Alliance based content

[Draylo]

So it was announced that the new Delve will be 6-18 man and an adjustment of HP accordingly, as noted here:

http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxi/threads/40554-Will-the-recent-Delve-changes-also-apply-to-the-new-Delve-II

My question is, what incentive is there right now to have a fully functioning linkshell when there is nothing to do with them that requires it? Why would I want to have 18 people for the new Delve when it is POSSIBLE to beat it (I know it will be, or why would they have included that adjustment to do it with 6 people) when I can do it with 6 people? Why do I drag 18 people into this content when I can clear it faster with 6 people with secondary characters and not have to split the loot at all? The loot is the same regardless of players entering, what sense does this make!? If this is going to be just like the adjustment to the original delve, like was said in that post, the rewards system wont be like Divine Might. There is 0 incentive to bring an alliance.

I've seen this once before and it was with Abyssea. This caused a splinter in all linkshells and pretty much destroyed them. So then after Adoulin came out we were forced to once again gather people up to do the original Delve because it was balanced around 18 people. Then you had everyone quit for XIV and come crawling back because its boring and the people who still had a linkshell are penalized for it.

My question is, will there ever be an incentive to do alliance based content that justifies having more than 6 people in our linkshells? Everything in this entire game can be 6 manned aside from VD Divine might. The new battles they have planned will probably all be 6 man as the originals were (Shadow Lord etc.) One event in the ENTIRE game that requires more than 6 people. This is an MMO?

Edit: Updated this post since its before Delve 2.0. Delve 2 heavily penalizes alliances and even bringing more than a handful of people. If you wanna include friends you can't unless its the strict job setup to get the win or you are looking at 68k+ HP per person. Why are alliances penalized for this when the rewards the same as the easy 6 man (or less considering you can trio it.)?

[Selindrile]

Why not make some new BCNMs 18 man content? Kirin/Behemoth/Fafnir/Adamantoise etc?

[Kimjongil]

If they made 18 man content I would hope it be like Divine Might 2.0. BUt not where you take in 18 people and have 16 rng melee one at a time while a super tank holds all others. The fight was boring. Two suggestions I do have.

1. The five WOTG formors with blue and white weapons, put them in a battlefield together.

2. The WOTG blu formors, Put all them in one battlefield together.

But make it so it is not just one super tank and melee pick one off at a time.

Or you could always do it legion style.

Wave one Divine might, wave two formor five, wave three WOTG formors.

Oh the fun

[Elphy]

Then you had everyone quit for XIV and come crawling back because its boring

Draylo just cant help but slam xiv every chance he gets lol

To quote a famous bard "The lady doth protest too much, methinks"

But I digress.

18-man content in this game is going away faster and faster and xi is basically being rendered the first solo mmo. But with numbers fluctuating and more often than not dwindling its no surprise they are making low man content a priority. The story is fantastic and some of the old endgame content was some of the best in the mmo-sphere (dynamis, salvage, einherjar, even nyzul was a hoot and so was mmm if you gave it a chance) but they have been broken down and/or reworked in such a way that its just not appealing anymore. Couple that with the poor ui, thousands of menus, silly lock out timers, etc and its not really a wonder that only the dedicated are sticking around and even they are starting to slip away. Plus who really wants to start building a weapon that's going to take months to well over a year sometime when you can just get a quick drop and move on, usually to a new game.

So the answer to why they did it is to just simply make it more accessible. It will be solo/trust friendly soon enough and then you wont even need 6 anymore. And like it or not xiv is the new money maker for se, not xi. So pleasing the few remaining by making accessible low-man content really is not a bad business plan. Just gotta roll with the punches if you have the insufferable urge to hold on.

[Selindrile]

Using that Shakespearean line here however is ridiculous, for Draylo would have no reason to hide his liking of FFXIV, if he had any like for the game.

And to say "XI is becoming the first solo MMO" is equally rediculous, many, many, more MMOs are far closer to such a thing, hell even XIV is closer to that than XI, though neither are remotely close to such a thing.

[FaeQueenCory]

Using that Shakespearean line here however is ridiculous, for Draylo would have no reason to hide his liking of FFXIV, if he had any like for the game.

And to say "XI is becoming the first solo MMO" is equally rediculous, many, many, more MMOs are far closer to such a thing, hell even XIV is closer to that than XI, though neither are remotely close to such a thing.
I do believe she was referencing how trust has killed grouping up for basically everything <99...
Which, in my opinion, is a shame... Because I've met most of my friends list via PUG xp pts... Cause that's when people are sociable.
Now... Everyone would rather compete and be dbags for whatever page mobs rather than loose those Trust supports....
Which could EASILY be rectified by making Trusts be able to be party fillers like Fellows.

[Draylo]

Draylo just cant help but slam xiv every chance he gets lol

To quote a famous bard "The lady doth protest too much, methinks"

But I digress.

18-man content in this game is going away faster and faster and xi is basically being rendered the first solo mmo. But with numbers fluctuating and more often than not dwindling its no surprise they are making low man content a priority. The story is fantastic and some of the old endgame content was some of the best in the mmo-sphere (dynamis, salvage, einherjar, even nyzul was a hoot and so was mmm if you gave it a chance) but they have been broken down and/or reworked in such a way that its just not appealing anymore. Couple that with the poor ui, thousands of menus, silly lock out timers, etc and its not really a wonder that only the dedicated are sticking around and even they are starting to slip away. Plus who really wants to start building a weapon that's going to take months to well over a year sometime when you can just get a quick drop and move on, usually to a new game.

So the answer to why they did it is to just simply make it more accessible. It will be solo/trust friendly soon enough and then you wont even need 6 anymore. And like it or not xiv is the new money maker for se, not xi. So pleasing the few remaining by making accessible low-man content really is not a bad business plan. Just gotta roll with the punches if you have the insufferable urge to hold on.

This game was founded on hard alliance content... a solo MMO is terrible lol. I didn't say it was wrong they made it 6~18man possibility, its wrong that they give the same rewards. What idiot thought that up? Why would you make it easier to complete a battle with 6 players and give the SAME rewards as the hard 18man fight? What MMO in the history of ever has done this? It makes absolutely no sense, you either give exclusive drops or more drops to the 18 man crew. They did it with Divine Might and then they take a step back and screw Delve up. The only reason you don't hear people saying anything about it is because they don't give a crap about 18 man alliance. They all quit and came back to the game and want everything handed to them in this age. They don't have the players anymore to make a linkshell because they screwed up or quit and abandoned those that they played with. My question to SE is, what incentive is there from this point onward to have a functioning linkshell? Are we going to strip down our numbers again just like with Abyssea and then have another content come out that requires us to repair our linkshells? Who isn't tired of doing that when they have been running an LS?

[AyinDygra]

I'm a returnee from just before the release of SoA. I play a monk primarily, from the early days of never getting invites unless the friends I joined the game with brought me along... took a year to get to 75. Had some of the best gear *I* could get (full Empy+2, epona, blackbelt, Taipan fangs, etc) when I left. I've always played Monk, even in FF1... 4 monks! FF5: 4 monks! ... I only really enjoy playing on Monk.

I come back, and my gear is useless, so I get Eminence gear... still can't get into shout Delve for wins, I only need 1, because if I got a win, I could solo-farm meywa plasm by those little shards you get from normal monsters in the fields... my linkshell is gone, friendlist is down to only 2 people, but they're not "friends" (friends of a friend... used to do Salvage/Dynamis with them)...

My schedule doesn't allow for regular play times setup beforehand. I play when I can play. I can't join any "Endgame" linkshells like this. I don't have the gear, I don't have the time. How does someone progress in an MMO that requires gear from content that requires large groups to get into content that allows smaller groups? Yeah, I'm stuck... no Delve, no Skirmish... I really REALLY hope they don't add more "Alliance-based" content, and I hope they add more ways to obtain gear that the playerbase will accept as "top-tier" that doesn't require an alliance, or even a party, given enough solo-effort and questing. (hey, just take the Tojil win requirement off of buying Oatixurs, and I'll gladly farm the plasma from using shards for 100-150 plasm per drop.)

The answer most people on these forums have been giving to other people has been: level whitemage or bard or corsair... alliances will take a naked one, no problem, and you can get your win that way! ... um, no. I hate those jobs. Last thing I want, is to have a job leveled that I hate, to be forced to use it for all the content I want to play on a job I like!


I also play Dancer to explore and solo missions (free sneak/invis/movement speed, solo survivability!), and Puppetmaster and Dragoon for fun (though I hate how this game handles pets in battles that matter... AoEdeath) These jobs don't seem any more welcome than my Monk to help me get it geared up.
I tried playing Samurai to help my small group out, but it was horribly undergeared compared to my Monk, and by the time it was 75, Sam needed Empy, and they wouldn't help me even get an Empy for my Monk, let alone Sam.

So, I for one, am glad for the death of Alliance-based content!
Bring on more Campaign and Wildskeeper reives, where I can join without asking somebody if I'm good enough for them to pick on their dodgeball team!
(yes, I still want an MMO... just not with all the restrictions players put on people!)

[Draylo]

Somebody has to play support jobs or the group won't succeed, 18man or 6man. If you don't have the time to sink into an MMO, you can't expect to be the best. You should be content with eminent gear and reforged AF, the low tier gear was created for players like you. The top end gear should be to the people who are most dedicated and are able to field the things necessary to win it.

[Mefuki]

The top end gear should be to the people who are most dedicated and are able to field the things necessary to win it.

So, you're saying there should be content in this game that people just can't do, not because of a lack of skill or effort they're willing to put forth, but because of how many people they know?

Granted, I do think it's strange that 6-man seems like it's going to have the same drop rates and such as 18-man.

[Draylo]

Why stop at 6 then? If these people can't muster the strength to create linkshells or parties within their play time, why don't we just drop all content down to 1~2 man so we can all duo it with our mules and trust npcs? How would you feel about that? Where exactly do we draw the line here lol. It should be obvious that a battle designed around 18 players is more difficult than a battle designed for 6 players. SE is allowed more freedom in monster strength when they know 18 players are going up against it instead of 6. The above poster refused to play a support job because he was a DD only meathead, why should they cater to people like that? He was probably one of those fail players that complained 24/7.

[AyinDygra]

Wow, wish my Dynamis Linkshell, Salvage static, Limbus static, and assault groups were still playing and posting, to back me up here... but I don't feel like defending myself against that... I'll just let my comment stand on wanting more Campaign, Besieged, Wildskeeper Reives, that allow anyone to join and be rewarded for their effort, without needing to join a massive linkshell and be forced to play jobs they don't like, when they want to do anything fun. (this game wouldn't be fun on a job I hate...)

That is all.

[Draylo]

Against what? When you refuse to come any type of support to any group you are a burden. People in groups should be flexible and rotate jobs to help everyone out. You think people like playing support jobs 24/7? They want to go DD sometimes too.

[AyinDygra]

Find people who like to play support jobs, so it's FUN for them when they play! They must exist...

... hey, even I like playing Dancer to be a healer/support... but nobody wants that. I'd play an item-based Chemist type healer, if they existed like in my Job proposal (ideal expansion thread)
... but I wouldn't force anyone to play a job they don't like. Bard is annoying to me... Corsair... can't stand random for drops, why rely on it for my job too? ... mages... more of a personal choice to never play a mage in any game ever... (I loved that Vagrant Story had a "never used magic" accomplishment!, beat FFXII without magic, beat FFI, FF5, with all monks (sometimes Dragoons, I like dragoons too, but not in FFXI, FFX, I put all my characters through the physical sphere paths, so Lulu's dolls were crazy strong!)

This game isn't a job... "take one for the team"... "be miserable"... not things I'd say. Anyway... enough of that. It's an MMO... find all those crazy people who like their jobs!

Defend myself from what? Burden, meathead, failplayer, complainer...

In my groups in FFXI, I've been an asset, not a burden. Did Dynamis twice a week for years (staying awake!) long after I got everything I wanted from it... Did tons of abyssea together, finished tons of empy+2 gear for the whole team. I joined a couple established static groups later in the content's lifespan, so I was playing catch-up on gear, so it may have felt like they were doing more for me than I had for them at some points... (never finished my Usukane... they finished all their gear early, and just gave up on the event when better gear was released, and didn't want to do more to get my last 2 pieces to finish 2 pieces) but I can't really force anyone to play content they don't want to, now can I? Not fun, ok. I'm probably going to go solo those pieces to finish them up soon, just for the completionist in me.

So... anyway...

[Mirage]

I think in the events where you can choose between 6 or 18 people (or anything in between), players should be able to get the same items no matter which version they choose, but that item drop rates should be higher in the 18 man version, simply because there's more people competing for the same items. An item with a 20% drop rate when fighting the alliance version shouldn't have more than around 5-6% drop rate in a single party version. Of course, if you choose to attempt on the version that is intended for 18 people with less than 18 people, you shouldn't be penalized for that, but instead get the same high drop rate split among fewer people.

[Mefuki]

Post #15

Agreed. Monster statistics, reward quantity and drop rate should simply be on a sliding scale with how many people you choose to bring to that content.

[Selindrile]

I do believe she was referencing how trust has killed grouping up for basically everything <99...
Which, in my opinion, is a shame... Because I've met most of my friends list via PUG xp pts... Cause that's when people are sociable.
Now... Everyone would rather compete and be dbags for whatever page mobs rather than loose those Trust supports....
Which could EASILY be rectified by making Trusts be able to be party fillers like Fellows.

Oh I agree, and I wish group exp rewards would change significantly to encourage grouping more however, if you think that makes FFXI more a "solo-oriented MMO" than a laundry list of others, including 14, you're delusional.

[Camiie]

So it was announced that the new Delve will be 6-18 man and an adjustment of HP accordingly, as noted here:

http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxi/threads/40554-Will-the-recent-Delve-changes-also-apply-to-the-new-Delve-II

My question is, what incentive is there right now to have a fully functioning linkshell when there is nothing to do with them that requires it? Why would I want to have 18 people for the new Delve when it is POSSIBLE to beat it (I know it will be, or why would they have included that adjustment to do it with 6 people) when I can do it with 6 people? Why do I drag 18 people into this content when I can clear it faster with 6 people with secondary characters and not have to split the loot at all? The loot is the same regardless of players entering, what sense does this make!? If this is going to be just like the adjustment to the original delve, like was said in that post, the rewards system wont be like Divine Might. There is 0 incentive to bring an alliance.

With the implementation of item levels they had the perfect opportunity to differentiate between "Normal" and Heroic" difficulty modes or "Dungeons" (party) and "Raids" (Alliance). Yeah I'm using WoW terminology, because I can't bear to agree with you without also getting your goat, but I digress. They could have had 6-man delve drop gear in the 115-117 range and have 18-man drop all 118-120. That's probably not as big a gap as you might hope for, but it would differentiate the content without totally alienating small parties. The gear from the 6-man version would have to be of a caliber that would allow the participants to step up to the alliance version. You have to have some sort of progression between the two. I guess all that would have been too much work though.


I've seen this once before and it was with Abyssea. This caused a splinter in all linkshells and pretty much destroyed them. So then after Adoulin came out we were forced to once again gather people up to do the original Delve because it was balanced around 18 people. Then you had everyone quit for XIV and come crawling back because its boring and the people who still had a linkshell are penalized for it.

In my case I was in a shell where the leadership decided they would just 3-man everything for themselves and left the rest of us to our own devices with a lot of excuses. The ties of friendship and trust that were forged through the previous 18-man only content proved to be extremely weak, so I guess you do have to force people to tolerate each other. God forbid that people would be social and helpful in an MMO without being forced to do so. “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.” But it is what it is I suppose.

[FaeQueenCory]

Oh I agree, and I wish group exp rewards would change significantly to encourage grouping more however, if you think that makes FFXI more a "solo-oriented MMO" than a laundry list of others, including 14, you're delusional.
?_?
I don't understand your last statement...
How does favoring single player gameplay (at least from 1-99) not make something "solo-oriented"?
Cause.... That's kinda the definition... Of those words...

And Camiie, you basically described the functions of the WKRs.

[Camiie]

WKRs are free-for-all world bosses. Technically it's group content, but there's no coordination or teamwork except by happenstance. There are many people in the same place with the same purpose, but all acting individually. That's not the same sort of content Delve is. Delve involves planning and communication. Comparing WKR to Delve is like comparing rush hour pedestrians to a marching band in a parade.

[Selindrile]

?_?
I don't understand your last statement...
How does favoring single player gameplay (at least from 1-99) not make something "solo-oriented"?
Cause.... That's kinda the definition... Of those words...

And Camiie, you basically described the functions of the WKRs.

I also used the word "more", let me put it this way, on FFXI, when I'm doing any sort of content, I'm in a group of some type over 50% of the time.

In WoW it was probably about 30% of the time, XIV probably more like 25%, I will say there are some MMOs that are more group oriented ones though, I was probably in a group in Neverwinter over 70% of the time.

At any rate, I stand by the statement that FFXI isn't a solo-oriented MMO, the most efficient way of meriting at 99 is yes, solo with trust (And the ONLY reason that this is is because I only can store 30 merits, if I could store 500, abyssea would be the better meriting spot in an alliance, but you use so much time building up chain and lights in an alliance, it makes it less efficient when meriting for only 300k xp total, if I needed more exp, Aby parties would blow trust soloing away). But at lower levels, grouping and doing GoV pages or levelling in abyssea is still more efficient, and for gear options, group activities are almost always more efficient than solo ones.

Trust definitely made me lean towards soloing more for merits, but that's the only activity it changed, and I hope when they allow the use of Trust in groups and that they will change exp so that's no longer the case, but even with trust how it is, it's not nearly enough of a change for me to consider FFXI a "solo-oriented MMO" by any means.

[FaeQueenCory]

It's a LOT different on Odin than it is on Fenrir it seems.
Because there are no GoV exp parties anymore.
And ever since Trust hit, from 1-75 had been 99.999% solo.
At least on Odin.

It's actually the other way around from my experiences:
1-75 solo
99 party randomly like before Trust.
(I don't abyburn because I don't want to have to spend months ungimping my lv30 stats at 99.)

So your argument of "well it's this way for me" just doesn't really hold water.
Now, if you then support your argument with "this is what I see on SERVER" then you have some credence...
And on Odin, there are no GoV parties anymore. You're more likely to find a Valkrum Dune exp party.
On Odin it's Trust-solo until whenever you want to go to abyssea.
There's actually not a whole lot of "sorry I'm using Trusts" on Odin at 99... Cause the Trusts kinda suck compared to real people... So I see a lot more of people dumping Trusts to party at 99... And I see a lot more "no rather solo" at <99.

Maybe it's different on Fenrir, but partying before 99 is dead on Odin.

And I've never argued that this makes FFXI a solo oriented game....
But it DOES make it a MORE solo oriented game.
(Do people just no comprehend the meaning or comparatives? Jesus Christ... More =/= absolute)
If Trusts worked like Fellows, then everything would be normal.
But with the Trust function demanding solo play to be used, that gives incentive to play solo, thus making the game's experience MORE solo-oriented.

Making Trusts solo only was fine until the bugs for partying were worked out... But to always have it that way is just stupid.
Making them partyable allows for a person to play solo if they wish, and for random people to party together and not lose anything.
In other words: everyone benefits from such a change 100%.

[Selindrile]

There are still GoV parties here, reguardless, even if there actually are none on your server anymore, you can't argue that it's not still more efficient to GoV rather than solo with trust at least by the way the system works.

And that seems very odd to me that at 99 people are more willing to party, because while yes, players are stronger than trusts, for raw exp, other players don't make up the lower percentage of exp per kill they remove for grouping, as I said, if there were locations that were more optimal for grouping, this wouldn't be the case, but it's the way it is at the moment.

Also, I can assure you if you factored in Abyssea, I'm sure 1-75 is not 99.99999% solo for most people, so your argument of "well it's this way for me" just doesn't really hold water.

Also, I dunno about you but most people have the capability of levelling 30-99 in abyssea and then capping skills well before they could've levelled from 30-99 outside of abyssea while capping their skills but I'll cede that capping skills while already at 99 is a more boring endeavor, to each their own.


?_?
I don't understand your last statement...
How does favoring single player gameplay (at least from 1-99) not make something "solo-oriented"?
Cause.... That's kinda the definition... Of those words...
This sounds like an absolute, there is no use of the word more or anything comparative.



"And I've never argued that this makes FFXI a solo oriented game....
(Do people just no comprehend the meaning or comparatives? Jesus Christ... More =/= absolute)

My argument was comparative through and through, it sounded as though yours was not.

With the existance of GoV and Abyssea, FFXI as a system itself does not favor or reward single player gameplay over multiplayer for experience, though some players, like yourself eschew these options. And it never really has been terribly solo oriented for gear.

All that said, I do agree we should be able to use trust in a group, and also think that group exp penalty should be lessened to encourage grouping, I just took issue with the exact things you said.

[saevel]

Somebody has to play support jobs or the group won't succeed, 18man or 6man. If you don't have the time to sink into an MMO, you can't expect to be the best. You should be content with eminent gear and reforged AF, the low tier gear was created for players like you. The top end gear should be to the people who are most dedicated and are able to field the things necessary to win it.

Unfortunately MMO's don't work that way. The "high end" players don't contribute enough financially to justify keeping the servers going, it's the casual players that are actually footing the bill for the game's development. Creating content that they are, by design, locked out of is not only ethnically wrong but will eventually result in a loss of total subscriptions and money. There should never be any content / reward that is out of reach of casual players. The separator between "hard core" and "casual" should not be the gear that is obtainable but rather the speed at which it's obtained. Hard core folk will simply get the gear faster then the casual players, but the casual players should still have the chance at obtaining that gear, provided they put in the time. This is one are that SE is really struggling with, they can't seem to find a balance with accessibility and are really afraid of allowing gear from hard event A to become accessibly through easy event B at a much slower rate. Abyssea was the closest they got to getting it right, casual players could still get their stuff eventually, hard core folks with plenty of time and access to lots of resources would have it done much faster.

If every "hard core" player in FFXI quit tomorrow, the game could easily continue on and the developers would end up adjusting it down. If every "casual" player quit tomorrow, the game would shut down within a month. That is how little hard core players actually matter to non-competitive MMO's.

[saevel]

Agreed. Monster statistics, reward quantity and drop rate should simply be on a sliding scale with how many people you choose to bring to that content.

Unfortunately that's not how the difficulty works on Delve. NM's have less HP but their other stats remain the same, they still hit just as hard and require just as much attack / acc to hit cap. This results in 6 man being much harder then 18 man. In a 18 member run you can bring 2 NQ BRD's which are easy to find and require no time consuming gear along with 2 COR's. You rotate them for four songs and four rolls on each of your six DD's. You'll be using Dia III and / or Geo debuffs to compensate for the NQ BRD's with an extra slot or two to spare. Go to six man and now your down to three DD's each receiving two songs (assuming WHM BRD SCH) if you bring one of those same NQ BRD's. You won't be having as many debuffs and your stunner won't have another person to share recast timers with. This results in your damage being cut by far more then the HP of the NM's and you end up having to be really picky who you bring, only top end people who already have all the gear that drops. The MNK's your bringing to Tojil better already have the knuckles that drop from Tojil, and any other DD's your bring also need the best respective weapons.

That is something lots of people don't realize and why so many are failing on the six man. If you have a bunch of folks that need the KI, put together a 18 man run and win / farm plasm that way. A six man group can take one weak member and only if they have COR leveled.

[AppropriateName5786]

My question is, what incentive is there right now to have a fully functioning linkshell when there is nothing to do with them that requires it? Why would I want to have 18 people for the new Delve when it is POSSIBLE to beat it (I know it will be, or why would they have included that adjustment to do it with 6 people) when I can do it with 6 people? Why do I drag 18 people into this content when I can clear it faster with 6 people with secondary characters and not have to split the loot at all? The loot is the same regardless of players entering, what sense does this make!? If this is going to be just like the adjustment to the original delve, like was said in that post, the rewards system wont be like Divine Might. There is 0 incentive to bring an alliance.

The answer to all of the above questions is clearly, "No one knows! Why the heck ARE you doing that to yourself?" These are all leading questions and hardly deserve a serious response from the development team. Besides, a linkshell with only six people in it is fully functioning. I'm not sure how you came up with the strange idea that only a linkshell with 18 or more members is "fully functional."


I've seen this once before and it was with Abyssea. This caused a splinter in all linkshells and pretty much destroyed them. So then after Adoulin came out we were forced to once again gather people up to do the original Delve because it was balanced around 18 people. Then you had everyone quit for XIV and come crawling back because its boring and the people who still had a linkshell are penalized for it.

The fact that linkshells broke up so readily was a testament to how much people hated being in them. After all, if you didn't have to deal with 17 a--holes to accomplish something fun and worthwhile, why would you force yourself to? There was a general reluctance to get back into large linkshells when Delve was released, but it had to be done to make things easier. As someone who plays several highly desired support jobs I've seen my fair share of endgame linkshells. I don't think I'm the only one who has noticed that all of the big ones are, without exception, really just a loose collection of small cliques who would break away in the blink of an eye if alliance content didn't give the best rewards anymore.


My question is, will there ever be an incentive to do alliance based content that justifies having more than 6 people in our linkshells? Everything in this entire game can be 6 manned aside from VD Divine might. The new battles they have planned will probably all be 6 man as the originals were (Shadow Lord etc.) One event in the ENTIRE game that requires more than 6 people. This is an MMO?

What part of an MMO says that you have to play with 17 others to get anything done? If you have more than 6 friends in the game and you play with them often, isn't that enough "justification" to have more than 6 people in your linkshell? Isn't the ability to interact with everyone on your server, group up with anyone, participate in WKRs with anyone, quest with your friends/anyone, and compete for mobs/NMs with everyone what defines an MMO and what single-player games lack?

I personally hope they never make content as dead-on-arrival as Legion again.

[Mefuki]

This is one are that SE is really struggling with, they can't seem to find a balance with accessibility and are really afraid of allowing gear from hard event A to become accessibly through easy event B at a much slower rate.


...you end up having to be really picky who you bring, only top end people who already have all the gear that drops. The MNK's your bringing to Tojil better already have the knuckles that drop from Tojil, and any other DD's your bring also need the best respective weapons.

Indeed, both major problems. SE seemed to get the former correct with revamped AF/Relic. Collecting Chapters in these different ways was a really great idea. I'm totally OK with the idea of taking much longer then people with connections. So long as I can actually make progress and I'm not just told, "Oh, you don't know X person or Y people? Well, you can't do it". Because the issue here isn't that I don't want to put in effort (I slowly grinded gil for 2 months everyday to get enough to buy my HMP last year), it's that I want to actually play the game: Without being told to wait 2+ hours before I can start making progress or that I'm just not allowed to have X gear because I don't really know certain people in game.

Basically, this:


The separator between "hard core" and "casual" should not be the gear that is obtainable but rather the speed at which it's obtained.

[detlef]

If every "hard core" player in FFXI quit tomorrow, the game could easily continue on and the developers would end up adjusting it down. If every "casual" player quit tomorrow, the game would shut down within a month. That is how little hard core players actually matter to non-competitive MMO's.I don't necessarily disagree with the basic point of your post, but I want to point out a typical hard core player very likely pays for more accounts and mules and is much less likely to deactivate any account(s) on a whim. Using myself as an example, between my GF and myself we have 4 accounts with dozens of mules. I personally haven't ever deactivated for ten years.

While I agree that SE should always keep casual players in mind, losing the hardcore players (and hardcore is a subjective term) would have more of a significant impact than you imply. With that said, I'm happy with the direction and current state of the game. My only current frustrations are the end of double XP, the apparently huge time sink of job points, and Ark Angel congestion.

[Draylo]

Unfortunately MMO's don't work that way. The "high end" players don't contribute enough financially to justify keeping the servers going, it's the casual players that are actually footing the bill for the game's development. Creating content that they are, by design, locked out of is not only ethnically wrong but will eventually result in a loss of total subscriptions and money. There should never be any content / reward that is out of reach of casual players. The separator between "hard core" and "casual" should not be the gear that is obtainable but rather the speed at which it's obtained. Hard core folk will simply get the gear faster then the casual players, but the casual players should still have the chance at obtaining that gear, provided they put in the time. This is one are that SE is really struggling with, they can't seem to find a balance with accessibility and are really afraid of allowing gear from hard event A to become accessibly through easy event B at a much slower rate. Abyssea was the closest they got to getting it right, casual players could still get their stuff eventually, hard core folks with plenty of time and access to lots of resources would have it done much faster.

If every "hard core" player in FFXI quit tomorrow, the game could easily continue on and the developers would end up adjusting it down. If every "casual" player quit tomorrow, the game would shut down within a month. That is how little hard core players actually matter to non-competitive MMO's.

MMO's do work that way, what are you smoking? If you look at any MMO, the people who play two hours a week don't have the best gear in the game. I'm not sure how you can think otherwise, its clear as day. If you play with such little playtime, you shouldn't need to have the best gear in the game. This has been true for almost any MMO I've ever played, even FFXIV where you need ilevel gear to even enter some of the instances to do the fights. You can work towards the gear in FFXI just like the others though, even with minimal play time but it takes a lot longer. There are shouts for Delve all the time, and plenty of people who sell the wins to others where you can buy one and use the items mobs drop in the field to obtain plasm. None of the content in this game is out of reach of players, NONE, it is simply an issue of laziness or unwillingness to participate. How is it my problem that you have two hours a week to play? Why should I be penalized with dumbed down easy content just so you can obtain it? One guy even posted he doesn't have a win because he is a DD meathead who refuses to play support to help a party. Catering to people like that is ridiculous. I also think you are quite wrong about the hardcore players. If you haven't noticed, this game has a very niche userbase and the sub numbers aren't exactly super high. If all the hardcore players quit, I doubt you would have a game left.

[Draylo]

The answer to all of the above questions is clearly, "No one knows! Why the heck ARE you doing that to yourself?" These are all leading questions and hardly deserve a serious response from the development team. Besides, a linkshell with only six people in it is fully functioning. I'm not sure how you came up with the strange idea that only a linkshell with 18 or more members is "fully functional."



The fact that linkshells broke up so readily was a testament to how much people hated being in them. After all, if you didn't have to deal with 17 a--holes to accomplish something fun and worthwhile, why would you force yourself to? There was a general reluctance to get back into large linkshells when Delve was released, but it had to be done to make things easier. As someone who plays several highly desired support jobs I've seen my fair share of endgame linkshells. I don't think I'm the only one who has noticed that all of the big ones are, without exception, really just a loose collection of small cliques who would break away in the blink of an eye if alliance content didn't give the best rewards anymore.



What part of an MMO says that you have to play with 17 others to get anything done? If you have more than 6 friends in the game and you play with them often, isn't that enough "justification" to have more than 6 people in your linkshell? Isn't the ability to interact with everyone on your server, group up with anyone, participate in WKRs with anyone, quest with your friends/anyone, and compete for mobs/NMs with everyone what defines an MMO and what single-player games lack?

I personally hope they never make content as dead-on-arrival as Legion again.

I think you misread my post. I enjoy leading an LS with more than 6 people. The battles that are designed around 18 members are allowed to be more diverse and difficult than 6 man, that is a fact. We all don't live in fairytale land, 18 people aren't all going to get along with each other 24/7. People hate work or having to share, its human nature. Does that mean we should dumb all content down so we can do it with our trust npcs? Why is it so hard to understand some people like content that is difficult and requires an alliance which allows for more complex battles? My question was, is there a point to continuing an LS or can we just stick with 6~9 people for future events. They keep going back and forth between the two and it sucks.

[Draylo]

Indeed, both major problems. SE seemed to get the former correct with revamped AF/Relic. Collecting Chapters in these different ways was a really great idea. I'm totally OK with the idea of taking much longer then people with connections. So long as I can actually make progress and I'm not just told, "Oh, you don't know X person or Y people? Well, you can't do it". Because the issue here isn't that I don't want to put in effort (I slowly grinded gil for 2 months everyday to get enough to buy my HMP last year), it's that I want to actually play the game: Without being told to wait 2+ hours before I can start making progress or that I'm just not allowed to have X gear because I don't really know certain people in game.

Basically, this:

I have no idea what you mean by "you don't know x or y person"? Are you trying to say that if you don't know specific people you are locked out of content? That is hardly true, you can do anything in this game lol. You just need to put forth the effort in getting the people together, which is something people like you don't do. Then you blame it on game design because you can't participate when that is your own doing. Of course you don't want to put in effort, you are the type of player holding this game back. This isn't WoW and obviously SE didn't intend it to be that, they did that with XIV.

[saevel]

I don't necessarily disagree with the basic point of your post, but I want to point out a typical hard core player very likely pays for more accounts and mules and is much less likely to deactivate any account(s) on a whim. Using myself as an example, between my GF and myself we have 4 accounts with dozens of mules. I personally haven't ever deactivated for ten years.

While I agree that SE should always keep casual players in mind, losing the hardcore players (and hardcore is a subjective term) would have more of a significant impact than you imply. With that said, I'm happy with the direction and current state of the game. My only current frustrations are the end of double XP, the apparently huge time sink of job points, and Ark Angel congestion.

You really gotta understand game demographics. "Hard core" players account for less then 5%, typically ~2% of a MMO's subscription base. So even if every one of them had two accounts, the casual players still dwarf them in financial contributions. It's a separator of time not effort (too many people confuse the two).

[saevel]

MMO's do work that way, what are you smoking? If you look at any MMO, the people who play two hours a week don't have the best gear in the game. I'm not sure how you can think otherwise, its clear as day. If you play with such little playtime, you shouldn't need to have the best gear in the game. This has been true for almost any MMO I've ever played, even FFXIV where you need ilevel gear to even enter some of the instances to do the fights. You can work towards the gear in FFXI just like the others though, even with minimal play time but it takes a lot longer. There are shouts for Delve all the time, and plenty of people who sell the wins to others where you can buy one and use the items mobs drop in the field to obtain plasm. None of the content in this game is out of reach of players, NONE, it is simply an issue of laziness or unwillingness to participate. How is it my problem that you have two hours a week to play? Why should I be penalized with dumbed down easy content just so you can obtain it? One guy even posted he doesn't have a win because he is a DD meathead who refuses to play support to help a party. Catering to people like that is ridiculous. I also think you are quite wrong about the hardcore players. If you haven't noticed, this game has a very niche userbase and the sub numbers aren't exactly super high. If all the hardcore players quit, I doubt you would have a game left.

Unfortunately your quite wrong here. Successful MMO's are successful because they make content accessible. Notice I said content and not rewards, this is because rewards are a result of content participation. Two players participating in the same content should expect the same reward, the difference between hard core and casual then becomes one of time. The hard core player has more time to devote to the game and thus can acquire rewards faster then the casual player who acquires the same rewards only at a much slower pace. This is a pattern seen in many successful MMO's. You release content A, the hard core players tackle and engage the content soon after release and develop an effective strategy, sooner rather then later they complete the content and acquire the rewards. The casual group takes longer to gear up and tackle the content, they generally trail the hard core crowd and copy strategies used, they eventually complete the content and acquire the same rewards. The design cycle of the developer is such that by the time the casual groups start to complete the content, new content is soon released, the hard core crowd isn't even a factor.

Your also wrong about the user base of FFXI. Folks, like yourself, with ample playtime and access to high end resources constitute a very small minority of the player base. Because you only hang out with and socialize with other people of your standing you begin to perceive that the entire game revolves around you. You couldn't be further from the truth, most players don't read the forums, don't research much information and generally engage as a form of escapism and entertainment. This very apparent to me as my time schedule and work / social obligations forces me to engage with and participate in content with the casual crowd. So yes if you, and all your friends, quit tomorrow, nothing would change, at most SE would revise content to lower it's difficulty which would actually be a good thing. If the casual players quit, you'd be finding a new game within a month or two. This is the reality of financing a MMO.

[saevel]

I have no idea what you mean by "you don't know x or y person"? Are you trying to say that if you don't know specific people you are locked out of content? That is hardly true, you can do anything in this game lol. You just need to put forth the effort in getting the people together, which is something people like you don't do. Then you blame it on game design because you can't participate when that is your own doing. Of course you don't want to put in effort, you are the type of player holding this game back. This isn't WoW and obviously SE didn't intend it to be that, they did that with XIV.

Yeah you've been living in your own little bubble too long.

What he's talking about is having access to 3~4 song BRDs, high level experienced DD's and other highly skilled support crew. The design of FFXI is such that you can't do anything without tons of support and good support players tend to be very choosey of their play groups. Used to be called "princess Bard syndrome" but has expanded to include stun SCH's and competent WHM's. DD's are fairly common but DD's who visit the forums and learn how to build gear sets are pretty rare. So no mater how good you are, you still need to find other people who are capable of completing the content, and the higher SE sets that bar the fewer and fewer people are able to participate. And MMO's are 100% about participation.

[Mefuki]

Post #31

Apologies for being unclear. I'm taking about logging in and saying to yourself, for example, "I feel like doing delve." You go into your LS and you ask,

"Where's *insert name of your LS's 4 song BRDs, Stun SCHs and DD that already have the gear from the content you want to do*.

"Oh, they're not online or they don't want to do that? Guess I'm not doing that today."

...

Shortly after, Steve the 4 song BRD logs in and says, "Anyone doing anything? You want to do Delve? Me too. Now let's both wait for everyone else to get on."

"Yeah, I really want to do Delve today so let's wait."

Now, I never said that SE should get rid of alliances. I simply said that it would be great if there was a sliding scale, from solo all the way up to 18-man, where monster statistics, reward quantity and drop rate/points earned(if it's a point/gear exchange system) scaled with how many you choose to bring. This way, you can log in and start playing any part of the game you want while giving incentives to partying up. Think kind of like a drop in-drop out system. So, under this system you log in and you say to yourself, "I feel like doing Delve". You go into your LS

"Does anyone want to come?"

"Oh, No one's here right now. Guess I'll go on my own."

...

Shortly after Steve the 4 song BRD logs in and says, "Anyone doing anything? You want to do Delve? Me too. Let's go together, It'll be a slightly tougher but we'll get more as a team."

"Yeah, I was just about to leave to go do it but let's go together."

Like I said, I'm not against putting forth effort. In abyssea's heyday, when I couldn't get body seals, I took a couple of days and soloed them via quest spam. Did it take longer then it could have if I had more people? Yes, but I didn't mind that much. At least I was making progress.

I spent around 2 months everyday farming the gil I needed for HMP. Did it take longer then it could have if I had more people? Yes, but I didn't mind that much. At least I was making progress.

I could go on but to summirize: I'm not opposed to putting forth effort. That's why I'd rather get working and progress on my goals instead of just waiting around for everyone to show up.

[Draylo]

You don't need four song bard to do current content. They have bards with three songs with the new one hour that is more than efficient. You can keep three songs up full time with proper application. There isn't anything hard about stunning on SCH, so I'm not sure why that is hard to get. You don't need gear from Delve to do Delve, there are reforged relic and AF that is more than adequate. You have to look for more people instead of saying "Oh guess I'm not doing that today." I used to shout all the time back in the day before I started to lead my own LS and do things I want after hard effort. I agree with you, 6~18 man Delve is fine for people who are incapable of putting forth effort, I stated that in my OP even though it sucks since they design the content with that in mind. What I am not fine with is having the rewards be the EXACT SAME. It should slide just like you said.

[Draylo]

Yeah you've been living in your own little bubble too long.

What he's talking about is having access to 3~4 song BRDs, high level experienced DD's and other highly skilled support crew. The design of FFXI is such that you can't do anything without tons of support and good support players tend to be very choosey of their play groups. Used to be called "princess Bard syndrome" but has expanded to include stun SCH's and competent WHM's. DD's are fairly common but DD's who visit the forums and learn how to build gear sets are pretty rare. So no mater how good you are, you still need to find other people who are capable of completing the content, and the higher SE sets that bar the fewer and fewer people are able to participate. And MMO's are 100% about participation.

You don't need 3~4 song BRDs, read my previous post as to why. High level experienced DD's? Why shouldn't they be required for the HARDEST content in the game? You should need skilled crew to do things that are considered highest tier, not random scrubs who can't heal or do anything because they suck. You can simply join a group that is capable of winning or you can move servers until you find one. Even if SE has ONLY 6 man content, you still NEED to have competent people to win it. That is why you don't see anyone beating Kamnalaut for the new battle, or even beating the 6 man delve. This doesn't change anything except require you to bring less idiots to the battle. I didn't say I wanted to restrict content to 18 people only (which I would rather, but I understand the general population sucks as evidenced by this thread) I wanted sliding rewards. Why should they get to bring 6 gimps to attempt content that gives the same rewards as 18 people? If I enjoy content with 18 people that is beneficial to them all, why do I get shafted simply because casual #1 can only play two hours a week? That is making me unable to participate in content I desire, which is allianced based.

[Draylo]

Unfortunately your quite wrong here. Successful MMO's are successful because they make content accessible. Notice I said content and not rewards, this is because rewards are a result of content participation. Two players participating in the same content should expect the same reward, the difference between hard core and casual then becomes one of time. The hard core player has more time to devote to the game and thus can acquire rewards faster then the casual player who acquires the same rewards only at a much slower pace. This is a pattern seen in many successful MMO's. You release content A, the hard core players tackle and engage the content soon after release and develop an effective strategy, sooner rather then later they complete the content and acquire the rewards. The casual group takes longer to gear up and tackle the content, they generally trail the hard core crowd and copy strategies used, they eventually complete the content and acquire the same rewards. The design cycle of the developer is such that by the time the casual groups start to complete the content, new content is soon released, the hard core crowd isn't even a factor.

Your also wrong about the user base of FFXI. Folks, like yourself, with ample playtime and access to high end resources constitute a very small minority of the player base. Because you only hang out with and socialize with other people of your standing you begin to perceive that the entire game revolves around you. You couldn't be further from the truth, most players don't read the forums, don't research much information and generally engage as a form of escapism and entertainment. This very apparent to me as my time schedule and work / social obligations forces me to engage with and participate in content with the casual crowd. So yes if you, and all your friends, quit tomorrow, nothing would change, at most SE would revise content to lower it's difficulty which would actually be a good thing. If the casual players quit, you'd be finding a new game within a month or two. This is the reality of financing a MMO.

Yet FFXI was a successful MMO for a very long time with huge lockouts for gimps. I wouldn't pass your opinion off as fact. The current content in this game is exactly like you say anyways, you can beat it with casual people. I have seen an LS start that is filled with them and they managed to beat all three Delve bosses after a long time. What is barring about any of the content right now or before? Nothing, thats what. Any casual has the same opportunities that a hardcore player does, its not like HNM days.

[saevel]

WTF are you smoking? FFXI was never very successful as an MMO. Too many barriers for casual folks so they tend not to play and because there are fewer casuals pumping money into the system there is a resulting smaller development effort (not to mention FFXIV siphoning talent away) which entices less hardcore players.

Otherwise it just looks like your trying to brag or something?

[Draylo]

The numbers say otherwise, and the fact that the game is still running. You can try to pass your opinions off as facts but it doesn't change anything. You ignored quite a few of my points too, I'm not asking for casual players to be "unable" to do content, I'm asking for fairness. You can't have 6 people breeze through these NMs and get the same rewards as 18, it makes 0 sense. Their either has to be a bonus for bringing 18, such as exclusive drops or increased plasm/items or it isn't fair. If this is the case, I would like a statement saying future content will be void of any alliance based fights (12~18+.) This would solve the dilemma because we would know from here on that we won't have a situation like when Delve was released and everyone had to recruit.

[AppropriateName5786]

Yet FFXI was a successful MMO for a very long time with huge lockouts for gimps.

FFXI is about as inconsequential and obscure as MMOs get nowadays. These forums (and ffxiah.com) are a great indication of just how dead this game is, as you can find threads days/weeks old on the front page, whereas you would be hard-pressed to find a thread you read an hour ago on the WoW/Diablo III forums, for instance, because forums topics move fast when you have a large and lively playerbase. Even at its peak, FFXI didn't revolutionize MMOs like WoW did and it's numbers cannot even begin to matter. This game has been SE's best money-maker not because it's amazing or popular (by MMO standards), but because it has been running for 11+ years and has a subscription model.

Edit disclaimer: I love the game and will play it until I stop having fun, but someone needed to point these fact out. I have nothing against FFXI or I wouldn't be here :)

[Demonjustin]

The numbers say otherwise, and the fact that the game is still running.Just because the game is still running does not mean it's a success.

[Zhronne]

So, you're saying there should be content in this game that people just can't do
Yes and no. Getting to the point of "some people can't do" is a bit too much for these days, but there has to be a difference somewhere.
What I find to be the best compromise is for "tiers".
As the level cap/ilevel raise, new content tiers are released. Once the new one is out (efficiently doable only by organized groups and people with some dedication to the game, not necessarily only freaks who play 24/7 of course) the old one becomes easier thanks to: 1) temporary zone buffs, 2) new gear
That way everybody gets to try content, but casual player will complete it later.
This is how it works in most other MMOs, FFXIV included. It would need to be adapted in several ways to work in FFXI, but it's something they could and should definitely do.

It sounds "elitist", but there has to be a difference somewhere, for the sake of EVERYBODY, not just the elitist.
It gives hardcore player something to work for to sedate their thirst for glory and power.
It gives other players something to look forward to, as far as it may seems, a far goal that will give them a sense of progression.
If everybody looks the same, plays the same, does the same... it all becomes boring and you slowly stop being interested in the game in a small time, eventually dropping it.



Back in-topic.
I'm fine with how SE is allowing scalable content. I would have enabled it a few weeks/months after the normal 18-men version, but in the end I'm fine with it.
What I'm not fine with is the balancement of drops.
Currently a 6men Delve group gets the same Plasm and MORE rewards than a 18-men alliance, of the same quality, with what is overall an easier to organize and easier to complete content.
This is not fair and as far as I can think, FFXI is the only place where this happens, especially to this extent.
They need to give 18-men some further motivation, some tweak, some perk.
It would be hard to add exclusive drops, but at least they could make so that just like difficulty scales, so does the amount of Plasm you get and the amount of item slots from megaboss.

The current situation is just completely insane and unbalanced.
It could be fine if lowmanning were so much harder than 18men (I remember we used to 7men Tojil long time ago, without HPscaling etc), but since it's the other way around it's really unfair.
Why should people even bother to do something that's harder to do, harder to organize and give you LESS stuff?

[Firebert_Lakshmi]

After reading the posts, I would like to chime in with comments based on my own experiences in this game. Old FFXI was very much a game where elitists C blocked others from progressing unless you knew the right people. You wanted black belt? Good luck going up against cheaters. And do you think these cheaters let someone else lot on the black belt items if their LS didn't need that? Nope, they extorted players. I refused to play that game so I was with only a brown belt until the new system.

Other example : You were a thief in 2004 and you want your AF in Castle Ostroza (sp?) Too damn bad! You have to compete with people's greed who wanted the valuable Astral Rings. You had very little hope until this was changed.

[Draylo]

I don't see how that has anything to do with this thread?

[Afania]

These forums (and ffxiah.com) are a great indication of just how dead this game is, as you can find threads days/weeks old on the front page, whereas you would be hard-pressed to find a thread you read an hour ago on the WoW/Diablo III forums, for instance, because forums topics move fast when you have a large and lively playerbase. Even at its peak, FFXI didn't revolutionize MMOs like WoW did and it's numbers cannot even begin to matter. This game has been SE's best money-maker not because it's amazing or popular (by MMO standards), but because it has been running for 11+ years and has a subscription model.

Edit disclaimer: I love the game and will play it until I stop having fun, but someone needed to point these fact out. I have nothing against FFXI or I wouldn't be here :)

Not another "WOW is the best" thread.

Using WoW/D3 as indicator to show that FFXI is dead because of it's bad game design, some logic. You completely ignored the fact that D3 is much newer than FFXI and no other title can match WoW.

If you want to use D3 to bash FFXI, at least find another 2002 sub based MMO to compare with FFXI. Wait, you probably can't find them because most of them has less players than FFXI, or went F2P, or dead years ago.

D3 isn't even MMORPG mind you. Why are you comparing D3 with MMORPG.

FFXI had 500k sub for years, majority of the MMO nowadays will kill for 500k sub for that many years. Warhammer had 800k at launch, dropped below 500 after a few months, now it's dead. SWTOR had 1.7M at launch, only 500k left after 1 year and now it's F2P. Rift was below 500k soon after launch too. ARR had 600k sub 1 month after launch, I highly doubt it still has 500k now(SE won't release the number), knowing the game has low longevity by design.

You're correct, FFXI is nothing compare with WoW, however, so does every other title. I also have to point out the 11M sub legend made by WoW was not entirely legit. 70% of sub came from China/Asia, in China there are hourly payment options. Any active users active for past 30 days are considered active player by Blizzard. Not counting China/Asia market(a market that majority of western MMO, including FFXI didn't try to reach), WoW only had 3~4M sub. Still more than every other titles, but not as untouchable.

The fact is, by MMO standard, FFXI was a success. It just was. If you don't agree with me, tell me exactly which title besides WoW had more than 500k sub for YEARS that only has NA/EU/JP market? Without China/Korea market to boost sub number, 500k sub isn't easy.

Unless your standard is "Only WoW can be a success" or "only WoW clones can be a success", then I have nothing to say.






Just because the game is still running does not mean it's a success.

Maybe I should fix it for all FFXI haters:

Only the game I like can be a success, if I don't like the game, it's not a success.

Define "success" if you want to make such ridiculous claim. Plenty of games, including many AAA titles, and countless B- titles, couldn't live for more than 3~5 years. Now you're claiming a 12 year old MMORPG with more than 2 servers "is not a success".

If FFXI isn't a success, then no other game beside WoW is. That's not a very good way to define "success" IMO

[MarkovChain]

Stop qqing draylo and subscribe for mules. Ever since abyssea it's the best way to play the game. The alliance events were dead after or with einherjar. Noone like alliance or at least 99% of players hate it. That's why SE has taken special caution not to give great drops to alliance based content for years. The only exception to this was delve v1 and it caused half the player base to quit over their now gimp REM. Einherjar, legion, voidwatch all those were events came with subpar gear and the best rewarding events have always been 6 man : salvage v1,v2, nyzulv2, sky, limbus etc. It's funny that you are only noticing this now. Regarding delve v2, don't worry, all the gear is subpar. So the point of 18 man vs 6 man doesn't really make sense. I think the only worthwhile thing to do in the game atm is building an RME and/or an afterglow and it will be the case until SE ups ilevel cap on gear. Everything they will be adding until then is likely going to be gimp, unless they finally do ilevel salvage or nyzul gear that is.

If you consider 100% being the gear quality that best players have, SE currently seems to be working for the players standing around 50-75%.

[saevel]

Yes and no. Getting to the point of "some people can't do" is a bit too much for these days, but there has to be a difference somewhere.
What I find to be the best compromise is for "tiers".
As the level cap/ilevel raise, new content tiers are released. Once the new one is out (efficiently doable only by organized groups and people with some dedication to the game, not necessarily only freaks who play 24/7 of course) the old one becomes easier thanks to: 1) temporary zone buffs, 2) new gear
That way everybody gets to try content, but casual player will complete it later.
This is how it works in most other MMOs, FFXIV included. It would need to be adapted in several ways to work in FFXI, but it's something they could and should definitely do.

It sounds "elitist", but there has to be a difference somewhere, for the sake of EVERYBODY, not just the elitist.
It gives hardcore player something to work for to sedate their thirst for glory and power.
It gives other players something to look forward to, as far as it may seems, a far goal that will give them a sense of progression.
If everybody looks the same, plays the same, does the same... it all becomes boring and you slowly stop being interested in the game in a small time, eventually dropping it.

It's perfectly fine to design content to eventually be available to lesser skilled / resourced players. The major difference between highly skilled / resourced players and lessor skilled / resources players shouldn't be rewards but the time it takes to get them. By the time the lesser skilled players start completing the content new content should be available for the hard core guys to chase after. FFXI's problem is that the developers rarely go back and edit old content until long after it's no longer relevant while releasing content in large bursts. The iLevel system is a perfect example, they should of never started off with iLevel119 delve, but instead 106, then 109, then 113, then 115, then 117/119. Space each out a few months apart. Now if something isn't 119 it's pretty much irrelevant which forces SE to create nothing but 119 content that itself requires already having 119 level gear and thus we have our catch-22. This is no different then the days of 75 cap, or 99 cap, where everything was side grades upon side grades.

[Demonjustin]

Maybe I should fix it for all FFXI hatersI'm a FFXI hater? Cool.


Only the game I like can be a success, if I don't like the game, it's not a success.Not at all, I've never played WoW, Diablo 3, or most MMOs at all, in fact the list of MMOs I have played is restricted to this, Phantasy Star Universe, and The Old Republic, I can think of no other MMO I have played in all honesty. That being said I do think WoW is a success if there ever was one, Diablo 3 seems fairly successful, The Old Republic originally flopped and tried to recover but I wouldn't say it was a success despite the fact I do actually enjoy the game when playing it with friends.


Define "success" if you want to make such ridiculous claim. Plenty of games, including many AAA titles, and countless B- titles, couldn't live for more than 3~5 years. Now you're claiming a 12 year old MMORPG with more than 2 servers "is not a success".I guess you didn't read, or at least understand, what I said. Just like I said before...
Just because the game is still running does not mean it's a success.What this means is that the time it stays running doesn't determine it's success. In retaliation to such a claim how did you respond? By saying a bunch of other games only live for 3~5 years while this has lived for 12, yay, you provided the exact numbers I just said we're irrelevant and ended up proving nothing by it. Yes other games have had shorter lifespans, they've also had larger amounts of money to keep things running or to create new content I'm sure, and the amount of money being made by people playing may not have been high enough to warrant the game being kept alive. There are also games that are shut down because of a new one coming out, Phantasy Star Universe would be an example of that. This game can likely be kept up for a fraction of some of the newer games you're pointing out died so quickly. One reason I can think of off the top of my head is this game never upgrades to the new look of gaming, it has stayed as poorly graphiced as it was at the start and I think that's a blessing because it means the game has less work or time to be put in by the Devs for updates and such I would think. In either case, age is not a proof of success, it's as though you're saying an 80 year old who's highlight moment in life was working as a manager in a burger joint was a success, I would argue they didn't fail, but they aren't really a success.


If FFXI isn't a success, then no other game beside WoW is. That's not a very good way to define "success" IMOI would say a successful MMO is one that has a successful release without needing to rebuild the game, is well advertised to draw in more players, and can keep up at least a moderate amount of players playing the game whilst at the same time adding new content on a regular basis.

-FFXI from what I know did the first of these things but only due to the FF name as many people have told me the original version was terrible, and I have to assume by that the FF namesake is what kept this game from crashing, but I could be wrong as I never played and have no personal experience.

-So far as the second thing, advertisements, goes that is a complete and utter failure on this game's part as I have still to this day never seen a single ad on TV nor have I see any online besides on FFXI related sites, the only one I have seen even on them that comes to mind is one for SoA, which I saw, once... This game's real advertisements are the players playing it, we're the ads, if we don't draw in new people this game dies because hardly anyone is ever going to find this game without us.

-The third is to keep up a moderate amount of players while releasing new content, the first half is a failure as the population of this game declines even more to the lowest point I have ever seen(@719 people on Phoenix, yay...) and SE still does nothing effective to change that such as ads, enticements for old players to return, or anything of the sort. You would think with their want for FFXIV to be a different kind of game that they would advertise one another in their games so people who don't like one can try the other, it would be a great marketing strategy but nope, not happening.

-So far as pushing out content though they are getting that right finally, if the content were better done in some cases they could really make it great but for now I give this part a success.

So out of basically 4 criteria they failed 3 so far as I know, but if I abstain from even answering the first due to lack of personal experience you still get a 1/3, with a failure to advertise and maintain a playerbase. Their only success in my opinion is something fairly new and that's a consistent stream of content flowing into the game for us to do, before it was an update once every 3 months or so and I wouldn't actually call that much a success when a large amount of players were standing around with their thumbs misplaced and nothing to do. Now we finally have moderate content updates monthly, which is a success, but the failed in other ways that make the game itself fail. So, 12 years of being alive, a ton of mistakes, a few successes, but the game overall is not one I could actually consider a true success, it's alive, but not a success.

[Olor]

In my opinion a MMO is a "success" if you could imagine being able to convince even one of your friends to play it for any amount of time.

I have tried. Even former players who have thick nostalgia goggles are fed up with it. Those are folks that have already cleared a lot of the roadblocks (some of which still cockblock me after years of casual play). Those are returning players. People who wouldn't have to scale the cliff this game has instead of a learning curve.

Crevox did a great job outlining the huge barriers for a brand new player. No one wants to subscribe to an MMO to play by themselves for months. The only really party based content is at endgame. Therefore, in order to get people into playing, endgame needs to be accessible. It isn't. I am starting to wonder if it can be fixed. They boxed themselves in with ilevel - as the playerbase gets higher and higher ilevel - they will abandon lower ilevel content (look at WKR - already people hardly do it) - making it hard/impossible for newer or more casual players to catch up. It feels like if you aren't doing content in the first two weeks it comes out, you are pretty much boned, and if you hadn't already been doing the newest content prior to it, you won't be invited to the new stuff.

I feel like difficulty currently swings between extremely difficult (shutting people out completely) or so easy it is eye bleedingly boring (hallo rala/cirdas/yorcia skirmish). I can't believe it but I am missing voidwatch because it felt a heck of a lot more tactical and there were roles less perfectly geared players could play.

I'd like more things like that, where you could win some, and lose some. Yes, as time went on (and weakening items were added) it got easier - but people all had a role to play in hitting procs and making the run a success... now it is either SUPER STRESSFUL AND YOU WILL PROBABLY FAIL, NOOB or it is OMG I AM SO BORED WANDERING AROUND HALLWAYS LOOKING FOR AN EXTREMELY BORING NM

[Afania]

You really have a narrow POV toward "success". That's like saying only Steve Jobs is successful, everyone else isn't, which I don't entirely agree.



Yes other games have had shorter lifespans, they've also had larger amounts of money to keep things running or to create new content I'm sure,


Before you made such claim, where's the number and data?




I would say a successful MMO is one that has a successful release without needing to rebuild the game, is well advertised to draw in more players, and can keep up at least a moderate amount of players playing the game whilst at the same time adding new content on a regular basis.

-FFXI from what I know did the first of these things but only due to the FF name as many people have told me the original version was terrible, and I have to assume by that the FF namesake is what kept this game from crashing, but I could be wrong as I never played and have no personal experience.

-So far as the second thing, advertisements, goes that is a complete and utter failure on this game's part as I have still to this day never seen a single ad on TV nor have I see any online besides on FFXI related sites, the only one I have seen even on them that comes to mind is one for SoA, which I saw, once... This game's real advertisements are the players playing it, we're the ads, if we don't draw in new people this game dies because hardly anyone is ever going to find this game without us.

-The third is to keep up a moderate amount of players while releasing new content, the first half is a failure as the population of this game declines even more to the lowest point I have ever seen(@719 people on Phoenix, yay...) and SE still does nothing effective to change that such as ads, enticements for old players to return, or anything of the sort. You would think with their want for FFXIV to be a different kind of game that they would advertise one another in their games so people who don't like one can try the other, it would be a great marketing strategy but nope, not happening.

-So far as pushing out content though they are getting that right finally, if the content were better done in some cases they could really make it great but for now I give this part a success.

So out of basically 4 criteria they failed 3 so far as I know, but if I abstain from even answering the first due to lack of personal experience you still get a 1/3, with a failure to advertise and maintain a playerbase. Their only success in my opinion is something fairly new and that's a consistent stream of content flowing into the game for us to do, before it was an update once every 3 months or so and I wouldn't actually call that much a success when a large amount of players were standing around with their thumbs misplaced and nothing to do. Now we finally have moderate content updates monthly, which is a success, but the failed in other ways that make the game itself fail. So, 12 years of being alive, a ton of mistakes, a few successes, but the game overall is not one I could actually consider a true success, it's alive, but not a success.


1. That does not determine whether a game is a success or not.

2. That does not determine whether a game is a success or not, no MMORPG can keep players forever. WoW used to have 12M sub, dropped to 8M and less at one point of time. By your logic WoW isn't a success.

3. That doesn't determine whether a game is a success or not either.

More like you set your own definition of "success", and called the game unsuccessful because it doesn't fit your own definition.

My definition of "success" for any game:

1.It makes money. If the game invest 20M to develop, but it makes 50M profit, then it's a success. A 20M cost game doesn't need to make 200M profit to be successful.

OR

2. It has certain industry changing design goal, and it successfully delivered it. Even if the game isn't commercially successful, it's still a success because it's goal of this game may not be making money to begin with.

Basically, if a game set a goal, and it meets the goal, then it's a success.

From what I've seen, FFXI fits No.1 criteria, therefore it's a success.

If I'm going to use your logic "I don't like X, so it's not a success" to call a game being unsuccessful, Warhammer online, SWG, Anarchy online, RO2, EQ2, Age of Conan, Asheron's call2, Blade and Soul, Tera, Mortal Online, Hello Kitty Online, King of Fighters online, Dragon's Prophet, Dragon Ball online, Dynasty Warriors Online, Earth and Beyond, FF14 1.0, Shadowbane, Wizardry Online.....all those games aren't successful, and the list goes on.

Yeah I haven't even start naming all the B grade and C grade MMO that you probably never heard of. I can find probably one or more criteria you listed above and call them unsuccessful.

I called you a FFXI hater because your claim makes no logic, just "I don't like it, bahhh I don't like it therefore it's not successful" opinion.

The point is, compare with 95% of MMORPG ever exist on the market, FFXI is certainly "up there". Just because you never heard of or play those titles, and only ever look at WoW, doesn't make FFXI unsuccessful. It may be possible that FFXI sells because it's FF, but that doesn't matter.

[Afania]

In my opinion a MMO is a "success" if you could imagine being able to convince even one of your friends to play it for any amount of time.


Nope. I think Planescape Torment, Baldur's Gate, and Everquest are some of the greatest game ever made, but I can't convince my friends to play it. They're mostly playing more "mainstream" game such as Call of Duty, Starcraft, mobile games and so on.

Just because your friends don't share same taste as you, it doesn't mean games for minority is not a success.

Variety is spice of life, there are always "mainstream" titles, there are titles that only appeal to minority, that doesn't mean games for minority is bad. They're just different.

I'd gone crazy if every game on the market are mainsteam titles, what a boring life.

[Demonjustin]

You really have a narrow POV toward "success". That's like saying only Steve Jobs is successful, everyone else isn't, which I don't entirely agree.The fact you disagree doesn't change much. To you, it was a success, to me, it wasn't, it has no affect on what I said which no matter how you wish to take it was simply stating a game's lifespan does not dictate it's success. Call of Duty lasts a year, maybe 2, and yet they are considered a success by all means because they can sell millions of copies and do so every single year. Comparing different genres? Yeah, I am, but the point still stands that a game's lifespan doesn't dictate it's success.


Before you made such claim, where's the number and data?I clearly said 'I think' for a reason. I can't prove it, but I would be naive to think that the upkeep for this 12 year old game with the graphics of an early PS2 game and the small amount of players it has right now would even compare to newer games with what I assume are much more sophisticated servers, graphics, and larger player base to maintain and adhere to. If you truely think the cost of upkeep on this game is equal to that of newer games then... why do I even bother...


1. That does not determine whether a game is a success or not.Actually, it does. If you release a game poorly originally it affects the overall longevity of the game and it's name sake because by a poor release alone you can forever damage the game in the minds of many people. Take for example FFXIV, I am sure a great deal of people will never even play ARR simply because of the fact the original failed so terribly and nothing more, besides that it also means even longer before the game is playable and before the game is actually moving forward rather than correcting previously created issues rather than creating new content. That can leave a game stagnant for some time and also kill a bit of it's appeal since the game seems to start more slowly as players who did play through the rough start will have completed a bit of content and gotten further into the game, reaching the dead end sooner and thus running out of things to do more quickly while new content is created slowly due to the aforementioned time used to fix previous failures in the game.


2. That does not determine whether a game is a success or not, no MMORPG can keep players forever. WoW used to have 12M sub, dropped to 8M and less at one point of time. By your logic WoW isn't a success.

3. That doesn't determine whether a game is a success or not either.So the amount of people has no baring on a games success? I fail to see how. A smaller player base means a smaller revenue which means less profit and thus as a result less success. It also means a smaller community which is what drives many MMOs to an extent, fewer clans, guilds, and what have you to join or compete, a smaller market, there are many things in MMOs that depend on a community and by having a lack of advertisements and players joining the game you can find yourself with a dry experience that has people leaving in droves. The amount of people playing doesn't have to be a consistent high of millions, no, but it does need to be enough to have a solid community.


More like you set your own definition of "success", and called the game unsuccessful because it doesn't fit your own definition.Well here we go Afania, let's go back to the same old arguement you and I always have about preferences and how mine are apparently so very different than yours, shall we?


My definition of "success" for any game:

1.It makes money. If the game invest 20M to develop, but it makes 50M profit, then it's a success. A 20M cost game doesn't need to make 200M profit to be successful.

OR

2. It has certain industry changing design goal, and it successfully delivered it. Even if the game isn't commercially successful, it's still a success because it's goal of this game may not be making money to begin with.This is financial and revolutionary success. When talking about games in the general term of success I always look more to entertainment success than financial or revolutionary.


Basically, if a game set a goal, and it meets the goal, then it's a success.

From what I've seen, FFXI fits No.1 criteria, therefore it's a success.Financially yes, it's a success.


If I'm going to use your logic "I don't like X, so it's not a success" to call a game being unsuccessful, Warhammer online, SWG, Anarchy online, RO2, EQ2, Age of Conan, Asheron's call2, Blade and Soul, Tera, Mortal Online, Hello Kitty Online, King of Fighters online, Dragon's Prophet, Dragon Ball online, Dynasty Warriors Online, Earth and Beyond, FF14 1.0, Shadowbane, Wizardry Online.....all those games aren't successful, and the list goes on.See, this is why I don't like fkin talking to you Afania, because you change everything to sound like I'm just some moron who says things like 'If I don't like it, it sucks!' which is fking insulting as hell. I like this fkin game, you don't get that, you think changing something makes this something besides FFXI and since I support such a change I must therefore not like FFXI, and as a result, I must think it isn't a success. That's the line of logic you're using right there and it's fkin stupid.

I layed out my ideas of what makes a game successful, how many of those games have I played? None, so will I say if any are successful without having played them or any knowledge of them? No, I won't, because I'm not a moron. If I were to say any of them weren't successful it would be FFXIV 1.0, ya know why? The game flopped so badly they had to remake it, it's the only game I know anything about in that list and I know how horrible it sounded.


Yeah I haven't even start naming all the B grade and C grade MMO that you probably never heard of. I can find probably one or more criteria you listed above and call them unsuccessful.Did I say every criteria must be met? Did I say that without them all being fulfilled they weren't successful? No. I said


I called you a FFXI hater because your claim makes no logic, just "I don't like it, bahhh I don't like it therefore it's not successful" opinion.Yeah, sure, my arguments are dismissed based on the fact you have determined I don't agree with you and thus all arguments are pointless with you because that's all you'll ever say in any form of talk with me, such as this. I'm sure if I hated this game I would continue to waste away my life playing it every day rather than doing something more productive, I mean, who wouldn't? The meaning of life after all is to do what you hate right?


The point is, compare with 95% of MMORPG ever exist on the market, FFXI is certainly "up there". Just because you never heard of or play those titles, and only ever look at WoW, doesn't make FFXI unsuccessful.I don't compare WoW to FFXI you fool. I compare FFXI to my idea of what a game should do in general, if WoW does it then great, I don't give a rats, but the point isn't FFXI to do what WoW does, I've never even played the damn game, I'm saying what a game needs to do to be a success to me, to me, FFXI is a failure.


It may be possible that FFXI sells because it's FF, but that doesn't matter.That's so wrong I don't even feel like typing out how it makes all the difference in the world because the fact it has FF in it's title effects it's success as much as if not more than it did with XIII.

[Olor]

Nope. I think Planescape Torment, Baldur's Gate, and Everquest are some of the greatest game ever made, but I can't convince my friends to play it. They're mostly playing more "mainstream" game such as Call of Duty, Starcraft, mobile games and so on.

Just because your friends don't share same taste as you, it doesn't mean games for minority is not a success.



I am talking about people who share my tastes. Sorry lady, but you don't get to assume I mean something I don't mean. My friends, who love final fantasy and love RPGs and love MMOs will not touch this game with a ten foot pole, because they can just look at it and see, they would have to invest months of being bored into it before they could do content with other people (other than perhaps, having me power them through missions/battle content)

My other friends, who have played this game, quit when ilevel came out, because XIV looked like greener pastures. If SE at least added a combo deal for the two games one or two of them might play a bit, but probably not, since the critical mass of players/our friend group - is now gone.

[Afania]

The fact you disagree doesn't change much. To you, it was a success, to me, it wasn't, it has no affect on what I said which no matter how you wish to take it was simply stating a game's lifespan does not dictate it's success. Call of Duty lasts a year, maybe 2, and yet they are considered a success by all means because they can sell millions of copies and do so every single year. Comparing different genres? Yeah, I am, but the point still stands that a game's lifespan doesn't dictate it's success.


Call of Duty isn't MMO, and CoD sells better than majority of games in same genre, thus it's a success. FFXI also sells better than 90% of MMO in the industry, thus it's also a success. In MMO industry, besides revenue, one of the most common way to determine whether a title is successful, is by looking at it's lifespan. It's fact, and that's how the majority of dev/players judge a title in this industry. No one would care about how one individual player think about this game, but they care about the numbers. A game's lifespan and sub number directly affects revenue, in FFXI's case, it did better than most of the titles in the industry, so how is it not a success?

And fine, that's assume you're correct that FFXI is cheap with upkeep(I still don't know exactly which title you're comparing with, cuz you only use vague concept, but oh well):




So the amount of people has no baring on a games success? I fail to see how. A smaller player base means a smaller revenue which means less profit and thus as a result less success.

I just told you why. A game cost 200M to make and make 100M back with bigger player base, v.s a game cost 20M to make and make 50M with smaller player base. You can tell which title makes more money by doing the math.

The amount of people has no direct connection on a games success, because a game cost money to develop, and it cost money to update. I remember I saw some info about FFXI cost around 16M~24 to make somewhere, plus extremely low budget on content update. SWTOR cost 150M~200M to make, nearly 10x more amount, but not much more sub after 1 year. I've heard Tera also hits 100M mark and sub number wasn't impressive either. A game cost 5~10 times more money to make than FFXI should have 5~10 times more player than FFXI, but pretty much every title besides WOW on the market can't get 2.5M~5M sub.

So yeah, the amount of people has no direct baring to a game's success, because it depend on the development cost.




Well here we go Afania, let's go back to the same old arguement you and I always have about preferences and how mine are apparently so very different than yours, shall we?

This is financial and revolutionary success. When talking about games in the general term of success I always look more to entertainment success than financial or revolutionary.

Financially yes, it's a success.



You don't get the point, the point is, the way you use the word "success" was wrong.

Yes, we have different preference, but when we use the term "success", it's often used in an objective way that it has nothing to do with your personal preference. That we often determine whether a something/someone is a success by something measurable with number and data. Such as the amount of money it makes, or it's influence in the industry, or in MMORPG's case, it's lifespan.

The fact is, at first you claimed FFXI isn't a success because it doesn't fit your criteria of being a good game. After I mention the financial aspect of this game, you admitted that it's a success. Because you can't deny the fact that FFXI is indeed a success after we start talking about numbers.

I don't like Apple product, I don't like Steve Jobs, I don't like WoW, but if you ask me "Is Apple a successful company?" "Is WoW a successful MMORPG?" "Is Steve Jobs a successful individual?" I would answer "hell yes!" I don't answer "hell yes!" because I like them, but because the fact that they make a lot of money AND change the industry. I'd be delusional if I deny it just because I don't like them.

You can try to ask people around you, see how they use the term "success". I believe the majority use it in an more objective way. Your "entertainment value" is very subjective, because everyone has different taste when it comes to entertainment and fun. Thus you can't really determine whether a game is successful or not by "entertainment value".

If you say "Just because a game has long lifespan doesn't mean it's fun", then I wouldn't start this entire argument, because that statement may be correct due to everyone has different taste.

But you did say "Just because the game is still running does not mean it's a success." without further explanation, in an industry that most titles can't live for more than 3~5 years with 500k sub. THAT is pretty much changing the definition of standard. You can't blame me for pointing the flaw in your logic out.






See, this is why I don't like fkin talking to you Afania, because you change everything to sound like I'm just some moron who says things like 'If I don't like it, it sucks!' which is fking insulting as hell. I like this fkin game, you don't get that, you think changing something makes this something besides FFXI and since I support such a change I must therefore not like FFXI, and as a result, I must think it isn't a success. That's the line of logic you're using right there and it's fkin stupid.



Your above post clearly admitted that your definition of success was based on your own personal preference, exactly how I change everything you said? "If I don't like it, it sucks!" is judging something based on personal preference just like "I look to entertainment success". Except at this point of time we all know "sucks" is often an opinion, while "success" often comes with a measurable standard when being used.



I layed out my ideas of what makes a game successful, how many of those games have I played? None, so will I say if any are successful without having played them or any knowledge of them? No, I won't, because I'm not a moron.

It doesn't matter which game you've played and what game is on the list. You're judging whether a game is successful or not by your own preference, so technically you can call a game that changed the world and got 20M sub "failure" because you don't like it, or call a game cost 400M to make and only got 1k sub "success" if you like it.



That's so wrong I don't even feel like typing out how it makes all the difference in the world because the fact it has FF in it's title effects it's success as much as if not more than it did with XIII.

I never deny the fact that FF has strong IP value. Just because FF rely on IP value to sell, doesn't mean FF isn't successful. FFXI was a successful MMO compare with majority of titles, maybe it's successful because it's a FF MMO, but it's still a successful MMO. Being a FF game or not does not change the fact that in this industry, FFXI is considered more successful than 90% of titles on the market.




I don't compare WoW to FFXI you fool.


Next time before you pissed off on the internet because you can't convince someone on the internet, maybe you should start presenting your opinion in a more logical way.


I am talking about people who share my tastes. Sorry lady, but you don't get to assume I mean something I don't mean. My friends, who love final fantasy and love RPGs and love MMOs will not touch this game with a ten foot pole, because they can just look at it and see, they would have to invest months of being bored into it before they could do content with other people (other than perhaps, having me power them through missions/battle content)

My other friends, who have played this game, quit when ilevel came out, because XIV looked like greener pastures. If SE at least added a combo deal for the two games one or two of them might play a bit, but probably not, since the critical mass of players/our friend group - is now gone.

"Like RPG" "Like FF" and "like MMORPG" is barely same taste. There are players who love FF6 but hate FF13. There are players love single player FF but hate MMO FF. There are players that only ever play MMO FF but never touch any single player FF. There are players love FF11 and hate 14, and vice versa.

I don't see how "not able to convince someone to play the game you like" is an issue. There are probably only 1~2M players are interested in games like FFXI, there are 7 billion people on Earth. The chance of you meeting other FFXI fans irl is as low as it is. You'd have better luck meeting someone into FF7.

Edit: Oops, did some research and some say Tera wasn't 100M, only about 50M. Still a lot of money for unimpressive sub.

[Mirage]

Sorry Demonjustin but Afaina is just correct in this case. It'd be easier to just admit to it and let this thread move back to its actual topic.

[Demonjustin]

Call of Duty isn't MMO, and CoD sells better than majority of games in same genre, thus it's a success. FFXI also sells better than 90% of MMO in the industry, thus it's also a success. In MMO industry, besides revenue, one of the most common way to determine whether a title is successful, is by looking at it's lifespan. It's fact, and that's how the majority of dev/players judge a title in this industry. No one would care about how one individual player think about this game, but they care about the numbers. A game's lifespan and sub number directly affects revenue, in FFXI's case, it did better than most of the titles in the industry, so how is it not a success?

And fine, that's assume you're correct that FFXI is cheap with upkeep(I still don't know exactly which title you're comparing with, cuz you only use vague concept, but oh well):I don't go specifically by financial success for a reason. I don't go by my own personal idea of fun either. I think of a successful MMO as being one that is kept alive but also has a large active player base and consistent content being added to it. The reason for this is due to the fact it not only actually gives greater financial success, but it also keeps the game alive a long period of time, if I made a MMO tomorrow and 1000 people played it over the course of the next decade but only 1000 people ever actually played with no new players I wouldn't call my game a success.

So far as upkeep, I am comparing FFXI to basically any MMO alive today. I doubt any MMOs alive today made within the last 5 years which have content still being created for it have a cheaper upkeep in all honesty.


The amount of people has no direct connection on a games success, because a game cost money to develop, and it cost money to update.Financial.


But you did say "Just because the game is still running does not mean it's a success." without further explanation, in an industry that most titles can't live for more than 3~5 years with 500k sub. THAT is pretty much changing the definition of standard. You can't blame me for pointing the flaw in your logic out.Perhaps it is a flaw on my part that I can't properly describe things well. Perhaps success isn't the word I seek to use. I am not a money person, I don't ever look at money as a source of one's success or one's achievements, nor do I look to money as the end goal for things. Perhaps it's for this reason that when I speak of success as I am now that money doesn't even factor into it for me in any way, I couldn't care less if FFXI made more money than was spent on it because in the end that's not what ever mattered to me. When I say this game isn't successful, I mean that it's entertainment value is lower than that of other games and that it has had failures in many fields that are easily done by any game that I think are required for a game to be successful at being a great MMO. A large playerbase is one key thing I associate with MMOs, the lack of attempting to get people into this game alone has been enough to say this game has failed terribly in at least one way to me, but the overall game itself outside of finance to me seems to be a failure rather than a success.

I never once meant to imply that the game isn't financially successful, I doubt they spend hardly anything by compare to the money they make every month from players, mules, second accounts, and so on just to make the updates we get.


Your above post clearly admitted that your definition of success was based on your own personal preference, exactly how I change everything you said? "If I don't like it, it sucks!" is judging something based on personal preference just like "I look to entertainment success". Except at this point of time we all know "sucks" is often an opinion, while "success" often comes with a measurable standard when being used.To say that it is based off of an ideal of 'If I don't like it then it sucks' would mean only games I like can fit into the category, but this isn't the case, it's why the fact I haven't played games is meaningful, I'm not judging all games I like as successful and all those I don't as not, some games I like aren't successful, some I don't like are, as I said though, perhaps my wording is off, I don't know, success is the only word that seems to fit what I'm looking for yet it seems you're saying it applies in this case only to finance and nothing more really.


I never deny the fact that FF has strong IP value. Just because FF rely on IP value to sell, doesn't mean FF isn't successful. FFXI was a successful MMO compare with majority of titles, maybe it's successful because it's a FF MMO, but it's still a successful MMO. Being a FF game or not does not change the fact that in this industry, FFXI is considered more successful than 90% of titles on the market.Specifically what you said is that it doesn't matter. My point was is that it makes all the difference in the world on how the game's received and thus, matters more than anything. Were FFXIII put on the market as something besides FF it would have been a so-so RPG a few people would have played, given bad reviews, and moved on from. Instead of that happening the game was kept alive by sequels, it got a ton of attention, it had financial success where it would have otherwise flopped, and overall the title carried it, and possibly even did some damage to the game's integrity due to the fact that it was judged much more harshly against other titles rather than being just another RPG itself. The reason this matters for FFXI is the fact that FFXI can very easily be seen as the same kind of situation, I again don't know how FFXI was on release but if it's half as bad as people have made it sound to be then I have little doubt that people played this game and made it what it is today over the years not because it was great, but because it was Final Fantasy. The idea of playing Final Fantasy with friends could easily be too alluring to pass up and in the end have been the reason for it's success. So to say that just because it's Final Fantasy and may have succeeded for that reason doesn't matter seems very inaccurate, because it seems to me that could imply a bad game got the spotlight only because of it's name while other games were they made the same or we're this game titled differently would have failed. But again this diverts away from the idea of it being less about finances and more about the game itself, as I'm talking about a game that can't stand on it's own right and you're likely talking about the fact that it made money be it FF or not and thus is a success regardless.


Next time before you pissed off on the internet because you can't convince someone on the internet, maybe you should start presenting your opinion in a more logical way.I did. Perhaps you should stop acting as though what I say is something else. Such as taking everything I say and balling it into the idea of 'If I don't like it then it's not a success' which is what you did. I gave criteria that I judge games as a success by, many games fall into that category including games I do and don't like, at that somehow still gets balled into the same idea. You basically ignore what I say and just go off into la la land about how I'm wrong when you seem not to even understand what I'm saying due to the inability to properly comprehend that you're coloring my statements with the wrong light by assuming I am simply arguing for nothing more than what I like and saying everything I don't like is by definition bad.

My anger doesn't come from an inability to debate or argue with you over these things properly nor being unable to change your opinion it's about the fact you seem to consistently take my arguments the wrong way and dismiss them under the context they mean something completely different than originally intended.

[Lithera]

If the game came out know with how it is now along with the direction they are taking it the game might not be successful. Then if it did come out right now I would strongly hope they were not going to go with the same thought process as they are now. Also can't be judging if the game is a success with how it is right now and ignore it's past. Yes there were not many adds done for it outside of japan for any of it's life and might have gotten bad reviews. Along with at least two bad pr segments in gaming news. Then look at ESO most of the current things many people are hearing is bad and that sure it feels like an ES game but has just enough stuff that even people who love the series won't be playing it at launch. Then there are those who will play it because of name alone.

Anyways it kind of feels at least to me we are experiencing something similar to what happened when WoTG came out where they kind of got tunnel vision and only gave other sections of the game a bone if enough rabble was roused about non WoTG stuff. Like many have said before there probably is more casual players than non and so yes they are trying to cater to smaller groups. I do agree that the rewards should probably scale with the difficulty in getting one or more items than what an easier setting should. I still find it funny that after many years of people complaining about how you couldn't do most things without a group we now have it and now that we have it people are upset over it. One or the other people. We can't have the happy medium because even if SE did try and give that to us there would still be people complaining about that.

[Afania]

I don't go specifically by financial success for a reason. I don't go by my own personal idea of fun either. I think of a successful MMO as being one that is kept alive but also has a large active player base and consistent content being added to it. The reason for this is due to the fact it not only actually gives greater financial success, but it also keeps the game alive a long period of time, if I made a MMO tomorrow and 1000 people played it over the course of the next decade but only 1000 people ever actually played with no new players I wouldn't call my game a success.



That's not the definition of success, that's more like an ideal that no game has ever accomplish before....even the most successful MMO like WoW lost a lot of sub at one point of time.

In a happy rainbow land, of course every dev would want their game to have 1000 players first year, 2000 players 2nd year, 5000 players 3rd year and 100000 players after 10 years. But this is reality, the reality of this industry is after 3~5 years your game is very likely to shut down.

By your logic I can pretty much call anything, any company or any individual in this world unsuccessful, because they can't accomplish the ideal.



So far as upkeep, I am comparing FFXI to basically any MMO alive today. I doubt any MMOs alive today made within the last 5 years which have content still being created for it have a cheaper upkeep in all honesty.


Then you don't really understand the industry, or maybe you only ever look at AAA big budget titles and think that's normal. There are hundreds and hundreds of low budget titles from Asia that pretty much just launch, milk every penny from the player with cash shop, every update= reskinned mobs and zones, and they stop updating the game after 1 year or something. Which lead to even faster player decline so they have a legit excuse to shut it down. Then they launched another title in 1 year, repeat the entire process, with every game design and stats copy and paste from previous titles, only with different art assets and game title.

Some game with better quality may made it to the west if they have a publisher, but the content isn't any better. But that doesn't matter, because most of the players playing this kind of MMO, tend to play for 2 weeks and quit, come back after 6 months and play for 1 week and quit. Having quality and speedy update and keep players around for entertainment value isn't their goal. Make money by creating a title as fast as possible, hoping 1%~5% of those 2 weeks player spend some cash in their cash shop is their goal.

THAT is the fact of 90% of games in this industry. They don't make a living by making quality product, but by the quantity of the product.

You may not care because you're a player only wanting to play quality AAA titles, and only ever care about AAA titles.You can probably name many quality AAA titles from past 5 years. Warhammer online(btw, this game also had slow update and eventually lost enough sub to shut down), Rift, SWTOR, GW2, FF14 ARR, Tera, and soon TESO. But they're not majority, they're just 1% of the titles in this industry. FFXI's update, especially update speed after 2013 Nov, is much better than 90% of the MMORPG existed.

I'm not saying you must compare FFXI with low budget cash shop MMO titles. Obviously that's bringing FF IP down. But you shouldn't really claim "I think every new MMO title from past 5 year did this better", without understanding the industry as a whole.



Perhaps it is a flaw on my part that I can't properly describe things well. Perhaps success isn't the word I seek to use. I am not a money person, I don't ever look at money as a source of one's success or one's achievements, nor do I look to money as the end goal for things. Perhaps it's for this reason that when I speak of success as I am now that money doesn't even factor into it for me in any way, I couldn't care less if FFXI made more money than was spent on it because in the end that's not what ever mattered to me. When I say this game isn't successful, I mean that it's entertainment value is lower than that of other games and that it has had failures in many fields that are easily done by any game that I think are required for a game to be successful at being a great MMO. A large playerbase is one key thing I associate with MMOs, the lack of attempting to get people into this game alone has been enough to say this game has failed terribly in at least one way to me, but the overall game itself outside of finance to me seems to be a failure rather than a success.



Of course you wouldn't care, because obviously you aren't the one paying for the development cost. Maybe one day when you fund your own company(and using kickstarter doesn't count) you'd know. No offense, I'm going to make a guess(if I guess wrong, I'm sorry) that you probably never start your own business, or you did but your own business isn't very successful. Because most of your opinion seems like opinion from a customer, but not opinion from a developer. It has zero sense with marketing and business.

A large playerbase doesn't come just because you try, "attempt to get people into this game" also don't come just because you try either. Everything you do in a company, it needs resource. If you want to put ad to attract more players...money. You want to hire a community manager and interact with the community? Money. You want to attract the player by creating some sort of super awesome change to the game? MONEY. You want to relaunch the game so every player look at your game? MONNNNNEEEEEY.

Eventually, you may find your investment may attract some players, but ended up not THAT effective. You may spend $1000 on marketing this month to get new players, but you only get 10 more players=$120 more profit this month. In the end, you just lost $880!

Your line of thinking, is completely rainbow land /customer line of thinking. "I want the best game to play with!" "I want A feature, B feature, C feature in the game I'm playing, if a game is like that, it'd be perfect!" But that'd never work, because eventually it'd backfire.

Remember SWTOR? Honestly, I think playing SWTOR from lv1 was an enjoyable experience. I love SW, I love the writing quality of SWTOR, and SWTOR voice acting is AWESOME. The entire writing quality, with the quality of acting and VA, made SWTOR a pretty fun experience that quite a lot of players made a lot of alt just to experience the story. Even though it's not really a virtual world I'm looking for in a MMO, it doesn't really matter that much if I only play for the story.

However, a large part of the crazy 150M~200M dev cost of SWTOR also came from hiring voice actors, and when the sub dropped to 500k after 1 year, SWTOR couldn't generate enough profit to cover the cost, and implemented a very bad F2P model to generate more profit.

THAT F2P model completely killed the game experience for me, it made me quit.

The point is, SWTOR could be a better game without VA, maybe. Plenty of game has no kick ass VA and it was enjoyable, why'd SWTOR need to spend that much money in it? VA made the story a more enjoyable experience, but is it make or break in a MMO?

All the money dev spent on marketing, it will go back to the customer. There are no free lunches, after all. All the money dev spend on ad, community activity, relaunching a game, getting press review for update, managing relationships with, it will go back to the customer with one extra mount you must buy from the cash shop, or lower quality update.

The real question isn't "why SE doesn't toss money to get more players", but "do we need to sacrifice the quality of the service to get more players?"

IF I'm the game dev, I wouldn't aim on "getting large player base". That's pretty much_key_to_failure. It's key to failure because dev would start making silly decisions if their goal is to get as many players as possible, ended up getting none. There's only one goal I'd aim for: Make a game my target audience would enjoy. If my target audience has 10 people, I'd make this game super fun for THEM and screw everyone else. Nobody get time/resource to please everyone. That is how you make a successful product.

You may not completely agree with my POV now, but if you happen to know a successful entrepreneur with business sense, and ask THEIR opinion about how to be successful with target audience, maybe they'll agree with me.



Specifically what you said is that it doesn't matter. My point was is that it makes all the difference in the world on how the game's received and thus, matters more than anything. Were FFXIII put on the market as something besides FF it would have been a so-so RPG a few people would have played, given bad reviews, and moved on from.


Nope, exactly the opposite. FFXIII is a very well made, polished and enjoyable game, the production value is very high. The majority of hate came from linearity and the presentation style, which isn't a flaw but just the game design direction.

The review score it got was what it deserves, it won't get lower with a different name. It got plenty of hate BECAUSE it's FF. Players expect FF to be something similar to what they know and used to play, something closer to Lost Odyssey, at least not that linear. FFXIII is very different from what they expected, therefore it got hate.

Without the name FF, FFXIII can truly shine with it's strength: Battle system, art, cut-scenes and animation. Because it's honestly not a bad game if you don't already believe FF should follow certain style.

On the other hand, without the name FF, FFXIII probably won't have enough resource to have all that production value to shine in above mentioned aspect. Half of the enjoyment in FFXIII came from cool animation and art, which cost money and most SE titles aren't getting that much resource unless it's FF, therefore FFXIII will be a so-so RPG if it's not FF, due to the lack of resource. Being a FF title is both a curse and a bless for FFXIII.

If FFXIII has another name such as Crystal Legend, but has same resource in quality, art and animation, I'm pretty sure it's not going to get as much hate. Players gonna play it, tell their friends "Hey I just played Crystal Legend, the battle system is pretty fun!" "Cool I'll try it out" "Never heard of it, gonna pass". It won't sell millions and millions of copies, but most players won't hate this game for being linear and having cliche JRPG story.


A super huge wall of text, sorry. But I can't help it when I see opinions about the industry that clearly didn't do much research about them. If you don't agree with my opinion about business, prove me wrong by showing me real life examples, don't just tell me what your ideal is.

[Ravenmore]

I don't necessarily disagree with the basic point of your post, but I want to point out a typical hard core player very likely pays for more accounts and mules and is much less likely to deactivate any account(s) on a whim. Using myself as an example, between my GF and myself we have 4 accounts with dozens of mules. I personally haven't ever deactivated for ten years.

While I agree that SE should always keep casual players in mind, losing the hardcore players (and hardcore is a subjective term) would have more of a significant impact than you imply. With that said, I'm happy with the direction and current state of the game. My only current frustrations are the end of double XP, the apparently huge time sink of job points, and Ark Angel congestion.

Still no where near enough for the game to shut down if they all went away. The game is already at the point were it is unlikely to get another full blown expansion and it it was already well on the way when SoA was released. I am willing to bet SoA was SE plan C if FF14 had failed again like 1.0. Like he said SE would just dumb the game down a bit after seeing the clear rates drop to a unacceptable level.

[Draylo]

So back to the topic? Are alliance events dead or will there be more planned in the future? I hate not knowing and being tossed a curve ball.

[detlef]

Still no where near enough for the game to shut down if they all went away. The game is already at the point were it is unlikely to get another full blown expansion and it it was already well on the way when SoA was released. I am willing to bet SoA was SE plan C if FF14 had failed again like 1.0. Like he said SE would just dumb the game down a bit after seeing the clear rates drop to a unacceptable level.I implied that a hardcore player's subscription is probably more valuable to SE, which almost certainly true. But then we haven't even nailed down what defines casual and hardcore, and if no definition is agreed upon then how can we predict what would happen if one group or the other no longer existed? All I said was that there's more to a hardcore player than $12.95 a month, and that we shouldn't underestimate their impact on SE's bottom line.

[Mirage]

I'm relatively casual and i've been subscribed for probably a total of 7 years by now, if i exclude the months where I didn't have an active subscription.

[saevel]

I implied that a hardcore player's subscription is probably more valuable to SE, which almost certainly true. But then we haven't even nailed down what defines casual and hardcore, and if no definition is agreed upon then how can we predict what would happen if one group or the other no longer existed? All I said was that there's more to a hardcore player than $12.95 a month, and that we shouldn't underestimate their impact on SE's bottom line.

It's fairly easy to separate the two. How much time do they spend not only playing the game, but reading the forums and optimizing macros and the various builds for their various jobs? The core separator is that hard core players seek entertainment in acquiring achievements and doing stuff that they believe "casuals" can't. If casual players can beat a specific content, hard cores tend to dismiss that content as "easy". Conversely casual players seek entertainment in merely playing the game, unique distinctive achievements are not required for them to feel satisfaction. They invest far less total time into the game, rarely do research and tend to just copy whatever they see other players doing.

As far as costs go, HC players are actually a bad thing from a resource perspective. Everyone, HC and casual alike, pays the same subscription fee yet HC players use far more server resources then casuals do owing to them playing more often. If you are running two accounts and I'm running one, yet your logged in 3x more often then I am, you are still using more system resources, especially if your mules are also logged in with you. Those people running 10 fishing mules at once 24/7 are taking up far more server resources then 10 individual casual players do. HC players also consume content faster then casual players do while being the ones to find and utilize exploits and thus require even more developer time to create and field test content that's "hard core" proof. The only good HC players provide to a game is that they are the ones who lead guilds and provide the information that casual players eventually follow in. You want some HC folks running around making youtube videos doing crazy stuff, but you don't want to build your game around them.

This all applies to non-competitive PvE scenarios. Competitive PvP on the other hand is like any other sport, you want your super stars (HC players) as their competitive drive is what attracts other players to join. Because FFXI has no competitive outlet for HC players to acquire those distinctive achievements, they resort to viewing event competitions and specifically loot acquisition as the distinctive achievements.

[Olor]

The only good HC players provide to a game is that they are the ones who lead guilds and provide the information that casual players eventually follow in. You want some HC folks running around making youtube videos doing crazy stuff, but you don't want to build your game around them.


Well, I have to argue a bit to the other side here - HC players ALSO help create an economy for others. Like, anyone who is buying heavy metal plates is probably not a casual player - but me, as a casual player - I want there to be demand for items like heavy metal plates.

Of course, the solution (especially now that empys etc at 119 are not generally better or much than other weapons available) could be to lower the requirements significantly to get RME to ilevel - because then a lower tier of player would see it as achievable and spend time/gil doing it. Like if the requirement was 200 HMP - more people would see that as achievable, and more people would be building them, and I expect that demand would remain steady despite the fact that it would result in a lot of stored up HMPs hitting the market. Then maybe I wouldn't throw away rift boulders because NO ONE even buys them at 1K

This would also probably be beneficial because people would probably do more of the events that drop the items, since folks would be motivated to farm them for themselves. The hardcore focused economy is VERY fragile. Relying on 50 or so players on every server to create liquidity for everyone is not smart. If you had 500 people building ilevel empy weapons, there would be a lot more interest in events like voidwatch which are open and accessible to everyone to enjoy, especially now that we have ilevel gear.

[detlef]

It's fairly easy to separate the two. How much time do they spend not only playing the game, but reading the forums and optimizing macros and the various builds for their various jobs? The core separator is that hard core players seek entertainment in acquiring achievements and doing stuff that they believe "casuals" can't. If casual players can beat a specific content, hard cores tend to dismiss that content as "easy". Conversely casual players seek entertainment in merely playing the game, unique distinctive achievements are not required for them to feel satisfaction. They invest far less total time into the game, rarely do research and tend to just copy whatever they see other players doing.Hardcore players copy and paste gear sets, strategies, and play styles all the time. There are casual players who maximize their online time by formulating intelligent strategies and gearing sensibly and who are still driven by gear acquisition. There's too much gray area to truly determine who's who.


As far as costs go, HC players are actually a bad thing from a resource perspective. Everyone, HC and casual alike, pays the same subscription fee yet HC players use far more server resources then casuals do owing to them playing more often. If you are running two accounts and I'm running one, yet your logged in 3x more often then I am, you are still using more system resources, especially if your mules are also logged in with you. Those people running 10 fishing mules at once 24/7 are taking up far more server resources then 10 individual casual players do. HC players also consume content faster then casual players do while being the ones to find and utilize exploits and thus require even more developer time to create and field test content that's "hard core" proof. The only good HC players provide to a game is that they are the ones who lead guilds and provide the information that casual players eventually follow in. You want some HC folks running around making youtube videos doing crazy stuff, but you don't want to build your game around them.From SE's perspective, wouldn't they secretly want a customer paying for 10 accounts? That was part of my point. Aside from that, I never said that SE should build the game around them. I'm just saying that what me might call a hardcore player's subscription is probably worth more than a casual's subscription. This paragraph you wrote agrees with me.

[zataz]

too much hate <,< i say we all quit ff11 and play pixal piracy!

[Draylo]

Large groups are penalized with this new delve. It's much much easier to 6 man than 18 man. There is 0 incentive for big groups now, I just wanted to know if they are going to throw us a curve ball is all. If future content is all 6 man, I would just like to know.

[MarkovChain]

Delve2 is an empty nutshell. I played a total of 30 minutes since they introduced it and have all the gear I wanted (augmentable one). Boss drops are garbage also.

[Tennotsukai]

Delve2 is an empty nutshell. I played a total of 30 minutes since they introduced it and have all the gear I wanted (augmentable one). Boss drops are garbage also.

All with the exception of a piece or so (TH belt). I actually wouldn't mind some better 18 man content. Something that allows for more jobs than the static 6 jobs.


Hey, Mr. OP! Why you no take part in popularizing my "Fix Blu posts?"

[Draylo]

Where is the alliance content? Only so much "low man" BS before it gets old!

[Demonjustin]

Where is the alliance content? Only so much "low man" BS before it gets old!Delve = Alliance content.

People just do it in parties because the option was added and it's possible while it rewards you just as well/better. The content is meant for alliances though.

[Draylo]

No delve 2.0 is TEN TIMES EASIER as a 6 man crew than 18 man, don't even try. We need content that only alliances can do or more of it. Delve 2.0 (not really) and Divine Might VD, two events in the ENTIRE GAME. You have enough low man stuff you can do by now, give the linkshells a bone.

[Malithar]

How well would 12 player content be received? The major gripes I've always seen with full alliance content is A: hard to fill (barring a LS full of people) and B: harder to coordinate and have 18 people doing their jobs. Would balancing an event or two around 12 be a fair compromise? Or they could always just do what they shoulda done with Delve, and scale the drops upwards with more people to offer an incentive for larger groups to do it, rather than low man being the obvious way to go, both for ease and drops.

[Draylo]

Yes I don't mind if they scaled it like they should have done, but they didn't. I just want something for my linkshell to try and do besides DM and Delve (which is more efficient as 6 man.) You can't really do the hard mode battles as an LS but it is restricted to 6 people. Some people like to do alliance events.

[Demonjustin]

No delve 2.0 is TEN TIMES EASIER as a 6 man crew than 18 man, don't even try.The fact it's easier isn't the point. It's alliance content. Had they not allowed us to 6 man it you'd have to do it in an alliance, not doing it that way but complaining at the same time it's not that kind of content is stupid, if you wanted to really do things as an alliance you'd just do it. That said Alliance content is an issue both not having it, and having it as being exclusively alliance based. Neither way is good, at least right now though you've a choice to do it rather than if events like Delve couldn't be low-manned where anyone without an alliance wouldn't be able to do the content at all.

[Draylo]

Please stop replying to the thread, you are just so wrong.

[Malithar]

The fact it's easier isn't the point. It's alliance content. Had they not allowed us to 6 man it you'd have to do it in an alliance, not doing it that way but complaining at the same time it's not that kind of content is stupid, if you wanted to really do things as an alliance you'd just do it. That said Alliance content is an issue both not having it, and having it as being exclusively alliance based. Neither way is good, at least right now though you've a choice to do it rather than if events like Delve couldn't be low-manned where anyone without an alliance wouldn't be able to do the content at all.

The major issue that Draylo is pointing out is the rewards.

You can fit more buffers and DDs in to overcome the HP increase well enough that it's mostly negligible. This gives it somewhat of a use for mass clearing multiple people that may not be geared well enough or missed the early rushes of 6 manning.

However, with the rewards not scaling at all, you have to ask, what is the purpose behind alliancing Delve content? If you can muster a proper 18 man group, there's no reason those same 18 can't split into at 2-3 groups and do 6-9 man. Doing so earns the LS essentially 2x the airlixirs, boss mats, and gear of the entire zone. When you look at it from the rewards point of view, and the ease of doing it, there's very, very little reason to ever go with a larger group. More competition for drops, more QQ I didn't get my item, more splits if you're selling and splitting mats/airlixir +2s, and more people to control.

Ever since the change, the only alliance Delves I've done were the new ones, after we had them on lowman farm status, in order to get clears for people who weren't able to on their own. Even then, the argument could be made that a lowman option is still better.

[Draylo]

It really isn't negligible though. 18 man and 6 man are different beasts. Try fighting the Morta mob in Tree zone with 18 people and you will see the different between that and 6 people. I just want some new hard content that isn't "low man". Where are the alliance events SE!

[Olor]

They went about delve changes so badly. Should have been more rewards and easier with 18, not opposite.

[Demonjustin]

I'm not denying issues with the current content. I was more or less saying it does exist. The fact some of these NMs are easier with fewer people really doesn't change the fact that had they not done the whole 6-man update we've have done it in alliances anyways and had to deal with the extra difficulty regardless. It seems stupid to me to say Delve for instance isn't alliance content when it's designed to be that way and they simply didn't adjust it for low-manning to the point it'd be worthwhile in alliances still.

I won't deny we need content which alliances can do that isn't better to do low-man.

I don't think there should be any content that's exclusively for alliances.

[detlef]

Specifically for Delve, if they couldn't implement varying difficulties and drop rates, maybe they would consider varying plasm based on group size. Perhaps running with a large group meant you got more plasm/less drops per person while a small group would yield less plasm/more drops.


I won't deny we need content which alliances can do that isn't better to do low-man.

I don't think there should be any content that's exclusively for alliances.This captures my sentiment. I like alliance content for many reasons but mainly because of the social aspect and the allure of seeing a much more diverse job spread. I won't lie and say it's not kind of cool to be able to do alliance content and have gear that other people can't get. But I will say it's probably better for the game if things are available for many different groups, provided that the content is scaled properly.

I'd hate for ally content to go away completely. I even hold out hope that VW will make a comeback because I had a lot of fun doing pickup VW.

[Draylo]

Yeah I liked pickup VW too, it was something the whole server did and knew each other from. They need to add something, just 6 man content is stale.... Cmon SE!

[ZoMBie343]

Somebody has to play support jobs or the group won't succeed, 18man or 6man. If you don't have the time to sink into an MMO, you can't expect to be the best. You should be content with eminent gear and reforged AF, the low tier gear was created for players like you. The top end gear should be to the people who are most dedicated and are able to field the things necessary to win it.

This kind of thinking is toxic for any MMO. You should be concerned about building relationships with people instead of finding new and creative ways to exclude people. (Actually I don't think it's new or creative).

[Draylo]

It's not toxic lol, every MMO runs the same buddy. If you don't have a lot of time you aren't going to be the best, that is how it is. Find me a subscription based MMO where that isn't true. Building relationships with people isn't all that great, most of them quit all the time or they drop off the face of the game w/o a word. You can have fun without being best of buddies. It's not about excluding people its about sustaining the longevity of the game. If you notice recent Delve adjustments, all those people cleared that content super easily and now they are bored. When everything is within reach to everyone with a dev team that doesn't pump content out that fast, you end up with a crisis.

[Lithera]

-.- they could pump stuff out every other day and people would still complain about being bored and having nothing new to do. Why? Because there are people who will not only have beaten the new thing that day but also gotten everything they want from it. Also just because a person might not be able to log in as much or as often as someone else doesn't mean that they won't be able to get the "best" gear at that point in time. It'll just take them longer than those who can be logged in more/longer.

[AppropriateName5786]

Bored people quit, and people who quit don't give SE money. They did the same thing in WoW for several years, but Blizzard realized that this was a huge design flaw and fixed it somewhat with systems like LFR. FFXI has no such system, nor does it have the population/ability to make it work even if it did. Making Delve 6-man was a very wise decision; the problem with Delve now is the design (i.e. it is extremely unbalanced, gimmicky content), not the number of people who can enter.

Some people log in for 2 hours a week on LS event night and get the best gear available, just because they have the right connections. Some of these people spend zero time "enjoying the game" outside of showing up to an event once or twice a week. On the other hand, someone who spends 10 hours a day in the game might never progress past D/VD AA fights because they don't know the right people/no LS needs their jobs/they live in a different time zone etc. When it comes to end-game alliance content, the amount of time you spend in the game and how dedicated you are (and these two things are quite distinct) don't mean all that much.

Alliance content is never about "teamwork," as any activity that requires more than 1 person requires, by definition, teamwork, which means that you can experience all the teamwork you want in 2-6 person content. As Zombie343 mentioned, it's always about exclusivity, and SE should no longer cater exclusively to "princesses" in this game. Optional alliance content is fine, but content that is exclusively for alliances needs to never be seen again.

[Afania]

This kind of thinking is toxic for any MMO. You should be concerned about building relationships with people instead of finding new and creative ways to exclude people. (Actually I don't think it's new or creative).


Not sure what's so toxic about it. 6 man content is better at excluding people since the elite can play with mules/close friends and 18 man forces players to build relationships with people and find more friends.

[Lithera]

Afania I don't think he means that is toxic, but the because I have more time in the day to play the game than someone else they should just be bloody happy they have sparks gear mind set as being toxic.

[Draylo]

Bored people quit, and people who quit don't give SE money. They did the same thing in WoW for several years, but Blizzard realized that this was a huge design flaw and fixed it somewhat with systems like LFR. FFXI has no such system, nor does it have the population/ability to make it work even if it did. Making Delve 6-man was a very wise decision; the problem with Delve now is the design (i.e. it is extremely unbalanced, gimmicky content), not the number of people who can enter.

Some people log in for 2 hours a week on LS event night and get the best gear available, just because they have the right connections. Some of these people spend zero time "enjoying the game" outside of showing up to an event once or twice a week. On the other hand, someone who spends 10 hours a day in the game might never progress past D/VD AA fights because they don't know the right people/no LS needs their jobs/they live in a different time zone etc. When it comes to end-game alliance content, the amount of time you spend in the game and how dedicated you are (and these two things are quite distinct) don't mean all that much.

Alliance content is never about "teamwork," as any activity that requires more than 1 person requires, by definition, teamwork, which means that you can experience all the teamwork you want in 2-6 person content. As Zombie343 mentioned, it's always about exclusivity, and SE should no longer cater exclusively to "princesses" in this game. Optional alliance content is fine, but content that is exclusively for alliances needs to never be seen again.

Yet Delve 2.0 was a step back in the "exclusive" department. Nobody will take random jobs because the more people you add the more HP mobs have and more difficult it becomes. It ends up being people with mules and specific jobs only. The is the same for almost all the hard mode battles too. At least alliance content let you bring other jobs and still win w/o gimmicks like increased HP per person.

If someone logs on 10 hours a day and they aren't completing content it is because they are idiots. You could easily farm a large amount of gil and pay people for wins or items that you desire, or put effort into researching a linkshell within your play time. Alliance content is more about teamwork than 6 man, you are so mistaken. It requires a lot more work to get 18 people working together well than it does 6 people (oops I meant 3 people and mules).

[Draylo]

Afania I don't think he means that is toxic, but the because I have more time in the day to play the game than someone else they should just be bloody happy they have sparks gear mind set as being toxic.

I don't see how its fair that someone with 2 hours a week to play is able to easily catch up to the person who plays everyday?


Also just because a person might not be able to log in as much or as often as someone else doesn't mean that they won't be able to get the "best" gear at that point in time. It'll just take them longer than those who can be logged in more/longer.

I agree, over time the content gets easier because new stuff is pushed out. Ideally that is how it should be.

[Afania]

Afania I don't think he means that is toxic, but the because I have more time in the day to play the game than someone else they should just be bloody happy they have sparks gear mind set as being toxic.

But that's still not toxic from MMO's POV, if someone playing 2hr a week can catch up to someone play 10hr a day, there's no reason to play everyday anymore, everyone gonna just gonna play 10hr a day and quit after they get stuff.

[Lithera]

It is if you get butt-hurt because you log in more often than a guy that logs in twice a week and still can manage to get the gear they want. Or if let's say they totally make a fight look like a cake walk while for you it keeps on tripping you up and thus demands more log in time. Is it fair? Not really, but should the other person not get the reward from the fight just because they took less time to beat it? Or to never be allowed it til there is a tougher fight that gives better stuff just because you put in more time getting it?

[Malthar]

It is if you get butt-hurt because you log in more often than a guy that logs in twice a week and still can manage to get the gear they want. Or if let's say they totally make a fight look like a cake walk while for you it keeps on tripping you up and thus demands more log in time. Is it fair? Not really, but should the other person not get the reward from the fight just because they took less time to beat it? Or to never be allowed it til there is a tougher fight that gives better stuff just because you put in more time getting it?

Ok, you lost me. You went all the way to Jupiter to go to the corner store. And if you don't understand what that means, then you know how I felt reading your post.

[Lithera]

Then you know how I felt reading drylo's response to me or to another post where it comes off that he feels it's unfair if someone who logs in less than him is able to get the same stuff as them when they log in more often. And how the person who doesn't log in as often as he does yet gets lucky or w/e with the rng shouldn't get the best gear in that short amount of time until there is a better set out there.

[Lithera]

Oh and sometimes you go to Jupiter when you're just going to the corner store because they have astronomically low prices on gass.

[Draylo]

I don't care to continue that conversation, it has nothing to do with the thread. I would like a DEV response to see if they are ever adding more alliance content, thanks.

[Draylo]

DEV response plz, what new content can we expect that is something more than 6 can do?

[Draylo]

Dev response for MON plz

[Malthar]

Then you know how I felt reading drylo's response to me or to another post where it comes off that he feels it's unfair if someone who logs in less than him is able to get the same stuff as them when they log in more often. And how the person who doesn't log in as often as he does yet gets lucky or w/e with the rng shouldn't get the best gear in that short amount of time until there is a better set out there.
To say you went completely off topic is an understatement. Draylo is simply asking if content requiring more than six people will ever be developed again.

If you want to continue posting, please stay on topic, else, go back to Jupiter.

[Lithera]

To say you went completely off topic is an understatement. Draylo is simply asking if content requiring more than six people will ever be developed again.

If you want to continue posting, please stay on topic, else, go back to Jupiter.

Yet I'm not even the one that derailed it in the 1st place. I came in post derailment.

With the way SE seems to be thinking it doesn't look like he will be getting anything that follows the this is what I feel is alliance based content anytime soon from his pov.

[Draylo]

Can we get any response from the devs? Any cool content coming out that requires more than 6 ppl?

[Malthar]

Yet I'm not even the one that derailed it in the 1st place. I came in post derailment.

So, if everyone jumped off a bridge you don't follow suit?

[Menty]

Good Evening,

Our event Linkshell is eager for another, more current Alliance based event. Is this a possibility in the short or long term future?

Thank you for your time,
Menty

[Draylo]

Bump, dev response plz

[Olor]

would be nice if devs at least answered the question.

[Recon]

Hello there, We need more Alliance based Content, all this 6-man stuff is ok but we need more 18-man content also for Linkshells that still have a solid team. Below is what i think you should add to this game...
Sea/Sky 119 versions,
Pandemonium Warden Hard Mode
Absolute Virtue Hard Mode
Sacred Kindred Crest BC 99 with Tough fights,
Legion V2 119 versions,
Bahamut Fight 119 versions,
Also would like to see Salvage gear 119, Neo-Nyzle 119 gear, Limbus 119 gear. The new Delve was good, but too easy, not enough good items drop from it either. Most Boss drops were junk imo :/
There is plenty more i could go on about, but this really needs to be adressed.
Thanks for your time.

[Grekumah]

Greetings,

Currently the development team is prioritizing content tailored towards 6-person parties so that a greater number of people are able to challenge it. This doesn’t mean that we will not be implementing alliance-based content later down the line, but at the moment there are no plans.

[Crevox]

Greetings,

Currently the development team is prioritizing content tailored towards 6-person parties so that a greater number of people are able to challenge it. This doesn’t mean that we will not be implementing alliance-based content later down the line, but at the moment there are no plans.

I'm glad. I don't want more alliance based content.

[Demonjustin]

Greetings,

Currently the development team is prioritizing content tailored towards 6-person parties so that a greater number of people are able to challenge it. This doesn’t mean that we will not be implementing alliance-based content later down the line, but at the moment there are no plans.While I'm sure no one has a problem with this, it would make many players happy to have the choice to make an alliance and at the same time have rewards scale to match. In events such as Delve which were originally alliance content we now see next to no one actually going about the event in such a way, in fact, the rewards incentivise you to move away from making an alliance and toward doing it with as few people as possible. While I don't think the rewards should be insanely better for going with an alliance I think it should scale to match.

For example, currently upon defeating Tojil it drops 4 weapons/armor/accessories, 60k Plasm, and 2~3 Airlixir +1/2 as well as it's 2 crafting items. It would be great if in an alliance this were increased to match. For every 2 additional players the amount of armor like items and Airlixirs increase by 1, while every full party adds an additional craft item. Does this go over the 10 item limit? Yes, it does, however the quick fix to this is to make the craft/Airlixir items drop first due to the fact they are tradable. The armor like items aren't so as a result you can make them second, with a full alliance you'd have 18 people, that's 12 extra or 6 additional armor drops, this means if you have a full alliance and there are maximum armor drops you're going to get 10 items, a full pool every time. This would work for the drop system and it would make bringing additional players rewarding rather than detrimental.

[Balloon]

That's the problem, having content scale is great, but what's exactly the point of going with 18? You're just wasting time shouting.

I dunno, I'd rather have 6 man stuff if you're not willing to server merge.

[Mitruya]

6-man parties seem to leave out more people, not encourage more participation. If you're not a princess job or running with a clique, you are SOL.

[Snprphnx]

Alliance based content is wanted for larger linkshells that can handle it. There is only so many DM and 16-18 man Delve runs we can do without getting bored.

I like the idea of ilvl 119 versions of PW, AV, Bv2, Ouryu alliance fight, and Legion.

[Kari]

That's the problem, having content scale is great, but what's exactly the point of going with 18? You're just wasting time shouting.

I dunno, I'd rather have 6 man stuff if you're not willing to server merge.

The point is just being able to. There are still some active Linkshells. It's good that they don't force us to do alliance content, but it's better if they still allow us to go as an alliance if we have the manpower.

[Draylo]

Greetings,

Currently the development team is prioritizing content tailored towards 6-person parties so that a greater number of people are able to challenge it. This doesn’t mean that we will not be implementing alliance-based content later down the line, but at the moment there are no plans.

Well finally a reply! I knew it would be a vague answer... Guess I should have expected that. I hope the DEV team realizes that some people actually enjoy alliance content where they work with a group of 8 or more individuals. 6 man is very restrictive and you can't have much room for job freedom like you can with an alliance. When Delve 1 came out we had all different jobs in the setup just because we could, it was fun and laid back. Delve 2, you pretty much cannot do that, the HP adjustment heavily penalizes large groups. Try doing the tree zone with 18 people and then with 6 people, you will see a HUGE difference, especially in the Morta type NM. It really hinders the ability to bring people along for wins like the producer wanted people to do gradually. A person who doesn't contribue just adds 68,000 HP to the mob or more. Even if you clear it, you still waste more time than a 6 man run for the exact same rewards.

Anyways, glad to get some type of response to see that alliance content is planned down the road. If there is something, please do NOT follow the model for Delve 1/2.

[Draylo]

The point is just being able to. There are still some active Linkshells. It's good that they don't force us to do alliance content, but it's better if they still allow us to go as an alliance if we have the manpower.


Alliance based content is wanted for larger linkshells that can handle it. There is only so many DM and 16-18 man Delve runs we can do without getting bored.

I like the idea of ilvl 119 versions of PW, AV, Bv2, Ouryu alliance fight, and Legion.

I agree, we should have something for both sides of the fence ideally. My linkshell is very bored atm, we all enjoy alliance content and there is pretty much nothing left in the game to challenge as a group. For some stuff we even have to split up which isn't that much fun to us.


I'm glad. I don't want more alliance based content.

Gonna go out on a random guess here and say you don't have a functioning linkshell or friends.

[Malthar]

So, Dray, what to do? Should be break in to A, B, and C teams for ls events now?

[Multiabuse]

It is not surprising at all that SE basically said they won't ever be making alliance content. I'm gonna take a wild stab and say they probably won't make any really challenging content, either.

There is zero incentive to do Alliance content. I have done delve in a 5 man (2 mules) group and done it with 18. Doing it with 5 I left with ~10 merits, half a job point, 110k plasm, and 1/3 the selling price of a Bole/Pelt/Claw/etc. With 18, you leave with negligible/no merits,fractional jp, the same plasm, and 1/18th the selling price of the craft item. Low man groups can leave with enough merits to jump right into a high tier mission battlefield, while the 18 man team has to go farm those merits in addition. In 18-man Bosses spam frustrating TP moves (Timber/Firefly/Dream Flower/Frond Fatale/Deracinator just to name the Yorcia zone) vs seeing them far less frequently in low-man. Even if you try to subvert the amount of tp moves they do (e.g. reduce tp-feed), you still have to account for ~800k additional HP on each NM. That leads to everyone hitting hate caps quickly and the boss running around randomly attacking everyone. In all, it leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Frankly I would rather they rework tired mechanics and fix current content than to feed us more of these poorly designed and rewarded content for alliances.

In any case, "Alliance Content" is an unspeakable term in this game these days. Just like "Hardcore Play" and "Teamwork." They have been redefined and replaced with terms like "Low Man", "Job Points Botting", and "Summoning Trusts."

[Afania]

I'm not sure why everyone and their mother hates content that requires alliance.....if you don't have friends/ls to do alliance content, just do 6 man content. The point is about having an option for ppl wanting to do content that requires more ppl.

[Xysto]

So it was announced that the new Delve will be 6-18 man and an adjustment of HP accordingly, as noted here:

http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxi/threads/40554-Will-the-recent-Delve-changes-also-apply-to-the-new-Delve-II

My question is, what incentive is there right now to have a fully functioning linkshell when there is nothing to do with them that requires it? Why would I want to have 18 people for the new Delve when it is POSSIBLE to beat it (I know it will be, or why would they have included that adjustment to do it with 6 people) when I can do it with 6 people? Why do I drag 18 people into this content when I can clear it faster with 6 people with secondary characters and not have to split the loot at all? The loot is the same regardless of players entering, what sense does this make!? If this is going to be just like the adjustment to the original delve, like was said in that post, the rewards system wont be like Divine Might. There is 0 incentive to bring an alliance.

I've seen this once before and it was with Abyssea. This caused a splinter in all linkshells and pretty much destroyed them. So then after Adoulin came out we were forced to once again gather people up to do the original Delve because it was balanced around 18 people. Then you had everyone quit for XIV and come crawling back because its boring and the people who still had a linkshell are penalized for it.

My question is, will there ever be an incentive to do alliance based content that justifies having more than 6 people in our linkshells? Everything in this entire game can be 6 manned aside from VD Divine might. The new battles they have planned will probably all be 6 man as the originals were (Shadow Lord etc.) One event in the ENTIRE game that requires more than 6 people. This is an MMO?

Edit: Updated this post since its before Delve 2.0. Delve 2 heavily penalizes alliances and even bringing more than a handful of people. If you wanna include friends you can't unless its the strict job setup to get the win or you are looking at 68k+ HP per person. Why are alliances penalized for this when the rewards the same as the easy 6 man (or less considering you can trio it.)?
This is not true. most ffxi servers are actually pretty empty atm, everyone know this.

[Balloon]

I really like alliance content because it gives you a bit of leeway with things like job selection, sure, the start of delve meant that everyone had to be on their A-game, but eventually 2-3 jobs could be lesser geared/one of the many jobs nobody takes to things and you'd get along okay.

Doesn't really happen in much 6 man content.

[Afania]

I really like alliance content because it gives you a bit of leeway with things like job selection, sure, the start of delve meant that everyone had to be on their A-game, but eventually 2-3 jobs could be lesser geared/one of the many jobs nobody takes to things and you'd get along okay.

Doesn't really happen in much 6 man content.

I also like alliance content because that forces all the elitist to make friends and start playing with us mortals.

In a 6 man content everyone and their mother just play with 1 real player + 3 mules or 5 mules with scripts.

This is a MMO, we should play with other players, not mules.

[Rhonda]

I also like alliance content because that forces all the elitist to make friends and start playing with us mortals.Me + five other elitists = 6 people. It's somewhat noteworthy that you can start your own groups or even practice with your LS until you get it down. I lost many Morimars when I was just getting start with Delve. My LS did three or four Yorcia runs with beads before we were at the point where we felt we could do 1-5 (though I'd note we've never lost to Yorcia). While these are definitely the easier Delves, my LSs can do both consistently. Foret, too. Meanwhile, my failure rate is PUG Foret is fairly high, Morimar once in a while, and I don't do PUG Yorcia.


In a 6 man content everyone and their mother just play with 1 real player + 3 mules or 5 mules with scripts.

This is a MMO, we should play with other players, not mules.The number of people that can be bothered to do this is small, not 'everyone and their mother'. Quit QQing and work on gear and skills for your LS mates and yourself.

[Afania]

Me + five other elitists = 6 people. It's somewhat noteworthy that you can start your own groups or even practice with your LS until you get it down. I lost many Morimars when I was just getting start with Delve. My LS did three or four Yorcia runs with beads before we were at the point where we felt we could do 1-5 (though I'd note we've never lost to Yorcia). While these are definitely the easier Delves, my LSs can do both consistently. Foret, too. Meanwhile, my failure rate is PUG Foret is fairly high, Morimar once in a while, and I don't do PUG Yorcia.

The number of people that can be bothered to do this is small, not 'everyone and their mother'. Quit QQing and work on gear and skills for your LS mates and yourself.


Not sure what are you talking about, that wasn't a "delve is too hard QQ"(delve2 is easy as fuck compare with pre-ilv delve1 and legion, especially yorcia). And I don't have an issue clearing/merc all delve2 6 NM run with close friends. I have some ppl I tend to do delve with, I just like to play with different ppl and make new friends instead of rotating same group of close friends because nobody like to play with randoms.

Yes, I can go out and /shout for random but then ppl I tend to pt with would start drama if I invite any random. That wouldn't be an issue if delve require 18 ppl.

Bolded part pointed out that nobody like to play with random when you only need 6 ppl, if yorcia require 18 ppl you'd have to PUG unless your ls has 18 ppl every run. I want events that forces ppl to go out and play with randoms, instead of close friends/lsmate.

Also, if you value efficiency for real, you'd use mules for delve. It's the difference between split $$ with 5 ppl or split $$ with 2. Now that delve1 and 2 merc price been dropping a ton, most ppl who do delve merc often tend to use mules.

I'm not looking for a group to do things with, I'm looking for some kind of game mechanic that forces everyone /shout more and pt with different ppl instead of same close friend/lsmate.