet admitted

29 November 2012 - 06:24 PM

View Postraspberry jam, on 29 November 2012 - 04:45 PM, said:

I do not pretend to know anything about cell phone release strategy. Nokia probably have experts in that field themselves.

I have no idea what would be "best for the game" or even what that would entail. I only know how ANet could make the best game (that was after all what you asked for) that they can. That is a totally subjective thing, and has nothing to do with profit projections or graphs. I would enjoy a game in which ANet came through on all their promises more than any other game they are capable of producing; thus that would be the best game that they can make.

You seem to think that I give a shit about ANet's bottom line or the amount of profit that Mike makes on the game. lol

I don't really care what you give a shit about now do I? You are just some dick being all mighty on the interwebz.

And, I am not sure if you learned logic. But you still don't know how they could make the best game. You know how they would make the game that would most appeal to you. What is enjoyable for you doesnt necessarily have anything to do with best/worst now does it?

And although subjective, best/worst can be rated in many objective ways and I am fairly sure this is what anet internally does or they wouldnt bother making tweaks to the game now would they? As subjective as you find it, anet maintains they strive to make the best game they can, most fun game they can (also another subjective indicator).  They must have some way of measuring this?

So while you dont give a shit about anets bottom line or the profits they make, its has a direct impact on the way the game turns out.  They wont continue with a model in game that loses them money now will it?  They wont have the resources to keep a live team or have as many people working on the game if they have no profits to make the payroll. But then again you dont even play the game anymore do you? So what are you even posting about?

View PostProtoss, on 29 November 2012 - 04:53 PM, said:

I am not saying that they should revet these changes because the majority of the players disagrees with them. On the contrary, as I said above, it wouldn't surprise me if the majority of the players agrees with them.
What I am pointing out is that this isn't the philosophy that the game was sold on and I am pointing out that it was the exact same idea that really hurt GW1 (a game that was built on ideas very similar to the ideas that we were told GW2 was created on) and seems to be hurting GW2 also.

And yes, we might have been naive to believe things that A.Net said, but do you, as a fellow consumer, really think that the best direction your finger of blame should point to is the consumers for believing the shit that A.Net said instead of A.Net for saying shit they didn't implement?

It "seems" to be hurting GW2, but I also don't think so.  I and the people still playing (most of the people I know left well before any of this ascended, progression info was released because the basic game didnt appeal to them) are happy with the game.  We don't find it hurting any more today than it did last month.

What's the point in pointing fingers in the first place?  You have your idea of who's to blame for the unhappiness, I have mine. I am happy with the game, you are not.  Not really much point in discussing that part further eh?

In Topic: the mistakes Anet admitted

29 November 2012 - 04:22 PM

View PostKillyox, on 29 November 2012 - 04:19 PM, said:

I remember how it was seeing as i started mmos back in 1997 :)

There is certain point to what moderate and what not. Blizzard forum by comparison is easy going comapred to gw2 one.

I mostly avoid the GW2 forums.  I checked that big ascended gear thread as it was entertaining to see people react as if arena net was getting ready to bomb their house irl or was literally stabbing them, physically, in the back with a dagger.

But back in vanilla wow, better moderation on forums wouldnt have been a bad thing ;)

Ninja edit:

But on the other end of the spectrum you had Asheron's Call 2. Where the devs literally worked very hard and intensively with the player base, most of whom were on the forums as it was a dying game with not many players.  There were some intensive and very good discussions and people didn't bitch with no reason.  What does it accomplish when the game is dying to just bitch? People gave so many constructive comments and everyone worked to try to save the game. Sadly, didnt work.

In Topic: Moving Goalposts: Levels

29 November 2012 - 04:21 PM

View PostCapn_Crass, on 29 November 2012 - 04:17 PM, said:

Just a reminder: FFXI had a static level cap and horizontal gear progression from 2003-2010. Personally I think they should have kept it that way.

FFXI was a completely different beast as for most of the games lifespan you couldnt solo a fly. (little exaggeration, but you get the point).

Was also aimed originally at a different market and population was also in that different market.

In Topic: the mistakes Anet admitted

29 November 2012 - 04:18 PM

View PostKillyox, on 29 November 2012 - 04:11 PM, said:

Personally i hope they admit/and change the way they moderate official forums. It reeks of communist way of censorship.

I got infracted for the following post:

"engie is not weak.
PS how did you “finish the game”….this is mmo"
This was in reply to OP saying he finished the game and that engie is weak and underpowered without any arguments.

GW2Guru moderation in comparison looks like mildly moderated forum.

Back in the day, MMOs didnt even have official forums. DAoC for example didnt and the developers either posted things in news on the website as game updates or came to the popular fan boards and participated in discussions when they had something to say.

When WoW opened their doors with a big forum, my friends and I were so happy... for awhile...Barrens Chat & Wow message boards make baby jesus cry.