WST -- Ill-conceived.


Arcanaville

 

Posted

Main features of the Alpha slot as I see.

The amazing new abilities to change your slotting and the level shift.

2 new TF's? Pfft.


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Girl View Post
A level shift is a nice bonus, but it's not really the main feature of the Alpha slot - that's the 2 new TFs.
TFs aren't a draw for me as I almost never have the time/opportunity to run them.
Discounting Quick Katies back in the day I can count the TFs I've run over nearly 7 years of gameplay on two hands.

I mean it's great they added some new TFs for the people who enjoy them, but IMHO the slot IS the content


The Nethergoat Archive: all my memories, all my characters, all my thoughts on CoH...eventually.

My City Was Gone

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toony View Post
So I basically got the exact same response I've always heard that made no sense. So the judgement slot will be obtainable solo because the rare slot is obtainable solo (really your first paragraph made no sense to me. They wouldn't need to make a new interface to require the judgement slot be locked behind a team oriented activity...)

I also never told you not to speculate. I stated that speculating the positive is no more valid than speculating the negative. I have plenty of evidence of the devs forgetting aspects of the player base (base builders, PVPers). You're essentially telling me to not speculate and just wait and hope my thoughts are read by the devs and I say no. The time to act is now, not later. Designs are not changed later, they are changed now.

You admit the level shifted stuff might stay behind a force team wall. ANY of this behind a wall is a problem. ANY of it. All level progression should be obtainable solo and if it is not, many of us will not be happy. You can find it wrong or whatever but that is my gripe and you've essentially admitted it might be true.

I find it incredibly unlikely that the devs would do the level shift and then not create any new content for those new levels. That'd be like if they made 40-50 but did not make PI or any content for over 40. Players aren't going to want to do the ITF when enemies are conning -10

As for what BS said. I'm sorry but he is a dev and he's the one who announced this crud. He basically gave us a PR line and ran off. I'm not pleased. If the devs want to shut me up they can come out and say "We are currently working on a solo option." if they do no wish to say that then they can deal with the outcry. It is not my job to make the devs feel like special snowflakes. They are employees at a company, not my buddies.

I don't feel neglected of end game content. I feel I am barred off from LEVEL ADVANCEMENT. That is what the level shift is to me as is new powers. I don't care about taskforces or raids or end game crud. I care about being able to advance. If the devs want to make some BAF raid, then good for them. But do not lock me from advancing because of it.

So at the end of your rant I just got a longer version of "I believe I am right even though I am doing exactly what you are doing. Speculating and assuming based on how I percieve the facts". Why is your speculation more valid?

There is no evidence against me. There is your own opinions (you like the WSF) and mine. Your opinions are no greater than mine or the homeless mans down the street.
My only point in the first paragraph was this - we can assume that the progression of the Judgement power is going to look similar to that of the Alpha slot because they have technology in place that makes sense (even if you disagree with how the upper tiers of that tree are unlocked; and that is NOT to say that I agree that soloers shouldn't have access to it. They should). So therefore I can only assume that as it stands right now casual players that CANNOT play TF's won't have access to some of the upper tier stuff right away at release. Which could change tomorrow.

Those are extrapolations from both existing content (which is extraordinarily friendly to causal gamers) and the devs stated design intent (which is that they want to be friendly to casual gamers). If either design intent or the huge wealth of existing content disagree that extrapolation becomes moot. Since they don't disagree, and we had a dev come and say they were investigating a way to make everyone at least content with the content (haha) I can only assume that if and when they make incarnate content for casual/solo players, they will also make sure that a way to obtain a level shift for said players will be in place.

I'm with you. I really am. I want the devs to not gate the content behind TF's only because, while I enjoy a TF, I don't enjoy it all the time on every character. Where I'm not with you is in your extrapolation that the devs have abandoned you and will forever keep you in your abandoned and sorry state. There is too much content and design that flat out disproves that they don't care about you, and you seem to stamp your foot down and flee to the extreme side of the arguement, which, frankly, is one of the things I hate most about the internet and about our society in general.

There are two extremes here: The hardcore casual players who take their casual playing seriously (heh) who believe that the devs have just pissed in their cheerios and will continue to piss in them throughout the year, and the hardcore whatever-the-heck-they-are who maintain that in an MMO there should be gated content. The issue is that there aren't just two sides to this argument (and, indeed, in many arguments), but a whole slew of them in-between. Where do I stand? I want them to make a way for casual/soloers to obtain a Notice, even if it's slower, but right now they clearly don't feel comfortable for whatever reason making it a non-TF reward. I am happy they released it and allowed some people a way to obtain a notice because otherwise it might have been much much longer for them to sit on it going nowhere. I hope, and I'll petition, for the devs to give us a way to obtain a notice casual, but if it comes down between the way their comfortable with now, or no way at all, I'd like to at least have the option now and figure it out later.

The devs have not abandoned you. In fact, up until now, all of the content released with Going Rogue was a casual players wet dream. It allowed a deterministic way for everyone to obtain a rare/valuable recipe in 4 days time; it allowed side switching in 4 days time, and access to new zones in 2. It provides a whole alternate leveling path in 6 new zones for levels 1 - 20. NONE of that is end game/hardcore/team content. Yet, save for a few malcontents that were relatively quiet, no one raged about the lack of endgame content right away. For the past several issues there have been a lot of attention payed to the casual player. Do you really think the dev team is going to say "Well, we've done enough for them, let's forget the exist!!!!!"? Because I don't. And insinuating or flat out saying that they are is disingenous at best and detrimental to your cause at worst.

And I know that there are two extremes and just in case if you're wondering why it seems like I'm picking on you, I'm not. It just seems that your extreme is, right now, a more logical position. It's also the more vocal.


"Be a beacon?"

Blue Mourning: lvl. 50 Katana/DA
Bree the Barricade: lvl 50 Stone/Axe
Last Chance for Eden: lvl 50 Fire/Kin
Myra the Grey: lvl 50 Bots/Traps
1 Minute to Midnight lvl 50 Spines/DA

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyV View Post
Wow, so 25% of the player base has such a debilitating social disability that they can't (note: not don't want to) participate in task forces?
Do you think, maybe, it might be just a tad more reasonable to read, process, and try to understand what you are presented rather than resort to childish ridicule?

If you're confused about something I said, feel free to ask. I'll be glad to try to clarify anything I was unclear on.


 

Posted

All else aside, forced teaming is bad game design and especially so in a game which has always promoted and prided itself as being solo friendly.

MMOs have a financial stake in being 'sticky', so yeah it's in their interest to encourage teaming and hopefully create communities of players. This game has so far done a good job encouraging teaming while very rarely making it mandatory.

There are plenty of things that're tedious to get solo but fairly trivial for teams. That's the incentive to team- you can get it yourself, but it's faster and easier on a team. There's less of a time investment, and as I'm fond of saying time is the only real currency in any MMO.

With as many examples of this design philosophy as we have in the game right now, I'm not sure why anyone would choose incarnate access for soloists as their hill to fight and die on. The community has many players who don't like to team, don't want to team and resent being forced to team- the reasons are irrelevant, they're here and they pay their sub like everyone else. So give them a slower, less efficient alternative to TFs they prefer not to run.


The Nethergoat Archive: all my memories, all my characters, all my thoughts on CoH...eventually.

My City Was Gone

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eiko-chan View Post
They're perfectly welcome to design their game to exclude 25% of their potential player base (probably more than 25%, because I suspect introverts are disproportionately gamers). I don't think it's a wise business decision, but they're perfectly free to make it.

And if they make it, I'll find somewhere else to spend my entertainment dollars. Why is this such a difficult concept for people to grasp?
Ok, I'll ask, because I am confused as to what you are saying here.

Which game are you talking about, and which 25% of the potential playerbase are you talking about?
And, rather more to the point, from where do you derive your numbers?

What change would you make in the game you are talking about to increase it's playerbase by 25% at a stroke? I ask, because presumably, if these players wish to play, but are being excluded by design decisions, they'd play if they could, yes?
And if not, what are you trying to say?


"Strength of numbers is the delight of the timid. The valiant in spirit glory in fighting alone."
- Mahatma Gandhi

Still CoHzy after all these years...

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tetsuko_NA View Post
Which game are you talking about, and which 25% of the potential playerbase are you talking about?
And, rather more to the point, from where do you derive your numbers?
A hypothetical game in which developers do not design to plan to account for introverted players. Approximately 25% of the population is introverted; this is just the aggregate number agreed upon by research. I spent a bit trying to find you a web page that says this explicitly, but couldn't (references I did find cited numbers such as "less than 30%".)

You may just have to take me on faith at this point that 25% of people are introverted (across all spectrums - not "of gamers" or "of Americans" - just 25% of all people.)

Quote:
What change would you make in the game you are talking about to increase it's playerbase by 25% at a stroke?
White Hot Flash makes the claim that the developers should not keep introversion in mind when they design their game, because introversion is an "excuse" (and he didn't state it here, but he has stated it elsewhere, is something you can "get over"; he claims to be a "reformed" introvert (as if one can "reform" their body chemistry)) for avoiding high stimulation activities like teaming and task forces. He suggests that the developers forget the preferences and comforts of their introverted players and just design the game for extroverts (which is all you can do if you decide to ignore introverts).

I was disagreeing with his suggestion, pointing out that excluding 25% of any potential player base (or existing player base) at the start is a bad idea.

Quote:
And if not, what are you trying to say?
I am not claiming they can increase their player base by offering legitimate options for introverts; I am claiming that they can potentially lose 25% of their player base by ignoring introverts.

Specifically, what I am saying is that if developers make a decision that the "end game" and top tiers of Incarnate abilities are only for people who team, who like teaming, and who like task forces - all inherently extroverted activities* - and decide that offering pathways to these that introverts would be more comfortable with - small teams and soloing - is a waste of their time and effort, they run the risk of alienating 25% (or possibly more, as I suspect introverts are a larger-than-normal part of the "video game player" population) of their current and potential future player base.

Um. Let me try that more simply.

Not offering solo options runs the risk of driving away introverted players, who are 25% of the population.

I hope that was clearer.

*Foot note! Introverts can and do engage in extroverted activities (all the time - we really have no choice, what with extroverts more-or-less calling the shots), they just feel differently about them. A typical extrovert, after finishing an exciting and action-packed task force, is likely feeling charged and peppy, ready to take on new challenges. A typical introvert, after the same task force, is likely feeling drained and ready for a break. Next week, that introvert might run the task force again - after they've had some time to recharge and prepare for it away from people and distractions.

Sub note: This took me half an hour to compose. The fact that I can take half an hour to write a post is a large part of why it's so easy for me to engage on the forums.


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eiko-chan View Post
*Foot note! Introverts can and do engage in extroverted activities (all the time - we really have no choice, what with extroverts more-or-less calling the shots), they just feel differently about them. A typical extrovert, after finishing an exciting and action-packed task force, is likely feeling charged and peppy, ready to take on new challenges. A typical introvert, after the same task force, is likely feeling drained and ready for a break. Next week, that introvert might run the task force again - after they've had some time to recharge and prepare for it away from people and distractions.

Sub note: This took me half an hour to compose. The fact that I can take half an hour to write a post is a large part of why it's so easy for me to engage on the forums.
Just to state something I think I said before, the extent to which you are taking introverted behavior feels a bit more like the abnormal/excessive side of the scale.

Introverted people engage in 'extroverted' activities not just because the extroverts force them to, but because we are social creatures. There are some real extreme introverts that do manage to forgo interaction entirely, but they are far fewer than the 25% of folks who test as introverts on a Myers-Briggs.

I personally test out as introverted (intj/intp depending on the test but that really shouldn't matter). And I actually do tend to enjoy group activities [raiding and teaming]. What determines if I am 'drained' after a raid is how well the raid went, and how long the raid went. My own personal experience may well be atypical, but your description of a typical introvert seems a bit off to me.

One note though, as many here can prolly agree, internet actions are also semi-anonymous and distant. As such, the extroverted activities aren't as extroverted as they would be in the 'real world'.

Not too sure what I'm really trying to get at here either.

Fun sidenote, video gamers do actually tend to be more extroverted than introverted, against the stereotype. [ http://www.marketingcharts.com/inter...n-gamers-6560/ ]

There are some neat studies about video gamers though, and mmos that are cropping up in the universities which should [hopefully] give some insight on the changing culture.


Let's Dance!

 

Posted

I didn't mean to imply that introverts only interact socially because we "have" to, and apologise for delivering that impression.

Also, introversion and extroversion are scales, so there's degrees to it all, and "a break" could, potentially, be as little as five minutes.

However, I don't think that linked studied proves anything about the introversion/extroversion of the population of gamers. That wasn't one of the attributes they measured - all it shows is that gamers are "social", which might imply extroversion, but does not necessitate extroversion (and the fact that a minority call video games a "family activity" implies the opposite.)


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eiko-chan View Post
Next week, that introvert might run the task force again - after they've had some time to recharge and prepare for it away from people and distractions.
So the WST system must be just about perfect for them then - one TF a week, and plenty of rest in between


@Golden Girl

City of Heroes comics and artwork

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Girl View Post
So the WST system must be just about perfect for them then - one TF a week, and plenty of rest in between
Aww, did you have to bring back winky GG? I liked the other one.


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eiko-chan View Post
Introversion is not social phobia, and it's not something to be fixed. Introverts are fundamentally, chemically, provably, scientifically different from extroverts. It's something we're born with. It's completely natural. There's nothing wrong with introversion.

We're just a minority (albeit a large one; introverts are about 25% of the population.)

I feel you are making a claim about psychology that is unnecessary to support your point. I agree with you that a sizable number of people probably do not enjoy teaming. However, I do not necessarily support your assertion that it is because they are hard wired to feel this way.

Teaming experiences are not identical game to game. Some people who love teaming in CoH may hate it in other games. The way the game is implemented has a huge effect on the acceptance rate of team-based activities as a whole. I don't think you could boil it down to something as simple as "introverts" versus "extroverts."

Using myself as an example, I am someone who is uncomfortable with open conflict (my board persona notwithstanding). I like to team in games where the activity is cooperative, basically pretty easy, and clearly demonstrates that you are always better off adding and including more players, because if reasonably well played, they can't drag the group down.

However, put me in an environment where there is PVP and I instantly shut down. I want no interaction of that kind whatsoever. Not only am I uncomfortable with the open hostility often displayed by PVP players, I suck at PVP. In 15 years of video gaming I don't think I have emerged victorious from a PVP encounter even one time.

However again, for about 7 years I role-played in a text-based game as a temperamental, country Cleric who moved to the big city and became its patron and protector. At some point during the saga of the game, a group of PVPers began holding arena matches in the city's cemetery. My character and several other Clerics were appalled, and took to preaching at them (they had an obvious tendency to die, and less obvious tendency to show up as mouthy corpses demanding that my character resurrect them). My character was attacked a couple of times by people who were upset about his insolence, but somehow it never became uncomfortable to me.

Meanwhile, teaming as such in that game was not that great. Because it was text based it was just too hard to see what was going on a lot of the time, so most of us soloed. On the flip side, there was a skill called Teaching that all Clerics needed, and you got it by being around other players who were willing to teach you (or you teach them). So we spent a lot of time around each other outside of combat. Sometimes talking, sometimes practicing other skills, sometimes gossiping about "deaders" who gave bad tips. And some Clerics would learn their Teaching without saying much at all, just using the rest of us as a means to an end, maybe roleplaying it as being "shy" or maybe not bothering.


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oedipus_Tex View Post
I feel you are making a claim about psychology that is unnecessary to support your point.
While I certainly will agree that the overlap between "introvert" and "doesn't like teaming" (or more specifically, "doesn't like Task Forces") is by no means complete, I was responding to someone attacking introversion specifically.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oedipus_Tex View Post
However, I do not necessarily support your assertion that it is because they are hard wired to feel this way.
Now, I am not saying you specifically are saying otherwise, but lest someone take this the wrong way: introversion is real. People really are wired differently, respond differently to different hormones, and utilise different areas of their brain primarily.

That isn't to say that everyone wired for introversion likewise dislikes teaming, or that everyone that dislikes teaming is wired for introversion. I am merely saying that introversion is an actual, scientifically provable neurological predisposition.


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eiko-chan View Post
Not offering solo options runs the risk of driving away introverted players, who are 25% of the population.
I can't agree with that. I mean, I'm not disputing that 25% number - I have no basis to support or dispute it. I just don't think that introverted people have that much of a problem playing with others in this game. I know a few people who are DISTRESSINGLY introverted in real life, but have no problem teaming in MMO's. On the other hand, I know someone who is extremely outgoing but just doesn't like teaming - not even with people he plays pen and paper RPG's with.

I don't think the introvert/extrovert spectrum is actually indicative of likelihood to team in an online game. Interacting online is just so different from interacting in real life.


Paragon City Search And Rescue
The Mentor Project

 

Posted

The devs do a lot of datamining to get gameplay stats and trends - the fact that the Incarnate system seems to be focusing more on team play than soloing seems to be a pretty big clue that their data feedback shows them that this is the way to go.


@Golden Girl

City of Heroes comics and artwork

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Girl View Post
The devs do a lot of datamining to get gameplay stats and trends - the fact that the Incarnate system seems to be focusing more on team play than soloing seems to be a pretty big clue that their data feedback shows them that this is the way to go.
Or they could've just read a memo from Corporate saying "We need endgame raiding just like the BIG MMO" and run with it but forgetting, in their haste, that the game wasn't like that in 99.9% of it's content

Ham-fisted kludging is not something "datamining" comes up with


There is no such thing as an "innocent bystander"

 

Posted

[duplicate post]


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Girl View Post
The devs do a lot of datamining to get gameplay stats and trends - the fact that the Incarnate system seems to be focusing more on team play than soloing seems to be a pretty big clue that their data feedback shows them that this is the way to go.
Deciding that certain rewards have to be awarded by teaming can be the result of either datamining showing a large portion of people teaming or datamining showing a large portion of people not teaming, depending on what the goal of the person looking at the data is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oedipus_Tex View Post
Where I mainly disagree with you is that anyone who is an "introvert" would automatically not like teaming in City of Heroes.
I don't claim a 1:1 relation between the two groups.

Nor do I claim Myers Briggs to be the basis of my claims about Introversion. They didn't invent it (Jung is the first to really explore the idea of an introvert/extrovert divide.)


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eiko-chan View Post
Deciding that certain rewards have to be awarded by teaming can be the result of either datamining showing a large portion of people teaming or datamining showing a large portion of people not teaming, depending on what the goal of the person looking at the data is.
I still believe that this has the fingerprints of "Game Design by Business Suits" all over it

Top-down, uncompromising, and defended to the stubborn teeth. All bad game designing decisions


There is no such thing as an "innocent bystander"

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eiko-chan View Post
While I certainly will agree that the overlap between "introvert" and "doesn't like teaming" (or more specifically, "doesn't like Task Forces") is by no means complete, I was responding to someone attacking introversion specifically.
Now, I am not saying you specifically are saying otherwise, but lest someone take this the wrong way: introversion is real. People really are wired differently, respond differently to different hormones, and utilise different areas of their brain primarily.

That isn't to say that everyone wired for introversion likewise dislikes teaming, or that everyone that dislikes teaming is wired for introversion. I am merely saying that introversion is an actual, scientifically provable neurological predisposition.

I don't disbelieve you, but it's a claim about a much broader subject that I can't explore too fully in the confines of a discussion about CoHs team features. Where I mainly disagree with you is that anyone who is an "introvert" would automatically not like teaming in City of Heroes. Some people who like it here may hate it elsewhere and be lukewarm about it somewhere else. Every type of interaction isn't weighted the same. Sometimes the interpretation of interactions even varies within the same game (e.g. "I like teaming but not with this group of jerks" or "I normally hate Task Forces but this one went great because no one died.")

As it happens, I am a teacher of adults, and I agree that there are some people who are very uncomfortable with group activities and the like. The flip side of this is that my company sells Myers Briggs type stuff and I think it's mostly astrology. The Skeptic's Dictionary has an excellent entry about MB here: http://www.skepdic.com/myersb.html


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eiko-chan View Post
A hypothetical game in which developers do not design to plan to account for introverted players. (snip - removing a lot of interesting and informational stuff that demonstrates we're not just pulling number out of thin air, which is very good indeed - )
So, we're not talking about City of Heroes, then.
Because, really, that's what I was confused about - why we're discussing this game that does not cater to introverts on the City of Heroes boards.
Given that the vast majority of content in this game is available to soloists, and the rest is available to people willing to team, and that none of it is gated by being in the top guild/SG, or having the exact mix of equipment, or running a single Raid dozens of times, or of kissing up to a specific Raid Leader, clearly, City of Heroes is catering very substantially to introverts.

Just not, to be precise, to those who find that the introversion is both specific enough and strong enough to prevent them from enjoying even infrequent teaming, and who simultaneously are unhappy enough about a very small amount of the game content that it prevents them from enjoying the rest of the (completely unchanged by the WST) content they had up until this time been enjoying.
I imagine that the Devs are of the opinion that the percentage of the playerbase hitting all three of these characteristics is extremely small. I have no way of knowing this myself, of course, but it has been proven to me time and time again that the Devs of this game know a heck of a lot more about running a successful MMO than I do, so I am willing to trust them on this one.

So to sum up, I trust your figures, I just don't find them relevant to this game.


"Strength of numbers is the delight of the timid. The valiant in spirit glory in fighting alone."
- Mahatma Gandhi

Still CoHzy after all these years...

 

Posted

I just don't like it when people insist that 100% of the game must cater to their play style. 97% of this game is soloable, but that's not good enough, is it? No, it must be 100%, no less, or else the game is so crappy, either it is going down the tubes or I'm going to ragequit. Screw all the hard work the devs have put into it in the past, screw all of the 97% that does cater to my play style, screw all those throngs of players lining up in the WST contact zones who are delighted with the update, screw the possibility (arguably likelihood) that there will be a way to solo it in the near- to medium-term future.

No, forget all that. Because I'm so incredibly petty that I can't spend a couple of hours out of the hundreds or thousands I play tolerating other people, or because of some weird line in the sand on some misguided principle based on some questionable at best perception of some "slippery slope" we're going down, I'm going to get all worked up because there's one reward in the game I want that I can't get 100% my way.

Now, don't get me wrong. Despite the ad hominem attacks on me, if you want to state your opinion that you don't like the WST idea, by gummy, go for it. I've actually heard and pondered the rational arguments in this thread, and I've come to the conclusion that they're simply not convincing to me for reasons I've already stated. If the devs provided some alternate way to get the reward, I really don't care, more power to them. However, if they don't, I'm fine with that, too, and I think anyone raging over such a decision, resorting to irrational demands and meaningless threats to leave is being extremely arrogant and childish.

For the more rational people out there, I will say this yet again. I have seen the exact "I can't get rewards/play style" arguments here applied to other rewards. It almost invariably arises when discussing how one must enter a PvP zone to get Shivans, nukes, and one of the Rogue Isles history badges. I've also seen it applied by badge hunters who don't want to do task forces.

Sometimes, I even empathize with those people. I don't like PvP. Still, I frequently venture into the PvP zones to get the rewards. Sometimes, I get my butt repeatedly handed to me, and that's not fun at all. Nevertheless, it's part of the game, it's not how I have to spend the majority of my time, so it's no big deal. (And believe me, getting those Warburg nukes can take me as long or longer than a WST task force!) And even though I don't like PvP, I've even played in some Arena matches now and then anyway, usually during some player-run event, just because once in a blue moon I'm in a funky "what the hell" kind of mood to do something different.

So please, to the QQers posting here, enough of the melodrama. The devs aren't out to persecute you. The game isn't going to die in the near future because of this. The vast majority of people love it, or at worst, are indifferent to it. Matt and Melissa aren't losing any sleep at your threat to quit. If you really are as miserable as you say you are, that's too bad, but I don't have any sympathy. It's a state of mind that you are choosing to be in, not the horrible injustice you're perceiving.

Now if you'll excuse me, this thread is officially boring now. I'm going to go do something more productive because these posts have gotten very silly.


We've been saving Paragon City for eight and a half years. It's time to do it one more time.
(If you love this game as much as I do, please read that post.)

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyV View Post
I just don't like it when people insist that 100% of the game must cater to their play style. 97% of this game is soloable, but that's not good enough, is it? No, it must be 100%, no less, or else the game is so crappy, either it is going down the tubes or I'm going to ragequit. Screw all the hard work the devs have put into it in the past, screw all of the 97% that does cater to my play style, screw all those throngs of players lining up in the WST contact zones who are delighted with the update, screw the possibility (arguably likelihood) that there will be a way to solo it in the near- to medium-term future.

No, forget all that. Because I'm so incredibly petty that I can't spend a couple of hours out of the hundreds or thousands I play tolerating other people, or because of some weird line in the sand on some misguided principle based on some questionable at best perception of some "slippery slope" we're going down, I'm going to get all worked up because there's one reward in the game I want that I can't get 100% my way.

Now, don't get me wrong. Despite the ad hominem attacks on me, if you want to state your opinion that you don't like the WST idea, by gummy, go for it. I've actually heard and pondered the rational arguments in this thread, and I've come to the conclusion that they're simply not convincing to me for reasons I've already stated. If the devs provided some alternate way to get the reward, I really don't care, more power to them. However, if they don't, I'm fine with that, too, and I think anyone raging over such a decision, resorting to irrational demands and meaningless threats to leave is being extremely arrogant and childish.

For the more rational people out there, I will say this yet again. I have seen the exact "I can't get rewards/play style" arguments here applied to other rewards. It almost invariably arises when discussing how one must enter a PvP zone to get Shivans, nukes, and one of the Rogue Isles history badges. I've also seen it applied by badge hunters who don't want to do task forces.

Sometimes, I even empathize with those people. I don't like PvP. Still, I frequently venture into the PvP zones to get the rewards. Sometimes, I get my butt repeatedly handed to me, and that's not fun at all. Nevertheless, it's part of the game, it's not how I have to spend the majority of my time, so it's no big deal. (And believe me, getting those Warburg nukes can take me as long or longer than a WST task force!) And even though I don't like PvP, I've even played in some Arena matches now and then anyway, usually during some player-run event, just because once in a blue moon I'm in a funky "what the hell" kind of mood to do something different.

So please, to the QQers posting here, enough of the melodrama. The devs aren't out to persecute you. The game isn't going to die in the near future because of this. The vast majority of people love it, or at worst, are indifferent to it. Matt and Melissa aren't losing any sleep at your threat to quit. If you really are as miserable as you say you are, that's too bad, but I don't have any sympathy. It's a state of mind that you are choosing to be in, not the horrible injustice you're perceiving.

Now if you'll excuse me, this thread is officially boring now. I'm going to go do something more productive because these posts have gotten very silly.
Tony, they're not going to give you a job. No matter how much you puff them up


There is no such thing as an "innocent bystander"

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigFish View Post
Tony, they're not going to give you a job. No matter how much you puff them up
Heh, I doubt they could pay me near what I'm making now. If I did ever do anything for NCsoft and/or Paragon Studios, it would likely be in a totally volunteer capacity, as sysadminning the Titan Network and Paragon Wiki is now.


We've been saving Paragon City for eight and a half years. It's time to do it one more time.
(If you love this game as much as I do, please read that post.)