Bucks Won the Superbowl. Coach + Team Won the Game. Coach says, "GM deserves the Credit" What Coach really means is "The GM deserves the credit for listening to me, and doing what I asked to make this happen"
Arranging what the coach wanted may have been slightly more difficult than picking him up a candy bar while walking past the vending machine. It is quite possible the effort made was worth the praise given. Team effort isn't confined to the field alone.
It is worth the praise given, that is why the Coach gave it.
But, at the end of the day... Winning.. Is on the Field Alone.
Winning is a play with several acts, of which the field is the finale. Though the win comes on the field it doesn't start there and ongoing success doesn't end there.
Gonna disagree with you there, as Winning and Loosing, in a game of Football.. Starts and Ends on the Field.
Everything else, is either Prep for what will happen on the field Or dealing with the Aftermath of what happened on the field.
And while what you do for Prep might help you get the best chance to win on the Field, that does not change that the actual Winning and Loosing, happens on the field, and only on the field.
Vince Lambadi is credited with saying something along the lines of:
Football Is a game of 22 people on the field, and a ball, nothing else matters, not their owners, not their school, not their stadium, not their back up players, cheerleaders, uniforms, or anything else, when it comes down to it, it's just the 11 of you, vs the 11 of them on the field. and there is no 11 people we can't beat.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Its not the developers who are out of touch it is the businessmen who are in touch. Outside of indie, developers do not lead studios business professionals do.
That is why the Star Wars game that did not have a good enough GAAS was not given a green light, why Anthem was launched before new solo RPG's and it is not just AAA like EA, I would hazard any company that does AA is in the same boat.
Bucks Won the Superbowl. Coach + Team Won the Game. Coach says, "GM deserves the Credit" What Coach really means is "The GM deserves the credit for listening to me, and doing what I asked to make this happen"
Arranging what the coach wanted may have been slightly more difficult than picking him up a candy bar while walking past the vending machine. It is quite possible the effort made was worth the praise given. Team effort isn't confined to the field alone.
It is worth the praise given, that is why the Coach gave it.
But, at the end of the day... Winning.. Is on the Field Alone.
Winning is a play with several acts, of which the field is the finale. Though the win comes on the field it doesn't start there and ongoing success doesn't end there.
Gonna disagree with you there, as Winning and Loosing, in a game of Football.. Starts and Ends on the Field.
I'm going to regret this as I'm sure I'm misunderstanding your point.
I should think a team that doesn't practice or condition themselves at all would have effectively lost before entering the stadium. The idea that choices made well in advance of the game plays no role is... odd, to me.
If a coach decided to send a bunch of hobos in place of his team it is true, technically, that the loss occurred on the field but it is equally true that the technical loss was put in motion long before the game.
Preparation for a result is impactful. The final score is certification of the preparation.
Nice to see you didn't read the rest of the post, where I said:
Everything else, is either Prep for what will happen on the field Or dealing with the Aftermath of what happened on the field.
And while what you do for Prep might help you get the best chance to win on the Field, that does not change that the actual Winning and Loosing, happens on the field, and only on the field.
Since you missed that, either through not willing to bother reading my whole post, or deliberate misrepresenting my whole point by cherry-picking, I see no reason to waste time with this further.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Its not the developers who are out of touch it is the businessmen who are in touch. Outside of indie, developers do not lead studios business professionals do.
That is why the Star Wars game that did not have a good enough GAAS was not given a green light, why Anthem was launched before new solo RPG's and it is not just AAA like EA, I would hazard any company that does AA is in the same boat.
The businessmen are in touch with their role, which is to produce profit rather than entertainment. Just as developers can fail to make entertaining games businessmen can fail to make the most profitable choices.
In the case of both the hits more than make up for the misses so each continues to have a role to play in the games we play.
The problems is that they listen to the loudest group of people, the vocal minority.
Wildstar, that you quote in the OP, is a classic example, the hardcore raiders made this bubble of reality where the masses wanted gated hardcore raiding. Every time a dev tries to do something different (not necessarily better, just different) the vocal minority of people who just want the same shit every time will drown the devs forums in their screams.
NW was almost released as a FFA Full Lot PVP game just because of that, luckily the devs decided listening outside the reality distortion bubble.
Its not the developers who are out of touch it is the businessmen who are in touch. Outside of indie, developers do not lead studios business professionals do.
That is why the Star Wars game that did not have a good enough GAAS was not given a green light, why Anthem was launched before new solo RPG's and it is not just AAA like EA, I would hazard any company that does AA is in the same boat.
The businessmen are in touch with their role, which is to produce profit rather than entertainment. Just as developers can fail to make entertaining games businessmen can fail to make the most profitable choices.
In the case of both the hits more than make up for the misses so each continues to have a role to play in the games we play.
I tend to disagree with this.
What you are citing is basically the way Book Publishers work, where the publishers invests in some surefire hits, and these hits, fund them enough to take some risks, with the only wild card in the overall system being when the risks paying off big.
But with MMO's there is a whole different dynamic, entire Studio's have based their whole success off one game. Like For example, Verant Interactive who made EQ`1, their entire studio's survival and everyone's job, sat on that one game.
Turbine with Ashron's Call, if that game flopped the whole studio would have closed down.
Same with Arenanet, and GW1, that was their flagship game, if that has flopped, the whole Studio would have went under.
And right now we are seeing a huge number of Indi studios basing their whole success off a single game, like ArtCraft with Crowfall, Visionary Realms with Pantheon, etc, etc.
So their are a lot of people making these games that can't afford to crap out.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Its not the developers who are out of touch it is the businessmen who are in touch. Outside of indie, developers do not lead studios business professionals do.
That is why the Star Wars game that did not have a good enough GAAS was not given a green light, why Anthem was launched before new solo RPG's and it is not just AAA like EA, I would hazard any company that does AA is in the same boat.
The businessmen are in touch with their role, which is to produce profit rather than entertainment. Just as developers can fail to make entertaining games businessmen can fail to make the most profitable choices.
In the case of both the hits more than make up for the misses so each continues to have a role to play in the games we play.
I don't quite see it like that, business culture distorts the priorities of developers, good for the business, not gaming. But we can't get away from that, that's what we have to live with. More push back like against loot boxes is needed, but the basic dynamic between development and business know how is the only way a AA or AAA studio will stay in business.
Its not the developers who are out of touch it is the businessmen who are in touch. Outside of indie, developers do not lead studios business professionals do.
That is why the Star Wars game that did not have a good enough GAAS was not given a green light, why Anthem was launched before new solo RPG's and it is not just AAA like EA, I would hazard any company that does AA is in the same boat.
Echtra was led by experienced devs and yet managed to mess up the Torchlight franchise pretty badly. Their lead designer was a perfect example of someone trying to change the genre for the sake of making changes. Their CEO is Max Shaefer from D1, D2, TL1 and TL2 fame
NW was almost released as a FFA Full Lot PVP game just because of that, luckily the devs decided listening outside the reality distortion bubble.
Meanwhile, the developers keep pumping out steaming mounds of exactly the same thing because I guess the color-coded-ezmode-flagging-PvE-no-loot crowd looks across the hundreds of available titles and decides: No, THIS PvP title must be my new game. CHANGE IT NOW.
You've got it backwards, it's the developers who ask the PVE crowd what will it take to get them to play and pay for their new game to which the response will always be, remove the full loot, FFA PVP.
Developers have the choice to stick to their original vision, if they choose not to it's not the PVE gamers fault.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
NW was almost released as a FFA Full Lot PVP game just because of that, luckily the devs decided listening outside the reality distortion bubble.
Meanwhile, the developers keep pumping out steaming mounds of exactly the same thing because I guess the color-coded-ezmode-flagging-PvE-no-loot crowd looks across the hundreds of available titles and decides: No, THIS PvP title must be my new game. CHANGE IT NOW.
As part of the PvE camp, I totally can side with that
Sarcasm aside, it ain't common I believe. Pvp games are rather just ignored/avoided by the PvE camp, instead of change demanding rallies.
The other part is interesting though... I don't remember of it.
Neverwinter always had the PvE-heavy focus in design, that's exactly why it was confusing at Mod16 when Foss reasoned the addition of forced scaling with "focusing on the pvp scene" - Neverwinter barely has/had any.
(Ofc it was just a PR stunt, just as the promised new classes, etc., as time has proven it over the years.
Ok, not entirely, in the following two years there really was a new pvp map. Some focus... Lol.)
Sarcasm aside, it ain't common I believe. Pvp games are rather just ignored/avoided by the PvE camp, instead of change demanding rallies.
I doubt you go to a game's website, read how the game is full loot open world PvP, download the game, find that it works as described, and then spend months spamming the forums about how your civil rights are being violated by other players in the game, often using the same terminology that sexual assault victims use.
I have no problem with people wanting PvE in a game.
I've a huge problem with people who cannot read the $%^#! box.
I agree on people should read and accept what's on the box, I'm just saying the "spamming" side is really rare (at least I believe so).
Most just turn away when saw it's a game with full loot FFA pvp, and never look back. If anything, it's the opposite which is more often (logical, btw, since way more PvE games are there), the pvp crowd used to spam the forums about demanding changes.
Also, what Kyleran said. Devs (at least the less stupid ones, not like Funcom asshats killing TSW for chasing the action combat player's wallets) don't listen to forum yelling, they listen to data, and money.
Look at ESO, it started as (kinda) DAoC 2 with Skyrim skin, full-on pvp with a short PvE leveling section before the so-called "real game" starts in Cyrodiil.
World locks, race locks, faction defines everything for the sake of the glorified three-faction pvp.
And it slowly shifted over the years (the process started prior to launch even), to its current PvE-favoured state, and not because of forum warriors, outcries and demands, but due to player priorities and numbers what the devs saw and followed accordingly.
However, (this is where the nonsense comes in) we also live in a world with lots of full on PvP games that make tons of money as well. So if the argument is that PvP games cannot make money then that is taking the argument too far. PvP games have proven themselves time and time again.
That's true, and no argument on that. There really are a ton of pvp games.
The argument however is on pvp MMORPGs, which is a whole different ballpark. Besides of a short, few years long period between the MUD era and the Wow boom, pvp never was even close to PvE in popularity and player numbers.
(not to mention the whole root of RPG is meant to be cooperative, even if some bad apples tried to do character v. character back at the tables too - to the dismay of any decent GM)
In a sense the popularity of non-MMO pvp games just makes the situation even more dire for the pvp players of MMORPGs, since those other games syphon over the players which leaves our genre with a decreasing pvp playerbase.
(don't get me wrong, as a PvE player I've nothing against this trend looking at the empty Fury (AoC's pvp server) always makes me grin. I know, shadenfreude ain't a positive thing, but still...)
Two lifetimes in TSW? My condolences... I was lucky and could sell my lifetime at the time they've launched Legends.
TSW had a decent pvp side, kinda similar to LotRO, a separate zone walled off from the main world and basically no effect to the core game. It could be a nice standard for pvp in MMORPGs, imo.
Also, what Kyleran said. Devs (at least the less stupid ones, not like Funcom asshats killing TSW for chasing the action combat player's wallets) don't listen to forum yelling, they listen to data, and money.
I agree about TSW - I really loved that game (bought two lifetimes).
However, the money argument is what the PvE crowd always falls back to and it is total nonsense.
I'm not saying that money wasn't the driving excuse used by the developers, because clearly they'd have the data to back it up. I also wouldn't doubt that changing the rules may have very well saved their game - in that respect, the money argument has a great deal of real life examples that are totally valid.
However, (this is where the nonsense comes in) we also live in a world with lots of full on PvP games that make tons of money as well. So if the argument is that PvP games cannot make money then that is taking the argument too far. PvP games have proven themselves time and time again.
The problem seems to be when you try to cross a full PvP game with a MMORPG that has crafting and extensive PvE. People hate having their activities interrupted by PvP when they're busy trying to craft a leather bustier corset.
We're got over 20 years of MMORPGs and we cannot get past the lazy ass PvP flag? Seriously?
For some reason the developers seem incapable of:
1: Understanding the significant advantages of being an outlaw. 2: Coming up with balance mechanisms that counter that advantage. 3: Managing the expectations of the community. 4: Banning people who 'don't get it'. That is, persistent PvP assholes who harass in the game and PvE only assholes who harass on the forums.
I think the first developer to pull that off will do really well.
hmmmm You sound like just another intolerant gamer. You've just picked the pvp side.
You are dismissive of those people who enjoy crafting and even insulting, totally bypassing the reason why people enjoy crafting.
"you" (again starting with a "you") just perpetuate the same arguments round and round.
People who don't like pvp don't like pvp. Period. End of subject.
And the same could be said for pvp people. I met plenty of players in Lineage 2 who absolutely hated anything pve and all they wanted to do was pvp.
Games should be clear about their audience, they should cater to that audience and that's it.
Players should be responsible consumers and know what they are getting into.
I have seen developers create pvp games that just couldn't cut it and so they tried to add a pve server and still fail miserably.
One such game was (can't remember the name) that game where you actually make your own flying machine and you have a grappling hook that can pull you up to places.
They developers, from what I remember reading, said that they were not interested in pve only servers. Then when they realized their game wasn't pulling in enough people they tried to implement pve servers but too little too late on that front.
Now, their game might have failed because they just couldn't estimate how many players they needed or it could have failed because it wasn't a good pvp game.
So that's on developers, they need to know who their audience is (no matter the type of game) and realistically plan for how many players they actually need to support the game.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
So that's on developers, they need to know who their audience is (no matter the type of game) and realistically plan for how many players they actually need to support the game.
This is pretty much it.
I really despise people who keep bringing the complaint that PVE crowd are invading PVP MMOs every month. They always look at it only from their point of view.
They never acknowledge that often is the developers who claim they came out with a "REVOLUTIONARY" discovery on how they can make both crowds play together in harmony... and yet again it fails.
Comments
Everything else, is either Prep for what will happen on the field Or dealing with the Aftermath of what happened on the field.
And while what you do for Prep might help you get the best chance to win on the Field, that does not change that the actual Winning and Loosing, happens on the field, and only on the field.
Vince Lambadi is credited with saying something along the lines of:
Football Is a game of 22 people on the field, and a ball, nothing else matters, not their owners, not their school, not their stadium, not their back up players, cheerleaders, uniforms, or anything else, when it comes down to it, it's just the 11 of you, vs the 11 of them on the field. and there is no 11 people we can't beat.
That is why the Star Wars game that did not have a good enough GAAS was not given a green light, why Anthem was launched before new solo RPG's and it is not just AAA like EA, I would hazard any company that does AA is in the same boat.
Since you missed that, either through not willing to bother reading my whole post, or deliberate misrepresenting my whole point by cherry-picking, I see no reason to waste time with this further.
The businessmen are in touch with their role, which is to produce profit rather than entertainment. Just as developers can fail to make entertaining games businessmen can fail to make the most profitable choices.
In the case of both the hits more than make up for the misses so each continues to have a role to play in the games we play.
Wildstar, that you quote in the OP, is a classic example, the hardcore raiders made this bubble of reality where the masses wanted gated hardcore raiding. Every time a dev tries to do something different (not necessarily better, just different) the vocal minority of people who just want the same shit every time will drown the devs forums in their screams.
NW was almost released as a FFA Full Lot PVP game just because of that, luckily the devs decided listening outside the reality distortion bubble.
What you are citing is basically the way Book Publishers work, where the publishers invests in some surefire hits, and these hits, fund them enough to take some risks, with the only wild card in the overall system being when the risks paying off big.
But with MMO's there is a whole different dynamic, entire Studio's have based their whole success off one game. Like For example, Verant Interactive who made EQ`1, their entire studio's survival and everyone's job, sat on that one game.
Turbine with Ashron's Call, if that game flopped the whole studio would have closed down.
Same with Arenanet, and GW1, that was their flagship game, if that has flopped, the whole Studio would have went under.
And right now we are seeing a huge number of Indi studios basing their whole success off a single game, like ArtCraft with Crowfall, Visionary Realms with Pantheon, etc, etc.
So their are a lot of people making these games that can't afford to crap out.
Developers have the choice to stick to their original vision, if they choose not to it's not the PVE gamers fault.
The tail really can't wag the dog.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
You are dismissive of those people who enjoy crafting and even insulting, totally bypassing the reason why people enjoy crafting.
"you" (again starting with a "you") just perpetuate the same arguments round and round.
People who don't like pvp don't like pvp. Period. End of subject.
And the same could be said for pvp people. I met plenty of players in Lineage 2 who absolutely hated anything pve and all they wanted to do was pvp.
Games should be clear about their audience, they should cater to that audience and that's it.
Players should be responsible consumers and know what they are getting into.
I have seen developers create pvp games that just couldn't cut it and so they tried to add a pve server and still fail miserably.
One such game was (can't remember the name) that game where you actually make your own flying machine and you have a grappling hook that can pull you up to places.
They developers, from what I remember reading, said that they were not interested in pve only servers. Then when they realized their game wasn't pulling in enough people they tried to implement pve servers but too little too late on that front.
Now, their game might have failed because they just couldn't estimate how many players they needed or it could have failed because it wasn't a good pvp game.
So that's on developers, they need to know who their audience is (no matter the type of game) and realistically plan for how many players they actually need to support the game.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I really despise people who keep bringing the complaint that PVE crowd are invading PVP MMOs every month. They always look at it only from their point of view.
They never acknowledge that often is the developers who claim they came out with a "REVOLUTIONARY" discovery on how they can make both crowds play together in harmony... and yet again it fails.