Allow unlimited TWINKING between servers? Allow High levels to totally screw up the AH worse than it is now with all of their gold in inter-server transfers?
Things are rough now for anyone who wants to play the HARD way - do it all on their own without help.
This will be wonderful for the totally inept kiddies who need a herd of people to do what others can do alone. CONGRATS.
So far it appears that it will not affect ME too much. I will just ignore this BS as I have in the past.
As I said in the past on other threads - I play for relaxation - on MY schedule. I do NOT want to be tied to SOMEONE ELSES time frame. I am NOT trying to reach MAX cap as fast as possible. Just today I spent 3 hours on one troop just running his Herbalism up. No one bitched at me for holding them up - wonder why?
I pay nearly $180 per year each on TWO accounts. I'm paying for my time - I'll play my way.
I have no problem with how ANYONE ELSE plays - as long as it doesn't affect how I can Play.
Clearly, and nowhere in this thread does anyone dispute the immediate gains to a tool that increases access to a larger playerbase.
You paired your examples. I provided why that pairing further proved my point: that there are issues that spring up and all issues are seemingly solved one at a time, without a global picture in mind. Systems implimented that bring aspects of the game together, that bridge divides- these are indicative of a global picture understanding.
When leveling in classic, groups were available for any range of play. In BC, not so much. In WoLK, almost non-existent. While this is an issue with a leveling game whose base is at cap, there has also been a shift in mentality. While there is nothing but empirical evidence to be claimed here, I attribute the lack of options for grouping to a mentality that has shifted to being solo-only. If you had experienced the game through its stages you would have noticed the same thing. Is this across all servers and all players? No, but if undisputed evidence were to present itself, I guarantee it would note a decline in grouping due to lack of interest socially. I call again on my statement that each fix has chipped away at the social block. Chip away enough or long enough and you have no social base left.
Are these 'principles'? Yes, but proven nonetheless. While you gain a personal, immediate gain, you lose a little.
I would like to believe that I am someone who discusses things with people then forms an opinion based on the facts I know. Based on your enthousiasm for WoW in this and other threads, it's clear to me you're a diehard fan and that's that. I sincerely hope you enjoy your game, I'm merely examining the game you enjoy and uncovering less-than-obvious facets at play.
@ Ihmotepp
I played EQ but not as extensively as I would have liked. I'll look into those systems for further knowledge. Curses for not having played DAoC, I repeatedly hear about its PvP system and kick myself for not fully looking into it at the time.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
Can no one else see this for what it is? It's a patch-solution to a problem with the game's design. Does it make grouping easier? Absolutely. But at what cost? It further destroys the sense of community in the game. No, I don't want my cake and eat it too: I know it's perfectly possible to establish a product that meets all expectations. A server by design or by result promotes community. Breaking down the playerbase at large into smaller morsels that people can identify with, developping loyalties and rivalries. Let's add this current implimentation to cross-server BGs, server transfers, and faction switches... and it's just one more thing that chips away at the communities in WoW. Blizzard's design of PvP inside of WoW was flawed on servers with faction imbalance, and server/faction switches wouldn't be necessary had their leveling process been more enjoyable or streamlined. It would be refreshing to establish a game design that solved the grouping senario without having to do so at another social cost. While Blizzard is to be commended for their recognizing a problem and finding a solution for it, I personally feel that a studio of Blizzard's caliber fell far short of the insightfulness most gamers know they are capable of. Edit: Grammar
That makes alot of sense, but also, you have to figure that combining the servers like this makes it more like a single-server game such as EvE, which I think is great. The only downside to this new system is that you can't really interact with most of the other players outsdie the instances. Do you think WoW would be better or worse off if they had only one huge server to deal with?
NOT true. They are adding cross server chat as well. All of this is why WoW accounts are being merged with Battle.net, so that everyone has a much broader base of players to group with, socialize with, etc. Cross server chat has been planned and in the works for a long while.
So in short, some of the main features of Puggable include: * Search for other players of complementary skills and comparable level
* Communicate objectives and become familiar with one another via voice prior to entering the game
* Continue communications without switching voice applications into the game
* Invite new players along the way
It looks like a really great tool and I'm hoping people take advantage of it. .
What "Puggable" does NOT include....
Any cross server functionality.
Puggable is....forgettable. Puggable was/is simply an LFG 3rd party tool that does nothing that the LFG UI in game doesn't already do, only it's bigger. You can see it on a WHOLE web page....whoopedy doo. Why add a 3rd party mod, essentially, when the game itself already has the same function?
@ Zorndorf This cherished guild leveling system for both PvE and PvP works against cross-realm grouping. It furthers the divide between a goal and its accomplishment. The means to one end isn't available through a resource being offered. This says, to me, there is clearly a lack of complete picture. For the very reasons you cite, mind you. Me always playing according to my rules is precisely what I've 'ranted about' for 300 lines. It's detrimental. I've outlined why.
You're wrong (again).
What's important in an on line game ???
The gamer. He has a choice of playing HIS game for 24/7 now be it in PVP or PVE, be it solo or group wise.
If he plays with friends and his guild: no problem he can make agendas and level now his guild both in PvP and PVE and be proud of his guild status and realm pride in the upcoming patch.
If he plays alone at 02.00 AM... , he ALWAYS can finally play in group now or solo, be it PVE or PVP.
The rest doesn't matter. He plays it groupwise or solowise or realm wise with the friends (realm guild).
WIN/WIN for ... the 24/7 playing player.
Rest is bullshit. It is the player that counts.
That's why Blizzard always makes the better games: they think about the players and their rewards.
Not about "principles" that don't make sense in a video game.
-----
My son has a football training every night from 06.pm to 08.30pm from monday to friday. A match on saturday and sunday another training in the morning. I can only do guild play on friday and sometimes on sunday.
With a cross server PUG PVE/PVE I can enjoy myself 24/7 when I have the time, not when others dicatate me.
Simple facts that lead to succes.
And I didn't know you already designed a game with 12 million players either ...
And continually adding more CHOICES for ways to do things....is one of the reasons that WoW has such a huge subscriber base. You don't have to use every option they present. What makes the difference is....that they present OPTIONS, at ALL. Not everyone wants the same things in an MMO. Blizzard ATTEMPTS to give people more choices on how to play, than what you will find in most MMOs.
Like it or not......it's continuing to make them very very very rich.
Man, people are taking this and just twisting it far out of context.
The new system is no different than what is currently used for BG's, only this one is for instances. The vast majority of people are going to continue on as they normally do, PUGing people in chat to fill groups. I've done a number of guild BG's even thought they aren't necessary as BG's aren't all that complicated.
But what about the poor swing shift worker who can only play from 8a to 1p daily? Not a lot of people play during those times and I've never seen a scheduled run before 5p. This tool will allow them to still run instances by giving them access to a larger pool of potential partners.
There Blizzard goes AGAIN....trying to make it possible for a huge variety of "types" of gamers, with all different RL lifestyles and situations, to play their game. Shame on them? That's what some people would say, but... Uhm.....no. They're brilliant. And they are very very freaking RICH because of it.
WoW isn't going to turn into a lobby game just because of this, nor will socialization go out the window. If anything, a greater pool of people will be available to socialize with. These are groundless fears.
Take it only for what it is, another tool to increase a players game experience. I myself am looking forward to running level 60 instances with a level 60 group instead of a level 80 pally dragging 4 other people through it. Its going to open up a lot of old content to new players and allow people leveling up alts a chance to rediscover the old instances that tend to just get passed by because of the perception that one has to get to the highest level as fast as possible to enjoy the game.
@ Zorndorf This cherished guild leveling system for both PvE and PvP works against cross-realm grouping. It furthers the divide between a goal and its accomplishment. The means to one end isn't available through a resource being offered. This says, to me, there is clearly a lack of complete picture. For the very reasons you cite, mind you. Me always playing according to my rules is precisely what I've 'ranted about' for 300 lines. It's detrimental. I've outlined why.
You're wrong (again).
What's important in an on line game ???
The gamer. He has a choice of playing HIS game for 24/7 now be it in PVP or PVE, be it solo or group wise.
If he plays with friends and his guild: no problem he can make agendas and level now his guild both in PvP and PVE and be proud of his guild status and realm pride in the upcoming patch.
If he plays alone at 02.00 AM... , he ALWAYS can finally play in group now or solo, be it PVE or PVP.
The rest doesn't matter. He plays it groupwise or solowise or realm wise with the friends (realm guild).
WIN/WIN for ... the 24/7 playing player.
Rest is bullshit. It is the player that counts.
That's why Blizzard always makes the better games: they think about the players and their rewards.
Not about "principles" that don't make sense in a video game.
-----
My son has a football training every night from 06.pm to 08.30pm from monday to friday. A match on saturday and sunday another training in the morning. I can only do guild play on friday and sometimes on sunday.
With a cross server PUG PVE/PVE I can enjoy myself 24/7 when I have the time, not when others dicatate me.
Simple facts that lead to succes.
And I didn't know you already designed a game with 12 million players either ...
And continually adding more CHOICES for ways to do things....is one of the reasons that WoW has such a huge subscriber base. You don't have to use every option they present. What makes the difference is....that they present OPTIONS, at ALL. Not everyone wants the same things in an MMO. Blizzard ATTEMPTS to give people more choices on how to play, than what you will find in most MMOs.
Like it or not......it's continuing to make them very very very rich.
and there's nothing wrong with appealing to the least common denominator, and certainly it is a way to get rich.
But yet, cult classic movies continue to get made, and are usually what I'd rather watch than what's popular.
I'm sure Saw 23 will make a lot of money and appeals ot a lot of people, but I think I'll skip it.
And continually adding more CHOICES for ways to do things....is one of the reasons that WoW has such a huge subscriber base. You don't have to use every option they present. What makes the difference is....that they present OPTIONS, at ALL. Not everyone wants the same things in an MMO. Blizzard ATTEMPTS to give people more choices on how to play, than what you will find in most MMOs.
Like it or not......it's continuing to make them very very very rich.
and there's nothing wrong with appealing to the least common denominator, and certainly it is a way to get rich.
But yet, cult classic movies continue to get made, and are usually what I'd rather watch than what's popular.
I'm sure Saw 23 will make a lot of money and appeals ot a lot of people, but I think I'll skip it.
Aye, you agree that options are good. With options comes compromise, so everyone got a bit of everything.
Whether you decide to skip it or not, is your choice. We all respect each other's freedom to choose.
And continually adding more CHOICES for ways to do things....is one of the reasons that WoW has such a huge subscriber base. You don't have to use every option they present. What makes the difference is....that they present OPTIONS, at ALL. Not everyone wants the same things in an MMO. Blizzard ATTEMPTS to give people more choices on how to play, than what you will find in most MMOs.
Like it or not......it's continuing to make them very very very rich.
and there's nothing wrong with appealing to the least common denominator, and certainly it is a way to get rich.
But yet, cult classic movies continue to get made, and are usually what I'd rather watch than what's popular.
I'm sure Saw 23 will make a lot of money and appeals ot a lot of people, but I think I'll skip it.
Aye, you agree that options are good. With options comes compromise, so everyone got a bit of everything.
Whether you decide to skip it or not, is your choice. We all respect each other's freedom to choose.
No, we don't all respect each other's freedom to choose.
I'd like to choose a game that encourages grouping.
Most of the solo advocates don't respect this choice. They say, well, you have to play a solo friendly game because you can group and solo, and THAT is allowing choice. Of course not your choice to have a game that encourages grouping, but our choice to solo in a game that ALLOWS grouping. But we will let you group, so that's your choice. There you go. And if you don't like that, then you suck, you don't realize such a game would fail, etc., etc.
But that's not the choice I want. I want the choice to play challenging group content like I found in EQ nad DAoC, which means soloing is very hard. I don't want group in a solo game that allows it. I want group in a game that encourages it, and provides challenging content for groups. If you can easily solo around that content, then it's not a challenge at all.
How come I can't have that choice, if we all respect each other's freedom to choose?
Aye, you agree that options are good. With options comes compromise, so everyone got a bit of everything. Whether you decide to skip it or not, is your choice. We all respect each other's freedom to choose.
No, we don't all respect each other's freedom to choose.
I'd like to choose a game that encourages grouping.
Most of the solo advocates don't respect this choice. They say, well, you have to play a solo friendly game because you can group and solo, and THAT is allowing choice. Of course not your choice to have a game that encourages grouping, but our choice to solo in a game that ALLOWS grouping. But we will let you group, so that's your choice. There you go. And if you don't like that, then you suck, you don't realize such a game would fail, etc., etc.
But that's not the choice I want. I want the choice to play challenging group content like I found in EQ nad DAoC, which means soloing is very hard. I don't want group in a solo game that allows it. I want group in a game that encourages it, and provides challenging content for groups. If you can easily solo around that content, then it's not a challenge at all.
How come I can't have that choice, if we all respect each other's freedom to choose?
Now you are playing the word game again.
Your first long paragraph makes no sense. People choose what they want to go given the game mechanism. People would choose to solo or group, as they damn pleased. Given game mechanism, you can solo and beat an unsoloable boss by tricks or using plvling help from a big boy. People can group even if they do not need to.
That is not the choice you want? That is life. Games comes with given choices, and subjected to your imagination and skills, you can only live with it. You can shop around for games you want, but if you cannot find the game offering the choice you want, you have no rights to blame the other gamers, who happily settle down with games they feel satisfied.
You do not have the choice because no supplier wants to sell you that game, or you failed to see the options from games out there. What has that to do with OUR respect to you. If you find your game, we do not care, let alone stop you from playing, On the other hand, if you failed to find a game, don't vent it on us. We do not know you, nor care to stop you from exercising your freedom of choice.
Freedom of choice does not guarantee satisfaction from choice. It just means you can freely pick from choices available. What choices are available depends on the freedom of choice from the suppliers. The suppliers has the freedom of choice, and they can choose NOT to supply the form of consumption you want. YOU have to learn to respect the fact that suppliers has the same freedom of choice, and you might simply be not attractive enough for them to offer anything to you.
How come you do not have that choice? No one wants to sell it to you. I want the choice of mansions at the price of $1, how come I do not have that choice? Simple, no one is selling.
I am impressed. I does look like a nice tool for PUGs, and I see this as possibly becoming a new standard, something future MMORPGs adopt.
I do appreciate games making it easier to PUG. I am however going to point out what I see as a minor flaw. Doesn't this feel sort of like a lobby game, like Diablo or something, within the WoW game?
Any LFG tool within an MMO will feel that way. The more effective it is, the more it will feel like a lobby.
It's a choice between wandering for hours looking for people to group with, or this sort of design.
A good incentive to level alts would be more appealing to me, but this looks pretty damned good.
I hope folks realize that it will produce some very irregular groups. Shadow priests being selected for main healer? Is there anything to prevent that? Will the system check builds before assigning roles?
You can choose which role you can fulfill when joining the lfg system (tank, healer, dps).
Even the current LFG tool has this function, in which you specific which one or more roles (dps, tank, heal) you can take up. You can add remarks, like: "Weak DPS gear, strong TANK gear" when you join the /LFG channel. Very handy.
Many current players have already way outgeared the 5man dungeons. We still play the dungeons for the extra badges, notably the 2 top badges (emblem of triumph currently) you get doing the heroic dungeon instance for the day. For such runs, we simply go carefreely, pull everything, AoE and heal through. I have once cleared UK using just a hunter pet. The mobs die so fast, the pet lives thru it.
Aye, you agree that options are good. With options comes compromise, so everyone got a bit of everything. Whether you decide to skip it or not, is your choice. We all respect each other's freedom to choose.
No, we don't all respect each other's freedom to choose.
I'd like to choose a game that encourages grouping.
Most of the solo advocates don't respect this choice. They say, well, you have to play a solo friendly game because you can group and solo, and THAT is allowing choice. Of course not your choice to have a game that encourages grouping, but our choice to solo in a game that ALLOWS grouping. But we will let you group, so that's your choice. There you go. And if you don't like that, then you suck, you don't realize such a game would fail, etc., etc.
But that's not the choice I want. I want the choice to play challenging group content like I found in EQ nad DAoC, which means soloing is very hard. I don't want group in a solo game that allows it. I want group in a game that encourages it, and provides challenging content for groups. If you can easily solo around that content, then it's not a challenge at all.
How come I can't have that choice, if we all respect each other's freedom to choose?
Now you are playing the word game again.
Your first long paragraph makes no sense. People choose what they want to go given the game mechanism. People would choose to solo or group, as they damn pleased. Given game mechanism, you can solo and beat an unsoloable boss by tricks or using plvling help from a big boy. People can group even if they do not need to.
That is not the choice you want?
No, that is not the choice I want.
The choice I want is to choose between games that offer challenging group content, like EQ and DAoC, and games that do not, like WoW pre-raid .,
You've offered me the choice between WoW solo friendly games, and more WoW clone solo friendly games.
That doesn't seem like much of a choice.
Here's your choice! You can play WoW which is solo friendly with a lack of good group content. OR! You can play a WoW clone with is solo friendly with a lack of good group content!
Great. Thanks for the "choice".
Here! You can have CoW manure, OR! you can also choose Horse manure! See? We're giving you a choice.
Sounds good on paper, but most people hate PUGing already due to 12 year olds and 12 year oldish 30 somethings. Now instead of using reputation to decide whether you group with someone or not, your randomly distributed to instance #234908239475 with who knows what potential failures might be.
NOT true. They are adding cross server chat as well. All of this is why WoW accounts are being merged with Battle.net, so that everyone has a much broader base of players to group with, socialize with, etc. Cross server chat has been planned and in the works for a long while.
If this function is true, then the PUGable option of play indeed proves a sustainable fix due to being able to communicate with solid PUGs across other servers. On the flip, this is just one more thing in a laundry list of them that adds to the homogenization of the game. I'm curious to see when Blizzard will decide to abolish the server concept entirely. The only aspect of game that a server still influences is the world. Considering how instanced the game has become, that aspect is quite small.
@ Zorndorf
I always enjoy reading your posts =P
In the LFG tool you check the boxes of which roles you want to play (Tank, Healer, DPS).
And with the new dual specs you can indeed fill in different roles. We see it every day in our game. Tank has to leave? Warrior or Paladin or Druid use their second built spec - ONE click, then they do the gear change (with in game gear changer) - ONE click and you look into the LFG for a new dps: summon. Go.
You paint a 'best of' picture. You senario doesn't play out *nearly* as cleanly as you state. Dual specs aren't always used for hybridization of roles: you omit the dual spec usage of PvE and PvP roles- many times the hybrid classes stay the same role between the gaming options of PvE and PvP so as to 'stay in practice' regardless of which instance (BG/Arena/Raid/Heroic) they find themselves. Your senario also assumes that when you form a group, every option you need is readily present. There's no fooling anyone that WoW is flawed with its tank/heal/dps breakdowns compared to the group requirements for them, and the battle osmosis that occurs because of it: 'I'm tired of being a tank/healer because it's so hard to find a healer/tank and everyone is dps. I'll just go dps so I can do things solo and not deal with the frustration'. <~ this is 'solved' through the dual spec system, but as I just pointed out, that system's not used with this dilemna exclusively in mind.
Also the new guild leveling IN realm in both PVE and PVP (rated even now), will be a perfect counterweight of the PUG system.
As it is already happening now btw. The strong guilds can recruit more experienced people who can be taken from the PUG's, once these people have a time schedule that allows them more guild play and vice versa... a player getting a job at night can STILL play group based PVE/PVP content without being frustrated.
Your tone has shifted ('counterweight') when mentioning these two mechanics, but yet you still pair them. Neither does anything for the other, despite your claims. Strong guilds don't resort to PUGs, they resort to friends-of-guildies. Even if your senario takes place and they use a cross-server PUG system, you still face a 25dollar cover charge to make the server switch- this flies in the face of how you try to prove how 'gamer-friendly' this game is.
People who are fighting this new system are really really looking for peanuts.
Statement reeking of opinion. It's entirely too easy to present glaring issues with systems in play, without having to reference the history of 'patch-fixes' that have run the gamut of WoW's life.
Oh BTW: one of the essential ingredients of group play is that the content must be scaled from easy to hard. With extreme hard content (say Ulduar-Algalon unlocking mechs), you won't find people pug.
Scaling content properly would be done from hard to easy, not the direction of travel you offer. It's very, very simple to balance around large error margins. To properly balance content, you do it based off of your most demanding requirements. Ask any engineer buddies you might have in real life to explain why this is done if it's not immediately apparent. Subconsciously you express an explicit example of why WoW is casual, and *not* hardcore. The other highlight to your statement that hasn't been developped by you is the extreme hard content. You won't find people pug this content, but you also won't find guilds, even bored guilds with nothing to do, do this content. Why bash my head into my desk for hours on end for no real reward? Gear is reset every patch, and the achievement system is artificial- there is still no reward for having achieved anything. And please don't say mounts. Mounts are too readily had via other methods, there is just plain no reward other than bragging rights- and those even your neighbor gamer doesn't care about.
All designed to bring the player to the game on HIS terms of engagement (from very casual to very hardcore in personal competitive PvP/PvE).
This is the hallmark of a casual design. *Unless a developper designs using anything short of a 'sink, or swim' philosophy, it's not hardcore.* Claiming it, stating it repeatedly, does nothing. Outlined in this thread, on these forums, and on many other forums are a plethora of reasons why hardcore gamers don't claim WoW.
like I said a wet dream of any online player.
*Any* online player? =P
Edit: Format
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
Aye, you agree that options are good. With options comes compromise, so everyone got a bit of everything. Whether you decide to skip it or not, is your choice. We all respect each other's freedom to choose.
No, we don't all respect each other's freedom to choose.
I'd like to choose a game that encourages grouping.
Most of the solo advocates don't respect this choice. They say, well, you have to play a solo friendly game because you can group and solo, and THAT is allowing choice. Of course not your choice to have a game that encourages grouping, but our choice to solo in a game that ALLOWS grouping. But we will let you group, so that's your choice. There you go. And if you don't like that, then you suck, you don't realize such a game would fail, etc., etc.
But that's not the choice I want. I want the choice to play challenging group content like I found in EQ nad DAoC, which means soloing is very hard. I don't want group in a solo game that allows it. I want group in a game that encourages it, and provides challenging content for groups. If you can easily solo around that content, then it's not a challenge at all.
How come I can't have that choice, if we all respect each other's freedom to choose?
Now you are playing the word game again.
Your first long paragraph makes no sense. People choose what they want to go given the game mechanism. People would choose to solo or group, as they damn pleased. Given game mechanism, you can solo and beat an unsoloable boss by tricks or using plvling help from a big boy. People can group even if they do not need to.
That is not the choice you want?
No, that is not the choice I want.
The choice I want is to choose between games that offer challenging group content, like EQ and DAoC, and games that do not, like WoW pre-raid .,
You've offered me the choice between WoW solo friendly games, and more WoW clone solo friendly games.
That doesn't seem like much of a choice.
Here's your choice! You can play WoW which is solo friendly with a lack of good group content. OR! You can play a WoW clone with is solo friendly with a lack of good group content!
Great. Thanks for the "choice".
Here! You can have CoW manure, OR! you can also choose Horse manure! See? We're giving you a choice.
What if I don't want manure?
I do not offer you anything, you are blaming me for offering you things. I do know you, I do not make games, I do not want to meet you. No way I am offering you anything.
The game developers offer you the games, those in the market. That is your choice. If you do not like it, go find something else. Blame them, not me, not us gamers. We do not care what you like or not, we only go about shopping games we want.
I have been saying this many times, if you do not find the games appealing to you, blame your own taste, not us.
I repeat, I am not offering you anything, I never know you, will never ever know you, will never ever ever never meet you ingame or real life. Your choices has nothing to do with me. Stop blaming me for your own unique unpopular taste.
Come to think of it, I like to have people who have brains when posting here. Should I start blaming MMORPG.com for the stupid posts? No. That is not their responsibility. See?
Sounds good on paper, but most people hate PUGing already due to 12 year olds and 12 year oldish 30 somethings. Now instead of using reputation to decide whether you group with someone or not, your randomly distributed to instance #234908239475 with who knows what potential failures might be.
Its an additional tool for those who want to give it a shot. You are NOT forced to use it. If you do not like it, don't use it.
How does it affect your existing gameplay? You lose something? Or just jealous because others are willing to give it a shot while you endless rant and ramble?
Comments
Great - What's next?
Allow unlimited TWINKING between servers? Allow High levels to totally screw up the AH worse than it is now with all of their gold in inter-server transfers?
Things are rough now for anyone who wants to play the HARD way - do it all on their own without help.
This will be wonderful for the totally inept kiddies who need a herd of people to do what others can do alone. CONGRATS.
So far it appears that it will not affect ME too much. I will just ignore this BS as I have in the past.
As I said in the past on other threads - I play for relaxation - on MY schedule. I do NOT want to be tied to SOMEONE ELSES time frame. I am NOT trying to reach MAX cap as fast as possible. Just today I spent 3 hours on one troop just running his Herbalism up. No one bitched at me for holding them up - wonder why?
I pay nearly $180 per year each on TWO accounts. I'm paying for my time - I'll play my way.
I have no problem with how ANYONE ELSE plays - as long as it doesn't affect how I can Play.
As the old song goes "I'll do it my way."
Not that i play WoW but immersion killer.
@ Zorndorf
Clearly, and nowhere in this thread does anyone dispute the immediate gains to a tool that increases access to a larger playerbase.
You paired your examples. I provided why that pairing further proved my point: that there are issues that spring up and all issues are seemingly solved one at a time, without a global picture in mind. Systems implimented that bring aspects of the game together, that bridge divides- these are indicative of a global picture understanding.
When leveling in classic, groups were available for any range of play. In BC, not so much. In WoLK, almost non-existent. While this is an issue with a leveling game whose base is at cap, there has also been a shift in mentality. While there is nothing but empirical evidence to be claimed here, I attribute the lack of options for grouping to a mentality that has shifted to being solo-only. If you had experienced the game through its stages you would have noticed the same thing. Is this across all servers and all players? No, but if undisputed evidence were to present itself, I guarantee it would note a decline in grouping due to lack of interest socially. I call again on my statement that each fix has chipped away at the social block. Chip away enough or long enough and you have no social base left.
Are these 'principles'? Yes, but proven nonetheless. While you gain a personal, immediate gain, you lose a little.
I would like to believe that I am someone who discusses things with people then forms an opinion based on the facts I know. Based on your enthousiasm for WoW in this and other threads, it's clear to me you're a diehard fan and that's that. I sincerely hope you enjoy your game, I'm merely examining the game you enjoy and uncovering less-than-obvious facets at play.
@ Ihmotepp
I played EQ but not as extensively as I would have liked. I'll look into those systems for further knowledge. Curses for not having played DAoC, I repeatedly hear about its PvP system and kick myself for not fully looking into it at the time.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
I think that's the best way to put it.
In an open world like EQ or DAoC, it was extremely immersive, at least for me.
Lobby games played in instances are fun. As I"ve stated I played the heck out of Diablo and had a blast doing it. But it was not immersive.
I don't think using this pugging system to constantly jump into instances will be immersive either.
That doesn't mean it can't be fun, but it cannot be fun in the same way an immersive open world is.
That makes alot of sense, but also, you have to figure that combining the servers like this makes it more like a single-server game such as EvE, which I think is great. The only downside to this new system is that you can't really interact with most of the other players outsdie the instances. Do you think WoW would be better or worse off if they had only one huge server to deal with?
NOT true. They are adding cross server chat as well. All of this is why WoW accounts are being merged with Battle.net, so that everyone has a much broader base of players to group with, socialize with, etc. Cross server chat has been planned and in the works for a long while.
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
What "Puggable" does NOT include....
Any cross server functionality.
Puggable is....forgettable. Puggable was/is simply an LFG 3rd party tool that does nothing that the LFG UI in game doesn't already do, only it's bigger. You can see it on a WHOLE web page....whoopedy doo. Why add a 3rd party mod, essentially, when the game itself already has the same function?
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
You're wrong (again).
What's important in an on line game ???
The gamer. He has a choice of playing HIS game for 24/7 now be it in PVP or PVE, be it solo or group wise.
If he plays with friends and his guild: no problem he can make agendas and level now his guild both in PvP and PVE and be proud of his guild status and realm pride in the upcoming patch.
If he plays alone at 02.00 AM... , he ALWAYS can finally play in group now or solo, be it PVE or PVP.
The rest doesn't matter. He plays it groupwise or solowise or realm wise with the friends (realm guild).
WIN/WIN for ... the 24/7 playing player.
Rest is bullshit. It is the player that counts.
That's why Blizzard always makes the better games: they think about the players and their rewards.
Not about "principles" that don't make sense in a video game.
-----
My son has a football training every night from 06.pm to 08.30pm from monday to friday. A match on saturday and sunday another training in the morning. I can only do guild play on friday and sometimes on sunday.
With a cross server PUG PVE/PVE I can enjoy myself 24/7 when I have the time, not when others dicatate me.
Simple facts that lead to succes.
And I didn't know you already designed a game with 12 million players either ...
And continually adding more CHOICES for ways to do things....is one of the reasons that WoW has such a huge subscriber base. You don't have to use every option they present. What makes the difference is....that they present OPTIONS, at ALL. Not everyone wants the same things in an MMO. Blizzard ATTEMPTS to give people more choices on how to play, than what you will find in most MMOs.
Like it or not......it's continuing to make them very very very rich.
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
You're wrong (again).
What's important in an on line game ???
The gamer. He has a choice of playing HIS game for 24/7 now be it in PVP or PVE, be it solo or group wise.
If he plays with friends and his guild: no problem he can make agendas and level now his guild both in PvP and PVE and be proud of his guild status and realm pride in the upcoming patch.
If he plays alone at 02.00 AM... , he ALWAYS can finally play in group now or solo, be it PVE or PVP.
The rest doesn't matter. He plays it groupwise or solowise or realm wise with the friends (realm guild).
WIN/WIN for ... the 24/7 playing player.
Rest is bullshit. It is the player that counts.
That's why Blizzard always makes the better games: they think about the players and their rewards.
Not about "principles" that don't make sense in a video game.
-----
My son has a football training every night from 06.pm to 08.30pm from monday to friday. A match on saturday and sunday another training in the morning. I can only do guild play on friday and sometimes on sunday.
With a cross server PUG PVE/PVE I can enjoy myself 24/7 when I have the time, not when others dicatate me.
Simple facts that lead to succes.
And I didn't know you already designed a game with 12 million players either ...
And continually adding more CHOICES for ways to do things....is one of the reasons that WoW has such a huge subscriber base. You don't have to use every option they present. What makes the difference is....that they present OPTIONS, at ALL. Not everyone wants the same things in an MMO. Blizzard ATTEMPTS to give people more choices on how to play, than what you will find in most MMOs.
Like it or not......it's continuing to make them very very very rich.
and there's nothing wrong with appealing to the least common denominator, and certainly it is a way to get rich.
But yet, cult classic movies continue to get made, and are usually what I'd rather watch than what's popular.
I'm sure Saw 23 will make a lot of money and appeals ot a lot of people, but I think I'll skip it.
And continually adding more CHOICES for ways to do things....is one of the reasons that WoW has such a huge subscriber base. You don't have to use every option they present. What makes the difference is....that they present OPTIONS, at ALL. Not everyone wants the same things in an MMO. Blizzard ATTEMPTS to give people more choices on how to play, than what you will find in most MMOs.
Like it or not......it's continuing to make them very very very rich.
and there's nothing wrong with appealing to the least common denominator, and certainly it is a way to get rich.
But yet, cult classic movies continue to get made, and are usually what I'd rather watch than what's popular.
I'm sure Saw 23 will make a lot of money and appeals ot a lot of people, but I think I'll skip it.
Aye, you agree that options are good. With options comes compromise, so everyone got a bit of everything.
Whether you decide to skip it or not, is your choice. We all respect each other's freedom to choose.
And continually adding more CHOICES for ways to do things....is one of the reasons that WoW has such a huge subscriber base. You don't have to use every option they present. What makes the difference is....that they present OPTIONS, at ALL. Not everyone wants the same things in an MMO. Blizzard ATTEMPTS to give people more choices on how to play, than what you will find in most MMOs.
Like it or not......it's continuing to make them very very very rich.
and there's nothing wrong with appealing to the least common denominator, and certainly it is a way to get rich.
But yet, cult classic movies continue to get made, and are usually what I'd rather watch than what's popular.
I'm sure Saw 23 will make a lot of money and appeals ot a lot of people, but I think I'll skip it.
Aye, you agree that options are good. With options comes compromise, so everyone got a bit of everything.
Whether you decide to skip it or not, is your choice. We all respect each other's freedom to choose.
No, we don't all respect each other's freedom to choose.
I'd like to choose a game that encourages grouping.
Most of the solo advocates don't respect this choice. They say, well, you have to play a solo friendly game because you can group and solo, and THAT is allowing choice. Of course not your choice to have a game that encourages grouping, but our choice to solo in a game that ALLOWS grouping. But we will let you group, so that's your choice. There you go. And if you don't like that, then you suck, you don't realize such a game would fail, etc., etc.
But that's not the choice I want. I want the choice to play challenging group content like I found in EQ nad DAoC, which means soloing is very hard. I don't want group in a solo game that allows it. I want group in a game that encourages it, and provides challenging content for groups. If you can easily solo around that content, then it's not a challenge at all.
How come I can't have that choice, if we all respect each other's freedom to choose?
You do not have that choice because game companies choose money...
No, we don't all respect each other's freedom to choose.
I'd like to choose a game that encourages grouping.
Most of the solo advocates don't respect this choice. They say, well, you have to play a solo friendly game because you can group and solo, and THAT is allowing choice. Of course not your choice to have a game that encourages grouping, but our choice to solo in a game that ALLOWS grouping. But we will let you group, so that's your choice. There you go. And if you don't like that, then you suck, you don't realize such a game would fail, etc., etc.
But that's not the choice I want. I want the choice to play challenging group content like I found in EQ nad DAoC, which means soloing is very hard. I don't want group in a solo game that allows it. I want group in a game that encourages it, and provides challenging content for groups. If you can easily solo around that content, then it's not a challenge at all.
How come I can't have that choice, if we all respect each other's freedom to choose?
Now you are playing the word game again.
Your first long paragraph makes no sense. People choose what they want to go given the game mechanism. People would choose to solo or group, as they damn pleased. Given game mechanism, you can solo and beat an unsoloable boss by tricks or using plvling help from a big boy. People can group even if they do not need to.
That is not the choice you want? That is life. Games comes with given choices, and subjected to your imagination and skills, you can only live with it. You can shop around for games you want, but if you cannot find the game offering the choice you want, you have no rights to blame the other gamers, who happily settle down with games they feel satisfied.
You do not have the choice because no supplier wants to sell you that game, or you failed to see the options from games out there. What has that to do with OUR respect to you. If you find your game, we do not care, let alone stop you from playing, On the other hand, if you failed to find a game, don't vent it on us. We do not know you, nor care to stop you from exercising your freedom of choice.
Freedom of choice does not guarantee satisfaction from choice. It just means you can freely pick from choices available. What choices are available depends on the freedom of choice from the suppliers. The suppliers has the freedom of choice, and they can choose NOT to supply the form of consumption you want. YOU have to learn to respect the fact that suppliers has the same freedom of choice, and you might simply be not attractive enough for them to offer anything to you.
How come you do not have that choice? No one wants to sell it to you. I want the choice of mansions at the price of $1, how come I do not have that choice? Simple, no one is selling.
Any LFG tool within an MMO will feel that way. The more effective it is, the more it will feel like a lobby.
It's a choice between wandering for hours looking for people to group with, or this sort of design.
A good incentive to level alts would be more appealing to me, but this looks pretty damned good.
I hope folks realize that it will produce some very irregular groups. Shadow priests being selected for main healer? Is there anything to prevent that? Will the system check builds before assigning roles?
You can choose which role you can fulfill when joining the lfg system (tank, healer, dps).
'Most powerful is he who controls his own power.'
Zorndorf is right.
Even the current LFG tool has this function, in which you specific which one or more roles (dps, tank, heal) you can take up. You can add remarks, like: "Weak DPS gear, strong TANK gear" when you join the /LFG channel. Very handy.
Many current players have already way outgeared the 5man dungeons. We still play the dungeons for the extra badges, notably the 2 top badges (emblem of triumph currently) you get doing the heroic dungeon instance for the day. For such runs, we simply go carefreely, pull everything, AoE and heal through. I have once cleared UK using just a hunter pet. The mobs die so fast, the pet lives thru it.
No, we don't all respect each other's freedom to choose.
I'd like to choose a game that encourages grouping.
Most of the solo advocates don't respect this choice. They say, well, you have to play a solo friendly game because you can group and solo, and THAT is allowing choice. Of course not your choice to have a game that encourages grouping, but our choice to solo in a game that ALLOWS grouping. But we will let you group, so that's your choice. There you go. And if you don't like that, then you suck, you don't realize such a game would fail, etc., etc.
But that's not the choice I want. I want the choice to play challenging group content like I found in EQ nad DAoC, which means soloing is very hard. I don't want group in a solo game that allows it. I want group in a game that encourages it, and provides challenging content for groups. If you can easily solo around that content, then it's not a challenge at all.
How come I can't have that choice, if we all respect each other's freedom to choose?
Now you are playing the word game again.
Your first long paragraph makes no sense. People choose what they want to go given the game mechanism. People would choose to solo or group, as they damn pleased. Given game mechanism, you can solo and beat an unsoloable boss by tricks or using plvling help from a big boy. People can group even if they do not need to.
That is not the choice you want?
No, that is not the choice I want.
The choice I want is to choose between games that offer challenging group content, like EQ and DAoC, and games that do not, like WoW pre-raid .,
You've offered me the choice between WoW solo friendly games, and more WoW clone solo friendly games.
That doesn't seem like much of a choice.
Here's your choice! You can play WoW which is solo friendly with a lack of good group content. OR! You can play a WoW clone with is solo friendly with a lack of good group content!
Great. Thanks for the "choice".
Here! You can have CoW manure, OR! you can also choose Horse manure! See? We're giving you a choice.
What if I don't want manure?
Sounds good on paper, but most people hate PUGing already due to 12 year olds and 12 year oldish 30 somethings. Now instead of using reputation to decide whether you group with someone or not, your randomly distributed to instance #234908239475 with who knows what potential failures might be.
@ girlgeek
NOT true. They are adding cross server chat as well. All of this is why WoW accounts are being merged with Battle.net, so that everyone has a much broader base of players to group with, socialize with, etc. Cross server chat has been planned and in the works for a long while.
If this function is true, then the PUGable option of play indeed proves a sustainable fix due to being able to communicate with solid PUGs across other servers. On the flip, this is just one more thing in a laundry list of them that adds to the homogenization of the game. I'm curious to see when Blizzard will decide to abolish the server concept entirely. The only aspect of game that a server still influences is the world. Considering how instanced the game has become, that aspect is quite small.
@ Zorndorf
I always enjoy reading your posts =P
In the LFG tool you check the boxes of which roles you want to play (Tank, Healer, DPS).
And with the new dual specs you can indeed fill in different roles. We see it every day in our game. Tank has to leave? Warrior or Paladin or Druid use their second built spec - ONE click, then they do the gear change (with in game gear changer) - ONE click and you look into the LFG for a new dps: summon. Go.
You paint a 'best of' picture. You senario doesn't play out *nearly* as cleanly as you state. Dual specs aren't always used for hybridization of roles: you omit the dual spec usage of PvE and PvP roles- many times the hybrid classes stay the same role between the gaming options of PvE and PvP so as to 'stay in practice' regardless of which instance (BG/Arena/Raid/Heroic) they find themselves. Your senario also assumes that when you form a group, every option you need is readily present. There's no fooling anyone that WoW is flawed with its tank/heal/dps breakdowns compared to the group requirements for them, and the battle osmosis that occurs because of it: 'I'm tired of being a tank/healer because it's so hard to find a healer/tank and everyone is dps. I'll just go dps so I can do things solo and not deal with the frustration'. <~ this is 'solved' through the dual spec system, but as I just pointed out, that system's not used with this dilemna exclusively in mind.
Also the new guild leveling IN realm in both PVE and PVP (rated even now), will be a perfect counterweight of the PUG system.
As it is already happening now btw. The strong guilds can recruit more experienced people who can be taken from the PUG's, once these people have a time schedule that allows them more guild play and vice versa... a player getting a job at night can STILL play group based PVE/PVP content without being frustrated.
Your tone has shifted ('counterweight') when mentioning these two mechanics, but yet you still pair them. Neither does anything for the other, despite your claims. Strong guilds don't resort to PUGs, they resort to friends-of-guildies. Even if your senario takes place and they use a cross-server PUG system, you still face a 25dollar cover charge to make the server switch- this flies in the face of how you try to prove how 'gamer-friendly' this game is.
People who are fighting this new system are really really looking for peanuts.
Statement reeking of opinion. It's entirely too easy to present glaring issues with systems in play, without having to reference the history of 'patch-fixes' that have run the gamut of WoW's life.
Oh BTW: one of the essential ingredients of group play is that the content must be scaled from easy to hard. With extreme hard content (say Ulduar-Algalon unlocking mechs), you won't find people pug.
Scaling content properly would be done from hard to easy, not the direction of travel you offer. It's very, very simple to balance around large error margins. To properly balance content, you do it based off of your most demanding requirements. Ask any engineer buddies you might have in real life to explain why this is done if it's not immediately apparent. Subconsciously you express an explicit example of why WoW is casual, and *not* hardcore. The other highlight to your statement that hasn't been developped by you is the extreme hard content. You won't find people pug this content, but you also won't find guilds, even bored guilds with nothing to do, do this content. Why bash my head into my desk for hours on end for no real reward? Gear is reset every patch, and the achievement system is artificial- there is still no reward for having achieved anything. And please don't say mounts. Mounts are too readily had via other methods, there is just plain no reward other than bragging rights- and those even your neighbor gamer doesn't care about.
All designed to bring the player to the game on HIS terms of engagement (from very casual to very hardcore in personal competitive PvP/PvE).
This is the hallmark of a casual design. *Unless a developper designs using anything short of a 'sink, or swim' philosophy, it's not hardcore.* Claiming it, stating it repeatedly, does nothing. Outlined in this thread, on these forums, and on many other forums are a plethora of reasons why hardcore gamers don't claim WoW.
like I said a wet dream of any online player.
*Any* online player? =P
Edit: Format
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
No, we don't all respect each other's freedom to choose.
I'd like to choose a game that encourages grouping.
Most of the solo advocates don't respect this choice. They say, well, you have to play a solo friendly game because you can group and solo, and THAT is allowing choice. Of course not your choice to have a game that encourages grouping, but our choice to solo in a game that ALLOWS grouping. But we will let you group, so that's your choice. There you go. And if you don't like that, then you suck, you don't realize such a game would fail, etc., etc.
But that's not the choice I want. I want the choice to play challenging group content like I found in EQ nad DAoC, which means soloing is very hard. I don't want group in a solo game that allows it. I want group in a game that encourages it, and provides challenging content for groups. If you can easily solo around that content, then it's not a challenge at all.
How come I can't have that choice, if we all respect each other's freedom to choose?
Now you are playing the word game again.
Your first long paragraph makes no sense. People choose what they want to go given the game mechanism. People would choose to solo or group, as they damn pleased. Given game mechanism, you can solo and beat an unsoloable boss by tricks or using plvling help from a big boy. People can group even if they do not need to.
That is not the choice you want?
No, that is not the choice I want.
The choice I want is to choose between games that offer challenging group content, like EQ and DAoC, and games that do not, like WoW pre-raid .,
You've offered me the choice between WoW solo friendly games, and more WoW clone solo friendly games.
That doesn't seem like much of a choice.
Here's your choice! You can play WoW which is solo friendly with a lack of good group content. OR! You can play a WoW clone with is solo friendly with a lack of good group content!
Great. Thanks for the "choice".
Here! You can have CoW manure, OR! you can also choose Horse manure! See? We're giving you a choice.
What if I don't want manure?
I do not offer you anything, you are blaming me for offering you things. I do know you, I do not make games, I do not want to meet you. No way I am offering you anything.
The game developers offer you the games, those in the market. That is your choice. If you do not like it, go find something else. Blame them, not me, not us gamers. We do not care what you like or not, we only go about shopping games we want.
I have been saying this many times, if you do not find the games appealing to you, blame your own taste, not us.
I repeat, I am not offering you anything, I never know you, will never ever know you, will never ever ever never meet you ingame or real life. Your choices has nothing to do with me. Stop blaming me for your own unique unpopular taste.
Come to think of it, I like to have people who have brains when posting here. Should I start blaming MMORPG.com for the stupid posts? No. That is not their responsibility. See?
Its an additional tool for those who want to give it a shot. You are NOT forced to use it. If you do not like it, don't use it.
How does it affect your existing gameplay? You lose something? Or just jealous because others are willing to give it a shot while you endless rant and ramble?