There was even a short amount of time when vast amounts of content were locked behind dailies in LotRO. If I remember rightly, when Moria was first released you couldn't access quest hubs until you had enough reputation, but you couldn't get enough reputation without repeating dailies for a few days. They eventually nerfed the rep requirement so it stopped happening, but for 6 months or so it sucked when you got your character to that point and essentially had to stop playing.
The problem here is reputation systems, rather than dailies per se.
And yup, the first implementations were really, really, really no-fun at all.
Hopefully, all games everywhere recognized them as a fun pit and modified them eventually(?)
When used as coc..., er, progression blockers they were definitely the worst. Using Massive Grind as a gating device, how Everquest.
1) Quest to level. (World of Warcraft I'm looking at you) 2) Sandbox classes (Path of Exile I'm looking at you) 3) ALL, and I repeat, ALL JRPGs. They suck. Period.
-excessive RNG to make you repeat the same stuff over and over for the luck of a drop -snakes dropping swords and shields -90% of all vendors selling useless white crap -questhubs -streamlined worlds
Levels. Gender-locked classes. Tanks relying on dull threat-based mechanics that don't have any effect on pvp. A tank should be a linebacker, not a "hit me" sign.
Those threat mechanics should not have the impact they do in PvE either. Not sure what a linebacker is, that is a U.S. example and totally meaningless to me. No more turn-and-burn, form a shield wall or a skirmish line between the squishies and the MOB.
A linebacker is 250-300 lb (113-136 kg) of meat that sacks the shiz out of anything that comes near it.
Technically, it means they are a tactile defensive player that has to be good at reading plays and countering individual and group actions. Most of the time that boils down to "Ima tackle that guy.", but semantically it's about strategic maneuvering, effective countering, and quick response/predictions.
...think that means you two agree...
I think that Aenfer and I have similar views about tank threat to.
But the linebacker reference is still meaningless to me, your explanation is more confusing than the original. A sack is a bag, wtf does 'tactile defense' mean? Reading plays? Do you mean Hamlet or Macbeth?
Please don't try to explain further, I have limited interest in real football (the one with the World Cup and FIFA) and none at all in the strange Rugby derivative you play in the U.S.
More is sounds like you're being intentionally obtuse, because "sacking another player" is something that's used in other sports like soccer ("real football") and rugby (which isn't a US originated sport and is played many places) as well.
Similarly "tactile defense" isn't rocket science, it's defense that relies on strategy instead of raw force.
"Reading the play" is again a reference that applies to and is used by a broad spectrum of sports.
So either you just are bad at sports, or you are intentionally pretending to not know anything in an effort to be pointlessly confrontational.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Levels. Gender-locked classes. Tanks relying on dull threat-based mechanics that don't have any effect on pvp. A tank should be a linebacker, not a "hit me" sign.
Those threat mechanics should not have the impact they do in PvE either. Not sure what a linebacker is, that is a U.S. example and totally meaningless to me. No more turn-and-burn, form a shield wall or a skirmish line between the squishies and the MOB.
A linebacker is 250-300 lb (113-136 kg) of meat that sacks the shiz out of anything that comes near it.
Technically, it means they are a tactile defensive player that has to be good at reading plays and countering individual and group actions. Most of the time that boils down to "Ima tackle that guy.", but semantically it's about strategic maneuvering, effective countering, and quick response/predictions.
...think that means you two agree...
I think that Aenfer and I have similar views about tank threat to.
But the linebacker reference is still meaningless to me, your explanation is more confusing than the original. A sack is a bag, wtf does 'tactile defense' mean? Reading plays? Do you mean Hamlet or Macbeth?
Please don't try to explain further, I have limited interest in real football (the one with the World Cup and FIFA) and none at all in the strange Rugby derivative you play in the U.S.
More is sounds like you're being intentionally obtuse, because "sacking another player" is something that's used in other sports like soccer ("real football") and rugby (which isn't a US originated sport and is played many places) as well.
Similarly "tactile defense" isn't rocket science, it's defense that relies on strategy instead of raw force.
"Reading the play" is again a reference that applies to and is used by a broad spectrum of sports.
So either you just are bad at sports, or you are intentionally pretending to not know anything in an effort to be pointlessly confrontational.
Yes sacking is used in other countries as in: sacking the coach, in this context in means firing the coach. I am pretty sure that this is not what was meant in the original post. In the U.S. it may even be applied to other sports but I honestly have never heard "sacking another player" used in either Rugby, the Australian code or football.
Yes I know Rugby did not originate in the U.S., it originated at the school of the same name in England. But the U.S. game is derived from Rugby, look it up.
Despite your explanation, tactile defense is still meaningless to me and again not a term I have heard used in describing football. Finally 'reading the play' is not something I have heard non U.S. commentators use, in any sport, however a quick search on line shows me it being used as a synonym for 'footy smarts' in an article on coaching in the Australian code ('reading the play' is used once 'footy smarts' is used five times). I suggest if it is being used it is only very recently and is as a result of creeping U.S. influence.
Am I being confrontational? Perhaps, but I am definitely trying to make a point. U.S. colloquialisms and English usage are often opaque and confusing to those of us in the rest of the world.
Levels. Gender-locked classes. Tanks relying on dull threat-based mechanics that don't have any effect on pvp. A tank should be a linebacker, not a "hit me" sign.
Those threat mechanics should not have the impact they do in PvE either. Not sure what a linebacker is, that is a U.S. example and totally meaningless to me. No more turn-and-burn, form a shield wall or a skirmish line between the squishies and the MOB.
A linebacker is 250-300 lb (113-136 kg) of meat that sacks the shiz out of anything that comes near it.
Technically, it means they are a tactile defensive player that has to be good at reading plays and countering individual and group actions. Most of the time that boils down to "Ima tackle that guy.", but semantically it's about strategic maneuvering, effective countering, and quick response/predictions.
...think that means you two agree...
I think that Aenfer and I have similar views about tank threat to.
But the linebacker reference is still meaningless to me, your explanation is more confusing than the original. A sack is a bag, wtf does 'tactile defense' mean? Reading plays? Do you mean Hamlet or Macbeth?
Please don't try to explain further, I have limited interest in real football (the one with the World Cup and FIFA) and none at all in the strange Rugby derivative you play in the U.S.
More is sounds like you're being intentionally obtuse, because "sacking another player" is something that's used in other sports like soccer ("real football") and rugby (which isn't a US originated sport and is played many places) as well.
Similarly "tactile defense" isn't rocket science, it's defense that relies on strategy instead of raw force.
"Reading the play" is again a reference that applies to and is used by a broad spectrum of sports.
So either you just are bad at sports, or you are intentionally pretending to not know anything in an effort to be pointlessly confrontational.
Yes sacking is used in other countries as in: sacking the coach, in this context in means firing the coach. I am pretty sure that this is not what was meant in the original post. In the U.S. it may even be applied to other sports but I honestly have never heard "sacking another player" used in either Rugby, the Australian code or football.
Yes I know Rugby did not originate in the U.S., it originated at the school of the same name in England. But the U.S. game is derived from Rugby, look it up.
Despite your explanation, tactile defense is still meaningless to me and again not a term I have heard used in describing football. Finally 'reading the play' is not something I have heard non U.S. commentators use, in any sport, however a quick search on line shows me it being used as a synonym for 'footy smarts' in an article on coaching in the Australian code ('reading the play' is used once 'footy smarts' is used five times). I suggest if it is being used it is only very recently and is as a result of creeping U.S. influence.
Am I being confrontational? Perhaps, but I am definitely trying to make a point. U.S. colloquialisms and English usage are often opaque and confusing to those of us in the rest of the world.
Respond if you like, I am done.
Looking up the definition of sacking on google will give you multiple use-cases and immediately discount your attempted dodge. This is not a complex or foreign term for European countries.
As for "reading the play", you obviously didn't do a good search since one of the first options on the list when I just typed it in was a handbook called "Reading the Play in Team Sports" which was another Aussie guide that never once mentions "footie smarts", yet repeats reading the play multiple times over.
Getting rugby right after I corrected you about everything prompting you to do a half-hearted attempt at searching up a couple factoids isn't going to save your argument form being nonsense.
Even your stance on "tactile defense" is painfully shallow. It's not even a standout term because it's one in a chain of "tactical systems" taught in sports, and yet you claim it's meaningless in the same token as you try to try to claim any familiarity with any terms. The tactical systems monikers comes from "real football" as you put it and is applied in reference to understanding a variety of game plays like the catenaccio.
Your argument would work if the terms in question were "US colloquialisms", but they unfortunately for you are not (as pointed out most all of them are either EU origin or some come from Aussie handbooks). It would have been better for you to simply say you don't know anything about sports since that's the only established fact that's been gained from this conversation.
Try to be honest next time.
Post edited by Deivos on
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Levels. Gender-locked classes. Tanks relying on dull threat-based mechanics that don't have any effect on pvp. A tank should be a linebacker, not a "hit me" sign.
Those threat mechanics should not have the impact they do in PvE either. Not sure what a linebacker is, that is a U.S. example and totally meaningless to me. No more turn-and-burn, form a shield wall or a skirmish line between the squishies and the MOB.
A linebacker is 250-300 lb (113-136 kg) of meat that sacks the shiz out of anything that comes near it.
Technically, it means they are a tactile defensive player that has to be good at reading plays and countering individual and group actions. Most of the time that boils down to "Ima tackle that guy.", but semantically it's about strategic maneuvering, effective countering, and quick response/predictions.
...think that means you two agree...
I think that Aenfer and I have similar views about tank threat to.
But the linebacker reference is still meaningless to me, your explanation is more confusing than the original. A sack is a bag, wtf does 'tactile defense' mean? Reading plays? Do you mean Hamlet or Macbeth?
Please don't try to explain further, I have limited interest in real football (the one with the World Cup and FIFA) and none at all in the strange Rugby derivative you play in the U.S.
More is sounds like you're being intentionally obtuse, because "sacking another player" is something that's used in other sports like soccer ("real football") and rugby (which isn't a US originated sport and is played many places) as well.
Similarly "tactile defense" isn't rocket science, it's defense that relies on strategy instead of raw force.
"Reading the play" is again a reference that applies to and is used by a broad spectrum of sports.
So either you just are bad at sports, or you are intentionally pretending to not know anything in an effort to be pointlessly confrontational.
Yes sacking is used in other countries as in: sacking the coach, in this context in means firing the coach. I am pretty sure that this is not what was meant in the original post. In the U.S. it may even be applied to other sports but I honestly have never heard "sacking another player" used in either Rugby, the Australian code or football.
Yes I know Rugby did not originate in the U.S., it originated at the school of the same name in England. But the U.S. game is derived from Rugby, look it up.
Despite your explanation, tactile defense is still meaningless to me and again not a term I have heard used in describing football. Finally 'reading the play' is not something I have heard non U.S. commentators use, in any sport, however a quick search on line shows me it being used as a synonym for 'footy smarts' in an article on coaching in the Australian code ('reading the play' is used once 'footy smarts' is used five times). I suggest if it is being used it is only very recently and is as a result of creeping U.S. influence.
Am I being confrontational? Perhaps, but I am definitely trying to make a point. U.S. colloquialisms and English usage are often opaque and confusing to those of us in the rest of the world.
Respond if you like, I am done.
Looking up the definition of sacking on google will give you multiple use-cases and immediately discount your attempted dodge. This is not a complex or foreign term for European countries.
As for "reading the play", you obviously didn't do a good search since one of the first options on the list when I just typed it in was a handbook called "Reading the Play in Team Sports" which was another Aussie guide that never once mentions "footie smarts", yet repeats reading the play multiple times over.
Getting rugby right after I corrected you about everything prompting you to do a half-hearted attempt at searching up a couple factoids isn't going to save your argument form being nonsense.
Even your stance on "tactile defense" is painfully shallow. It's not even a standout term because it's one in a chain of "tactical systems" taught in sports, and yet you claim it's meaningless in the same token as you try to try to claim any familiarity with any terms. The tactical systems monikers comes from "real football" as you put it and is applied in reference to understanding a variety of game plays like the catenaccio.
Your argument would work if the terms in question were "US colloquialisms", but they unfortunately for you are not (as pointed out most all of them are either EU origin or some come from Aussie handbooks). It would have been better for you to simply say you don't know anything about sports since that's the only established fact that's been gained from this conversation.
Try to be honest next time.
I know I'm sort of piling on here, but "sacking" is not a term in common usage outside the US. Certainly not used in rugby or football in europe (however, whilst we don't use the term at all, most english understand its meaning from watching movies and tv series that originate in the usa). When we do use the term in Europe, it is in relation to firing someone, not tackling them.
Reading the play, yeh, thats pretty commonly understood, even if not commonly used.
Tactile defence? I still don't understand this one I'm afraid, after your explanation I assumed it was a typo but then you kept spelling it the same. Tactile = using your sense of touch. Has nothing to do with tactics at all. I can understand how it might be applied to football (soccer) as some defenders basically hug the opposition strikers, both to physically block them but also to use their tactile senses to perceive movement (i.e. feeling when the striker is shifting weight). By, as American Football doesn't have this, I can't see how the term would be applicable (if its even a proper term). Starting in a lineup with a few feet between you and the opposition cannot be tactile.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
I know I'm sort of piling on here, but "sacking" is not a term in common usage outside the US. Certainly not used in rugby or football in europe (however, whilst we don't use the term at all, most english understand its meaning from watching movies and tv series that originate in the usa). When we do use the term in Europe, it is in relation to firing someone, not tackling them.
Reading the play, yeh, thats pretty commonly understood, even if not commonly used.
Tactile defence? I still don't understand this one I'm afraid, after your explanation I assumed it was a typo but then you kept spelling it the same. Tactile = using your sense of touch. Has nothing to do with tactics at all. I can understand how it might be applied to football (soccer) as some defenders basically hug the opposition strikers, both to physically block them but also to use their tactile senses to perceive movement (i.e. feeling when the striker is shifting weight). By, as American Football doesn't have this, I can't see how the term would be applicable (if its even a proper term). Starting in a lineup with a few feet between you and the opposition cannot be tactile.
Tactile would be a typo on my part, as I was using it in substitute for tactical and it simply failed to cross my mind. As explained by my use-case and description, though semantically tactile sort of works because they need to be effective at touch and go movement and not getting locked in the line of scrimmage unless they are trying to defend the pocket, my intent was to address tactical decision making processed around defensive play, not tactile.
Though, while american football does have a close lineup at the start of a match, that does not disable the use of tactile play, and the the fact that they make more contact with players on the line of scrimmage as a basis means contact and tactile feedback is a natural part of the play.
Granted, tactile defense as you described it would constitute a tactical decision making process. Making contact with the opposition to seize up certain players and halt a play/run, reading their weight shifts to know what direction they are moving or trying to juke towards, etc. Those are methods of gaining information and manipulating a play to your team's advantage, and even more so in a manner that allows for strategy over brute force.
As for the sacking thing, that would rather be part of my point. Unless someone is responding with the express purpose of being obtuse or truly lacks any understanding of sports (or is incapable of looking a word up), then they are going to understand such a phrase fine.
Besides which "sack" as a word predates sports in general and is a colloquialism in sports thanks to it's other verb usage;
"Plunder and destroy (a captured town, building, or other place)."
Basically, fancy way of saying you just decked the shit out of somebody at full-force.
Even if one didn't know sports, they should know "sacking" isn't gonna be about a brown bag, but more along the lines of the violent variety. And that is most certainly a phrase that people well beyond handegg fans should be aware of. So he really lacks any excuse for his statements or behavior.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I'm okay with cash shops and monetization of MMO's as they need.
However i'd prefer MMO's to go back to paid models instead of all F2P, better pay for a good game than having a game always struggling to keep a balance and constant revenue streams.
Then it would be the problems when the aggressive grind progression and lack of sense of accomplishment and any impact on the actual game-world that makes the experience be very much the same as every other MMO.
But thats just it...We werent getting good quality for the $15 a month anymore...It felt like a ripoff as the p2p games really werent any better than the free ones....I can still play EQ1 for example almost the same way as I did when it was $15 a month
I can do without middle earth/medieval stuff. Sheesh! How many LOTR/D&D knockoffs do we need. Say what you will about Wildstar, atleast they tried something sort of new. Though, overall the game was doomed. :pleased:
I have to chime in on the tank comments. Look the point of a tank to me, if I'm not a tank and we are playing, is to draw whoever's attention and debuff (hopefully). If the tank is too busy with bashing (attack points) versus buffing allies, deflecting damage,and holding enemies attention, then I don't need him/her. I've seen this before in games. If you want to play a warrior type and do damage then just make one. If you want to work with people and protect...make a tank. That's a tank imo.
The main issue I see with tanks is the aggro system. In PvP people intentionally ignore tanks and go after healers if the tank doesn't find a way to stop them. In PvE the tank magically ticks everything off and forces the enemy to focus fire the beefiest target.
I like tanks but would like to see tanks in a post-Aggro MMO world. Tank who instead of being given ways to increase aggro are given ways to punish the hell out of enemies that ignore them.
I think a great place to start considering how to do this is MOBAs. While I've never played LoL I know in SMITE you do not want to ignore the Guardian. Guardians excel at using clever tricks to protect and line up kills for their allies. A lot of CC / Movement Control etc.
While I've never enjoyed playing a tank in traditional MMOs I really love playing those kinds of tanks.
I guess in this day only specify ninche mmo market can survive if mmo try hit big public like olds mmo did ( hi wow / lineage 2 ) try do going fall so hard
In this days i dont like quest and leveling in any form Quests hubs / Chains quests i guess in my top list
Railroaded themepark design that ultimately ends up feeling like you're playing a single-player title. Especially with the tendency to encourage multiple characters and playthroughs. That main questline gets old really fast yo.
• Highlighted or outlined characters, items and buildings • Highlighted or marked pathways helping players find their way • Smashing items to find gold coins inside
1. Meaningless quests 2. Being able to solo content/ play the game solo 3. A personal story where I am the hero/saviour of the world 4. Free-to-play business models
Comments
And yup, the first implementations were really, really, really no-fun at all.
Hopefully, all games everywhere recognized them as a fun pit and modified them eventually(?)
When used as coc..., er, progression blockers they were definitely the worst. Using Massive Grind as a gating device, how Everquest.
2) Sandbox classes (Path of Exile I'm looking at you)
3) ALL, and I repeat, ALL JRPGs. They suck. Period.
-snakes dropping swords and shields
-90% of all vendors selling useless white crap
-questhubs
-streamlined worlds
Similarly "tactile defense" isn't rocket science, it's defense that relies on strategy instead of raw force.
"Reading the play" is again a reference that applies to and is used by a broad spectrum of sports.
So either you just are bad at sports, or you are intentionally pretending to not know anything in an effort to be pointlessly confrontational.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Yes I know Rugby did not originate in the U.S., it originated at the school of the same name in England. But the U.S. game is derived from Rugby, look it up.
Despite your explanation, tactile defense is still meaningless to me and again not a term I have heard used in describing football. Finally 'reading the play' is not something I have heard non U.S. commentators use, in any sport, however a quick search on line shows me it being used as a synonym for 'footy smarts' in an article on coaching in the Australian code ('reading the play' is used once 'footy smarts' is used five times). I suggest if it is being used it is only very recently and is as a result of creeping U.S. influence.
Am I being confrontational? Perhaps, but I am definitely trying to make a point. U.S. colloquialisms and English usage are often opaque and confusing to those of us in the rest of the world.
Respond if you like, I am done.
As for "reading the play", you obviously didn't do a good search since one of the first options on the list when I just typed it in was a handbook called "Reading the Play in Team Sports" which was another Aussie guide that never once mentions "footie smarts", yet repeats reading the play multiple times over.
Getting rugby right after I corrected you about everything prompting you to do a half-hearted attempt at searching up a couple factoids isn't going to save your argument form being nonsense.
Even your stance on "tactile defense" is painfully shallow. It's not even a standout term because it's one in a chain of "tactical systems" taught in sports, and yet you claim it's meaningless in the same token as you try to try to claim any familiarity with any terms. The tactical systems monikers comes from "real football" as you put it and is applied in reference to understanding a variety of game plays like the catenaccio.
Your argument would work if the terms in question were "US colloquialisms", but they unfortunately for you are not (as pointed out most all of them are either EU origin or some come from Aussie handbooks). It would have been better for you to simply say you don't know anything about sports since that's the only established fact that's been gained from this conversation.
Try to be honest next time.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Reading the play, yeh, thats pretty commonly understood, even if not commonly used.
Tactile defence? I still don't understand this one I'm afraid, after your explanation I assumed it was a typo but then you kept spelling it the same. Tactile = using your sense of touch. Has nothing to do with tactics at all. I can understand how it might be applied to football (soccer) as some defenders basically hug the opposition strikers, both to physically block them but also to use their tactile senses to perceive movement (i.e. feeling when the striker is shifting weight). By, as American Football doesn't have this, I can't see how the term would be applicable (if its even a proper term). Starting in a lineup with a few feet between you and the opposition cannot be tactile.
Though, while american football does have a close lineup at the start of a match, that does not disable the use of tactile play, and the the fact that they make more contact with players on the line of scrimmage as a basis means contact and tactile feedback is a natural part of the play.
Granted, tactile defense as you described it would constitute a tactical decision making process. Making contact with the opposition to seize up certain players and halt a play/run, reading their weight shifts to know what direction they are moving or trying to juke towards, etc. Those are methods of gaining information and manipulating a play to your team's advantage, and even more so in a manner that allows for strategy over brute force.
As for the sacking thing, that would rather be part of my point. Unless someone is responding with the express purpose of being obtuse or truly lacks any understanding of sports (or is incapable of looking a word up), then they are going to understand such a phrase fine.
Besides which "sack" as a word predates sports in general and is a colloquialism in sports thanks to it's other verb usage;
"Plunder and destroy (a captured town, building, or other place)."
Basically, fancy way of saying you just decked the shit out of somebody at full-force.
Even if one didn't know sports, they should know "sacking" isn't gonna be about a brown bag, but more along the lines of the violent variety. And that is most certainly a phrase that people well beyond handegg fans should be aware of. So he really lacks any excuse for his statements or behavior.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
However i'd prefer MMO's to go back to paid models instead of all F2P, better pay for a good game than having a game always struggling to keep a balance and constant revenue streams.
Then it would be the problems when the aggressive grind progression and lack of sense of accomplishment and any impact on the actual game-world that makes the experience be very much the same as every other MMO.
I can do without middle earth/medieval stuff. Sheesh! How many LOTR/D&D knockoffs do we need. Say what you will about Wildstar, atleast they tried something sort of new. Though, overall the game was doomed. :pleased:
I have to chime in on the tank comments. Look the point of a tank to me, if I'm not a tank and we are playing, is to draw whoever's attention and debuff (hopefully). If the tank is too busy with bashing (attack points) versus buffing allies, deflecting damage,and holding enemies attention, then I don't need him/her. I've seen this before in games. If you want to play a warrior type and do damage then just make one. If you want to work with people and protect...make a tank. That's a tank imo.
I guess in this day only specify ninche mmo market can survive if mmo try hit big public like olds mmo did ( hi wow / lineage 2 ) try do going fall so hard
In this days i dont like quest and leveling in any form
Quests hubs / Chains quests i guess in my top list
• Highlighted or outlined characters, items and buildings
• Highlighted or marked pathways helping players find their way
• Smashing items to find gold coins inside
2. Being able to solo content/ play the game solo
3. A personal story where I am the hero/saviour of the world
4. Free-to-play business models
I self identify as a monkey.