why are people so resistant to constructive criticism about the game?

This is actually not a unique FFXIV phenomenon. I think every MMO ever probably had groups of players with the attitude "what are you talking about? It will always be like this! Things are perfect. They are never going to change!" but the difference is in other MMOs those have typically been players who socially exploit some clear unbalance in game design such as the example of guilds monopolizing world bosses or open world dungeons. It's perfect because they gated others from doing it no matter how unbalanced. Age old thing.

In MMO this comes down to "having friends" and in the case of FFXIV which is arguably a more accessible game contentwise than the old sandboxy types of MMOs where factions of players could "monopolize" content but also still a more collectivist and group dependent game than WoW (it's not just raids but for example treasure map dungeons and other things were you easily miss out on content if you don't have the friends) and more than anything FFXIV does not do much to make the individual player attractive to the collective through sheer individual effort alone, which is a borderline/pseudo sandbox heritage a game such as WoW has more or less managed to do away with over the years.

This is why those who are socially established, be it casual or hardcore, are much less inclined to see the benefits of change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linayar

Of course, but you're speaking from the company's perspective. This thread is about why other customers might be resistant to "constructive" criticisms.

---

Right right. The bad thing is, there really isn’t any way to “vote with your money” like you could with a burger shop, as it’s pay the sub for everything or not. I guess it might be more comparable to buying a car?

Though I’ve always been of the mind of doing in game kickstarters. Players buy generic crysta pledged towards something they really want, and if a threshold is met, SE will commit to make whatever it is. Players keep the crysta to shop in mogstation.

Personally I’ve never bought any, but if I knew I could influence getting a new job or dungeon, I would be much more likely to do it. Maybe big spenders get an NPC in dungeon they can name XD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

While I'm no fan of constantly swapped out 'borrowed power' systems (Artifact Weapons in Legion, Azerite gear in BfA, Conduits in Shadowlands), I'm not sure I can think of any that have had nearly the negative reception of, well, the majority of XIV's side-content? The most notorious of them all, the Garrisons, amounted to the same complaint people had about housing here, if a bit more intense: "Where'd all the people I used to see in cities and the open world go?"

That Azerite gear forced us to focus on a single spec (or pay gold fees to swap it around) isn't particularly different from the gear optimization issues in, say, leveling WAR vs. non-WAR tanks now in XIV. You want to play Outlaw Rogue optimally, former Subtlety Rogue? Pay up. You want that DHit back for optimal PLD play? Pay up. You want to be able to fully progress both tank and healer at the same time? Well, you're going to need a second character for that (or, in WoW's case, gold fees on a hybrid class, although there's truly no way around the weekly caps in XIV short of making a second character).

---

Things like the Titanforge or the corruptions that have had to "fix" more than 3 times since they were implemented, the RNG in absolutely the entire equipment system is something that has been a constant complaint by many in the forums.

I left the game in WoD but I keep reading the forums and my former guildmates keep commenting on the situation of the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasarayu

example of guilds monopolizing world bosses or open world dungeons. It's perfect because they gated others from doing it no matter how unbalanced. Age old thing.

---

https://www.reddit.com/r/MapleStory2...rol_this_game/

It reminds me of this and one of the many reasons why the game closed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Infindox

I don't consider a lot of what some people discuss as "constructive criticism" on places like Reddit, more like "have a fit and if someone disagrees pile on them". There are things in this game I don't get and I'll gladly address my concerns.

---

Literal Truth.

Why do people expect if they put out an opinion nobody will challenge them on it?

Most common one I see is the people asking for story skip because they don't want to have to do the storyline to unlock things- but the story is meant to be an integral part of the game. A story skip is no different from a raid skip that gives you the best gear without having to do anything. People might not always give the best criticism when people say they want a story skip- stuff like 'go back to WoW' is not exactly useful- but at the same time a fair amount of 'constructive criticism' of the game is just as useless.

As for more content- people realize that when you add more content somewhere you're taking it away from somewhere else, we know that the devs don't have limitless resources to make more of everything for everyone. If it were possible, I don't think nearly as many people would care if they kept adding more stuff they don't enjoy (well, some would, there's always a subset of players that get mad that things are added like LFR, very easy to duties, etc...). Players don't want more taken from the things they like to do in order to put in things they don't, and that's the case for everyone- the people asking for more savage/extremes/BA or whatever other high end content and getting mad that some people disagree would be just as fuming if people suggested putting in less of that sort of content in order to bring out more low end things.

As well- maybe people just like the game? If people enjoy certain features that someone is saying they hate, what response are they going to give other than to say they like those features?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hanaya

I've seen a lot of debates recently between people about whether or not we should be getting more content, or just about people wanting different kinds of content to what we're getting right now, and while I don't necessarily agree or disagree with either side, there seems to be such a dramatic response to everything. If someone who's main interest is savage or ultimate raiding says they want more content on that side of the game

---

Asking for things is not constructive criticism. It's just... asking for things. It could imply criticism, but at best, just criticism. "I don't like this because there's not enough X feature." That can be a complaint... it's hardly constructive, though.

I think the resistance can be due to several factors:
-Happy customers don't want to see a product changed and bad experiences with change in other games can also make people resistant to changes here.
-The way the criticism is worded can definitely provoke a more negative response to a topic.
-Some people just enjoy arguing for it's own sake and will come into a thread and stir just to see the response.
-Some people simply can't see an issue unless it affects them personally - 'X' isn't a problem for me, therefore 'x' isn't a problem

The one thing that consistently surprises me in regard to FFXIV is how vehemently people will argue against quality of life improvements that would either benefit them too, or wouldn't affect them at all.
I've seen people berated for asking for more bag space, better housing or ways to make the game more alt-friendly. The first two have been addressed to some extent by the devs, but I saw significant push-back on these forums when the issues were raised. The alt issue is particularly baffling as nobody ever suggested making them compulsory, yet the strongest responses always seem to come from people who have no interest in them.

Arguing against things that would make things better for everyone or arguing against helping a small group of players without negatively impacting others, I find very hard to understand.

For the same reason the male viera thread exists. People refuse to see the truth of the situation and instead substitute it with their own delusions.

Different people like different things. One of the biggest challenges any video game dev team faces when designing or expanding a game is adding new content that's accommodating to as many people as possible within a given budget and time constraint. Most devs who have ever released a successful console game will almost always say that despite the game's success there was always "that one feature" or "that other system" they would have liked to have implemented but couldn't fit into the project before the release deadline. It doesn't matter if it's a shooter, a sports title, an action/RPG, a RTS, or any other genre. Creating content takes developer time and testing and correcting gameplay bugs takes even more of it. So from the FFXIV dev team's perspective, every option has to get weighed against an alternative and they have to do their best to balance everything. It's certainly a daunting task.

From a player perspective though, aside from people being adamant about their favorite things, they also come from all walks of life. FFXIV is so large that by now there are no doubt players from every race, creed, gender, religion, ethnic background and what have you. Most don't look at the professional aspect of the game when they write a post, but instead look at it from their personal perspective. Whether they realize it or not, their posts are personally biased. It's normal and a very human thing to do. And because of this you're going to have disagreements no matter what you say. It's the old saying "You can please most of the people most of the time, but you can never please everyone all of the time". When viewpoints differ in real life the exact same thing happens as they do on the form, and in most cases form debates are more regulated and down to earth because of the moderation here. But in the end people are people, and you can't ever change that. When people get very one sided with their opinions, whether they're doing it intentionally or not, it's just them expressing their desire to see more of the thing that they like based on their own experiences and perspective. And it's the devs task to take the cumulative feedback and use it to make the best decisions they can when moving the game forward.

I think that with a lot of games people take any sort of criticism towards it as an insult towards them. So all criticism it the same for the no matter if one is just a "I hate x" or a post with many good thoughtout points. (And some just want to troll)

You will have people that enjoy the story of a game and that post that anyone who does not like it or complain about it just simply did not understand it..like the complainers are not intelligent enough..they are bascially putting down others to make them feel better. So maybe those that are so aggressive with even constructive criticism have low selfesteem too? (Or too much of it and believe to be always right)

Even here on the forum you have enough posters that are so unbelievable passive agressive to most of the criticism even if it makes sense or would not hurt the game or them in any way..until they too have something to complain about...

So I guess its just discussion culture in general. You will sadly always have those that are insulted by any criticism no matter how good it was..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arngrim_Greyashe

For the same reason the male viera thread exists. People refuse to see the truth of the situation and instead substitute it with their own delusions.

---

I saw a personality disorder about that. I wonder if the DSM VI is going to have a section literally just called twitter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nayout

Things like the Titanforge or the corruptions that have had to "fix" more than 3 times since they were implemented, the RNG in absolutely the entire equipment system is something that has been a constant complaint by many in the forums.

---

That's just a matter of having ~20 to ~1060 times the possible loot combinations at any given item level than in XIV. XIV has 1 per ilvl tier over the leveling experience and 2 at any level-cap ilvl tier. WoW has some 6 possible drops at the end of a dungeon even after trimming it down to solely what the specialization you've selected could use. The weekly Mythic Challenger chest, further, can take from literally any loot in the game, scaled to your item level reward, with any possible corruption (tens of thousands of combinations in total). Titanforging doesn't play a part in that; it's just a matter of a large loot table.

True, Titanforging was an issue in Legion, when they wanted to increase time played and bridge casual-hardcore power-acquisition gaps and increase the "RPGness" of certain loot progressions. But since then it's only really been pertinent to leveling, as to occasionally get a trinket you won't just replace in another level, and catch-up mechanics.

Gotta ask, though... did you never do the original Diadem? Now that was an actual RNG nightmare. Item level was RNG within a chest-type-derived range. The number of secondary stats attached was likewise entirely RNG, from a total no more than the typical lesser secondary stat, to 3 major secondary stats and 2 lessers, iirc.

Anecdotal evidence being a strong cause.
Player X says their way is the true way to do things.
Player Y says the opposite is the true way to do things.

Both players encounter ppl of the opposite opinion, who tell them to do the opposite method. How does one distinguish who is in the right? Well, that depends on what the person determines is a proper way to find out results. (usually again, due to anecdotal evidence) If looking into the evidence, they experience an opposite result where the evidence suggests otherwise, that "evidence" is no longer seen as a reasonable argument. (Lets say "DPS properly" is the stance. Some group, maybe 3 times in a row, tries to DPS properly, but messes up something else. (such as a dodge mechanic) They may now think all evidence that suggests "good DPS" is a "good thing", is no longer reasonable evidence of "proper play".)
Also keep in mind, the more they keep hearing something they dont agree with, the more annoyed they get, no matter how constructive it is.
This of course excludes the inability to hear "tone" in text, and that even "constructive criticism" can be a veil for someone to just vent/lash out. (feeling "morally in the right", as long as their lash outs are constructive in their phrasing. (but maybe not in their context)) An example; Someone curses at work, but in a manner thats completely neutral, such as "I had a F**king hotdog today!" This doesnt mean that person is getting smart, or showing an attitude with another employee. But they "could" be punished for "doing wrong". But another employee can use "please and Thank yous" while giving an attitude/being a smart a** about it. But they dont get in trouble, because "please and thankyou" isnt against the company rules. (Seen these examples play out at my work places for many years)

Sadly, "Constructive criticism" is never going to be easily seen as such, despite how unfortunate that is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linayar

FFXIV is not just an MMO, but an MMORPG, a Final Fantasy MMORPG. Story will always be part of the game. Just because FFXI may not make story required doesn't mean FFXIV can't.

---

The story being part of the game is something different entirely than making the story required. This is why I don't understand why people bring up that it's a Final Fantasy game when people want to prioritize doing something else ahead of the story. Unless people ask for the story to be removed, which I don't really recall seeing, no one is attempting to make it any less of a Final Fantasy game. If anything an optional story would benefit the MSQ. There would be no need compromise it for the sake of trying to make it appeal to everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arngrim_Greyashe

For the same reason the male viera thread exists. People refuse to see the truth of the situation and instead substitute it with their own delusions.

---

When ARR launched, it added male Miqo'te, female Roegadyn and female Highlanders to the game, all of which were not a thing in 1.0. Seems they thought it would be a good idea to add the missing genders for the reboot.

Now jump ahead to the announcement that Viera. I remember being so incredibly confident that there was absolutely no way they'd limit it to only female, especially given their inclusion of the missing gender options at ARR launch, but alas, we know how that played out. To say the least, I was completely shocked and amazed that they went with that decision.

The Devs have given there reasons why they opted to go this route, but to me it all just feels like an incredibly bad decision and any criticism is well deserved. I've not read a majority of the pages in the Viera thread, but I 100% understand why they want them to be a thing why they feel they should be a thing. To write it off as a mere delusion is really doing a disservice to the playerbase and their voices.

SE has made plenty of questionable decisions in other areas of the game as well, the limited races are just the latest to be tossed onto the heap. I wonder if all the backlash was worth it for them (I'm not just talking the forum backlash).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

That's just a matter of having ~20 to ~1060 times the possible loot combinations at any given item level than in XIV. XIV has 1 per ilvl tier over the leveling experience and 2 at any level-cap ilvl tier. WoW has some 6 possible drops at the end of a dungeon even after trimming it down to solely what the specialization you've selected could use. The weekly Mythic Challenger chest, further, can take from literally any loot in the game, scaled to your item level reward, with any possible corruption (tens of thousands of combinations in total). Titanforging doesn't play a part in that; it's just a matter of a large loot table.

True, Titanforging was an issue in Legion, when they wanted to increase time played and bridge casual-hardcore power-acquisition gaps and increase the "RPGness" of certain loot progressions. But since then it's only really been pertinent to leveling, as to occasionally get a trinket you won't just replace in another level, and catch-up mechanics.

Gotta ask, though... did you never do the original Diadem? Now that was an actual RNG nightmare. Item level was RNG within a chest-type-derived range. The number of secondary stats attached was likewise entirely RNG, from a total no more than the typical lesser secondary stat, to 3 major secondary stats and 2 lessers, iirc.

---

And that's exactly what a lot of people don't like, my whole guild with raid in BC, Woltk and Cata don't like the direction the game has taken with these things. And I know the Diadema because I still have equipment I keep in my retainers in that area, one of the reasons why it failed was because of that but if I remember correctly, the equipment they gave in that area was never superior to Savage's. I also know perfectly well about Eureka Pyros and the crystal forge with the statistics that it was a whole RNG system, but of course it is something very small or almost anegodotic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skivvy

Let me preface this by saying I have absolutely no coding/programming knowledge of any sort, and it will be evident in my next sentence. lol. But is what you're saying is that it would be possible to actually build ARR completely 'fresh' so to speak with new coding, but have to tweak things in a weird way to make it compatible with/transfer legacy characters properly?

The 1.0 coding gets blamed for many, many things by this community - but to my simple mind it doesn't seem like making legacy characters work in a new game, if that was their main hurdle, could have THAT far of a reach. But again, I know nothing in this field so I could be incredibly off-base here.


Just saw your edit, so if that's the case, I'm thinking there's a strong chance that's probably what the other thread had been talking about.

---

A lot of what's in the game is built on top of 1.0 coding. They didnt recode the entire game and engine from scratch, just added on top of it and modified it for their uses to get 2.0 off the ground. This approach has some knock on effects. So some of the things we have been complaining about are a result of how 1.0 was set up. In layman's terms, think of it this way: 1.0 is the foundation of a house, and 2.0 and on is the house and all it's addons. You can do quite a bit to add onto and modify the house itself, but it is still reliant on how strong the foundation is. If you arent careful, the foundation breaks and the hwole thing falls apart. So one thing it could limit how 'high' a house could be as a result.

From what Ive read, If you want to understand this in practical terms of the game, the character creation engine is a hold over from 1.0. Specifically the fact that it literally needs an exact number of fields to work. It's why fem lalafells have a breast slider even if nothing comes of it - the engine needed a set number of fields to be filled with something for it to work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PyurBlue

The story being part of the game is something different entirely than making the story required. This is why I don't understand why people bring up that it's a Final Fantasy game when people want to prioritize doing something else ahead of the story. Unless people ask for the story to be removed, which I don't really recall seeing, no one is attempting to make it any less of a Final Fantasy game. If anything an optional story would benefit the MSQ. There would be no need compromise it for the sake of trying to make it appeal to everyone.

---

Let me preface this by saying this is only my personal opinion and feeling(s) on the matter - should be obvious, with this being kind of a "touchy" subject, I still feel it needs to be said.

Now to answer your question: If someone wants to ignore the story (by buying a jump/skip potion or skipping cutscenes) thats absolutly fine - I think most people, even those who like the story and play mainly to experience that, would agree with this. If you dont want to play through the story and find a way for yourself to take in as little as possible, thats your right.
But my worry would be that by turning the story into more optional content - instead of having most things in the game tied to it in some capacity, requiring you to pass certain points within the story to unlock NPCs, areas, dungeons etc. - my worry would be that the story would lose its strong connection to the world and in turn would lose meaning and maybe even quality.

Speaking in terms of the series as a whole: The story has always been the driving factor in these games. The story was never optional - areas, dungeons, NPCs, partymembers... all of that has always been locked behind the story - so yes, in a sense, an optional story would make it less of a Final Fantasy game.
Now, admittely that argument "Its always been like this!" is obviously not the best or strongest one to be made. Given the basic design of this game though, I think its a fair one to be considered. To me it doesnt seem that content is locked behind the story just to force people to go through the story - its locked because it has its place within the narrative and disconnecting the two would cheapen both the story-experience aswell as the duty-experience.

I am assuming that we're only talking about legitimate criticism here and not just the usual '' lol weeb gaem ''.

There's different kinds of people who hang around forums and social medias and one of the largest groups are groups that have very strong opinions and overinflated egos.
People who have problems and with high emotions are more likely to say something, you see this a lot on social medias too and how places like Twitter is such an inaccurate reflection of society at large.
These places aren't used by the average person it's a very small group of people.
And it kinda naturally scares away normal people, and you get small groups essentially monopolizing everything.
In reality they only represent a very small and extreme group of people and they bully everyone else into silence.
It's the same on a certain infamous '' gaming '' forum, a small group of people that are organized can make themselves seem very large and monopolize any discussion or platform.
But most of the userbase isn't like that but are basically sitting hostage because they're afraid of speaking up ( in that case the moderation is why it's infamous, so they'll get banned too ).

I remember when WoW Classic was coming out and the '' NoChanges '' thing was talked about and you had a very obnoxiously loud group of people who would spam this every thread, but I sincerely doubt that attitude was as widespread as they made it seem.
And the '' Vanilla experience '' was never going to happen to begin with, totally different times.
And now it has proven that this attitude actually lead to a lot of problems and the game and the community is in a pretty poor state because of it.
And it has become a bit more acceptable to be critical towards things like World Buffs for example or about how there's no AoE cap and leveling has just become P2W which anyone should've been able to foresee.
There's some more controversial takes like maybe classes should be rebalanced so that 80% of talent builds aren't totally useless and non-competitive but people are at least a bit more open-minded to that now.
The loud and extreme minority has sorta died down and the average person is allowed to speak, and suddenly some changes are wanted.
The changes were always wanted and a lot of people have come around and realized how bad the previous attitude was, but those people just couldn't speak before because they were shouted down by an organized minority.

FFXIV is a game with a very dedicated playerbase that appeals to different people who are very passionate about different things.
Depending on where you post or what you talk about you'll get people who only care about hardcore raiding content or you'll get people who have a super casual approach or a super hardcore RPG approach.
And then lets be real here too, a lot of people who say that they want a discussion don't actually want one.
They talk about things as if what they want is a fact and are just as toxic as the organized group of minority opinions too.

Like when you get people who have strong opinions against sexualized content, those people almost never talk about it with an open mind.
They're almost always like '' this is bad and harmful and I am offended ''.
What discussion is there to be had then?
To me it just comes across as someone with an overinflated ego at that point who think that what they want is more important than what a game actually is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melichoir

A lot of what's in the game is built on top of 1.0 coding. They didnt recode the entire game and engine from scratch, just added on top of it and modified it for their uses to get 2.0 off the ground. This approach has some knock on effects. So some of the things we have been complaining about are a result of how 1.0 was set up. In layman's terms, think of it this way: 1.0 is the foundation of a house, and 2.0 and on is the house and all it's addons. You can do quite a bit to add onto and modify the house itself, but it is still reliant on how strong the foundation is. If you arent careful, the foundation breaks and the hwole thing falls apart. So one thing it could limit how 'high' a house could be as a result.

From what Ive read, If you want to understand this in practical terms of the game, the character creation engine is a hold over from 1.0. Specifically the fact that it literally needs an exact number of fields to work. It's why fem lalafells have a breast slider even if nothing comes of it - the engine needed a set number of fields to be filled with something for it to work.

---

Some of this is true, but not all.

The games engine is completely different. 1.0 used crystal tools, while 2.0 and beyond uses a modified luminous engine.


The 1.0 foundation is there, but only as a compatibility thing. The game was rebuilt from scratch, but they had to make it compatible for character transfers from 1.0, so a lot of the character creation restrictions stem from that, as do retainers. This is also likely why the class system still exists, and they simply make new jobs have no classes.


This would also explain why they don't want to mess with a lot of those systems and why we have so many limitations. People cite the spaghetti code thing a lot, but I don't think they really understand the meaning behind it.

It is not referencing the 1.0 code, or 2.0 code itself, but the compatibility coding that makes the 2 talk to each other. And since it was put together in a hurry and possibly by people who no longer work there, they don't want to go messing with it because it's something that may truly break the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaraD_

Anecdotal evidence being a strong cause.
Player X says their way is the true way to do things.
Player Y says the opposite is the true way to do things.

Both players encounter ppl of the opposite opinion, who tell them to do the opposite method. How does one distinguish who is in the right? Well, that depends on what the person determines is a proper way to find out results. (usually again, due to anecdotal evidence) If looking into the evidence, they experience an opposite result where the evidence suggests otherwise, that "evidence" is no longer seen as a reasonable argument. (Lets say "DPS properly" is the stance. Some group, maybe 3 times in a row, tries to DPS properly, but messes up something else. (such as a dodge mechanic) They may now think all evidence that suggests "good DPS" is a "good thing", is no longer reasonable evidence of "proper play".)
Also keep in mind, the more they keep hearing something they dont agree with, the more annoyed they get, no matter how constructive it is.
This of course excludes the inability to hear "tone" in text, and that even "constructive criticism" can be a veil for someone to just vent/lash out. (feeling "morally in the right", as long as their lash outs are constructive in their phrasing. (but maybe not in their context)) An example; Someone curses at work, but in a manner thats completely neutral, such as "I had a F**king hotdog today!" This doesnt mean that person is getting smart, or showing an attitude with another employee. But they "could" be punished for "doing wrong". But another employee can use "please and Thank yous" while giving an attitude/being a smart a** about it. But they dont get in trouble, because "please and thankyou" isnt against the company rules. (Seen these examples play out at my work places for many years)

Sadly, "Constructive criticism" is never going to be easily seen as such, despite how unfortunate that is.

---

Was going to quote a few people since the sentiment has been said in different ways but you win being the last before I posted so I'm just going to quote you lol.

I saw this a few times in this thread already where someone views something as impossibru or just not their values and therefore not constructive / criticism, and in context of the thread apparently worth telling them to go away too.

I see people who are saying "x, y, z, q, p, r, t are not constructive". I'd like to remind people that SE actively caters to a very diverse audience, and I've seen over the years here many many many MANY times where someone say something cannot be done, just impossible, and they say this as if on behalf of SE like their uncle works there or something, and then later some sort of variation of it is totally done by SE. Sometimes this is even SE "we can't do that", two years later- oh guys we did it.

Can't can't can't, not constructive, can't. No NO NO NO NO NO NO, LEAVE THE GAME.

SE: Hold my Gysahl Greens, I'm going in!

Of course the more extreme example of someone asking for this game to go from MMORPG to RTS, well okay.. sure.. lol. Can't happen, insane for thinking so, but vast majority of feedback isn't to that wild of a scale. And as a smaller example, what can happen, is we do have LoV (kind of rts content). Now of course LoV is a bit of a red feathered step child chocobo of the black tipped choco family, but just an example that SE has a history of, and will continue to, branch out.

Just because you don't think it's likely, even if SE said they've difficulty achieving whatever desired feature, or you just don't like the idea at all doesn't mean it isn't potentially constructive criticism.

High quality very likely to be implemented perfectly in line with your world view constructive criticism, which is what I feel a lot of people are 'actually' looking for when they say that- well yeah that'll be far more rare lol.

Unless someone here is secretly actually working for SE at a high level position I find the people telling others off on their desires based on nothing more than 'it can't fit, because I say so- even though I've been repeatedly wrong before' tend to be more in the wrong than the person with the wild idea who may of jumped the shark a little.

I am more impressed when people say no because they internalize the concept and then form their own constructive criticism in response than someone who just retorts with 'no'. As they say it's easy to destroy but hard to build, which of course should be a friendly reminder when talking to SE too. . easy to put SE down even when it's hard to do what they do (that isn't to say we accept anything they do as perfect just because it took effort, jut a reminder that it takes a lot more effort to make something than to say it isn't any good- so sometimes you can use that to help shift your wording from 'sucks sucks sucks, to 'this could be better for the following reasons, here are some ideas that I think might work in place of that''.

I tend to believe the 'no it will take resources away from something that maybe might possibly affect me even though I've no idea what their distribution of resources and people priority is' or 'no it's not feasible because I honestly have no idea what is going on at head quarters but am going to pretend I do" are some of the least impressive way ideas get shot down, unless they come from SE in which case we have to decide if we believe them or not (lol). There is of course a difference from shooting things down based on your backseat managing and accounting, or hyper restrictive interpretation of lore (like when people refused, on behalf of SE, the concept of Demi content for SMN until SE did it and then suddenly and magically it was all okay), and a 'that'll probably not happen'. Telling people off therefore gets a huge 'I'm terrible at conversation, for this moment at least, and don't really care to have this one and am giving you a minimum effort 'no'' award from me, at least on average lol, when people begin to act as SE's accountant or content planner putting their seal on things that can and will and things that can't and wont. Which again is different from constructively criticizing their criticism. As you pointed out sometimes people will feel pushback on their idea by engaging that idea as some sort of resistance to the concept of constructive criticism but it's actually in support of quality conversation (by constructively criticizing them back).

A. What do you think about accerlated story options now that it takes two full witcher 3 games to catch up?
B. I think it takes a long time indeed but that's the charm of this game! I know it doesn't directly affect me if it was added but indirectly I believe it might direct the game and the community away from this story focus. I think people have to do it, like in dark souls if you added an easy mode it just wouldn't make the same community or feeling.
A. But this is a theme park mmo, is it really that important to force a vibe like that?
B. I know it is but I still want this is to be required experience to the game, I understand the concern.. they're trying to make it better by streamlining stuff, I just don't think it'll be good for the community or vibe to the game if they go too extreme. This smaller solutions I am more for though (streamlining).
A. Okay, what about the current story skip options?
B. I don't love them but they cost real money and so few use them.
A. I see, if they added it anyway would you quit assuming that it makes no change to story structure?
B. No... but I still am saying I don't think it'll be good- I think people should have to do it.

SE can see that, I think, and get some really valuable information. Knowing what people feel, want, and possible solutions/counter-proposals can really help guide them away from traps or understand consequences if they choose to do that anyways. As obviously sometimes they know someone is going to be upset and will do it anyways because of other reasons they feel worth it.

vs something like

A. What do you think about accelerated story options now that it takes two full witcher 3 games to catch up?
B. This is a story game and if you don't like that then you need to play something else. This cannot be done, even if it's optional and doesn't actually change the structure of the game for myself, it's not possible. leave!

One clearly tells SE a lot more, and also is more realistic. SE 'can't' do something? pffffttt. lol. SE can and has done things before that people think they can't do. But with the first they can see the person is worried about the culture, and perhaps that's reason enough, like people are worried about parsers ruining the culture if they're openly accepted. I'm not saying I accept that argument in all cases, but it is an argument to consider. Culture can be hard to cultivate but is worth considering from a design perspective.

It can't be done because it changes the core of the game (RPG -> RTS), sure that sounds pretty logical but that's a rare sort of request. More often I see it can't be done because they don't like it and not actually because there is a reason it 'can't' be done. Like if SE added ultimate content, which is hard enough to make savage closer to normal mode than savage to ultimate lol, and people are like 'but my core, my money your spending somewhere else that should be spent on what I tell you to'. Well SE never changed the core of the game, it's still pretty casual, they just added another optional piece. To be fair and clear I'm not saying you can't be annoyed if SE spent millions on some silly feature like 'great news you can now use minons in pvp, it cost us a few mill to do though' and people would be like.. .seriously? I'm saying just because you don't like it, or you want money spent somewhere else, has no relevance to them 'can't' do it or that it's not constructive criticism.

Although I doubt people who are hyper conservative on what counts as constructive criticism / allowed feedback and desires are going to change their mind, or even read what most people say that is counter to that. So... probably mostly just high fiving a few people with silent likes and that's it. Magic of the the internet lol /shrug. (using conservative as a word, not as a political ideology- just in case someone felt I was attacking politics :p).

Also would agree with another that says this is just the nature of game forums, well fan forums in general, where people will be all for what they like and then sharp, matter of factly, against whatever they don't value- which is why I'm very glad this forum doesn't have reddit like features. The echo chamber would be intense as people refuse to engage in conversations that are not to their fancy by just hiding the entire thing.

I know sometimes something is just troll bait or is just 'make this an RTS' but more often I see not that and it's more like what you said where people will just devalue the opposing argument because it's not their argument. Easier to argue against something if you remove all their value before even engaging- you've no power here because I wont recognize any of it *muahaha*, it's why dehumanizing is so popular. I couldn't treat a person horribly but if they're a monster then my horrible behavior is justified, I can be a jerk and still be a good person - secret cheat codes unlocked! That last bit being more of a general statement lol, I don't see that behavior too often here but I have seen it on infrequent occasion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vidu

If you dont want to play through the story and find a way for yourself to take in as little as possible, thats your right.

---

I really want to point out that I'm not even coming from that perspective. It's not about wanting to experience the story vs not, but how you experience it. I don't equate the desire for an optional story with being uninterested in the story. The issue is that you might not want to put off other things for hours, days, or weeks just to do the story first when you could do it in the opposite order. This certainly wouldn't work for everyone, but that's not an issue. At least if the option was given, any given player could choose what works best for them.

Quote:

---

But my worry would be that by turning the story into more optional content - instead of having most things in the game tied to it in some capacity, requiring you to pass certain points within the story to unlock NPCs, areas, dungeons etc. - my worry would be that the story would lose its strong connection to the world and in turn would lose meaning and maybe even quality.

---

I didn't want to get into what effect an optional story would have since this thread is more about how differing opinions interact, but it does tie into what I said already. I don't see how making the story optional would change the game any more than making cutscenes skippable or jump potions purchasable would. SE wouldn't have to change anything except for adding a UI somewhere that let's us bypass stuff. What that would look like exactly, and precisely how much control it would give us isn't easy to determine, but I think it's fair to say that it wouldn't be very influential to the direction of the game since it would still allow you to have the exact same experience that you have now. As always, there is the chance that I'm wrong, or that people disagree with me. I accept that, but this is how I see things at the moment.

Quote:

---

Speaking in terms of the series as a whole: The story has always been the driving factor in these games. The story was never optional - areas, dungeons, NPCs, partymembers... all of that has always been locked behind the story - so yes, in a sense, an optional story would make it less of a Final Fantasy game.
Now, admittely that argument "Its always been like this!" is obviously not the best or strongest one to be made. Given the basic design of this game though, I think its a fair one to be considered. To me it doesnt seem that content is locked behind the story just to force people to go through the story - its locked because it has its place within the narrative and disconnecting the two would cheapen both the story-experience aswell as the duty-experience.

---

All of that makes sense, but I think it's still something limited to one perspective (which is still totally fair, you went out of your way to say this was only your personal opinion). For some people, going through the story after the fact might not cheapen it. It didn't in my case. ARR did nothing to sell FF14 to me as a story focused game. I watched early cutscenes purely out of interest because I love a good story, but nothing really drew me in. A few bits of the story even felt like completely generic filler and I started to skip. I also had the misfortune of giving ARR another chance during one of the low points of the story, which drove me to skip more or less everything until well into HW when a particular scene caught my interest by chance. This didn't prevent me from eventually going back, filling myself in, and enjoying the good aspects of the story. I don't regret skipping either because it didn't negatively impact my experience, and even if the story caught my interest from the very beginning I probably would have skipped just for the sake of catching up to the friends that brought me into the game. I don't really see any solution to the second issue besides letting players jump ahead and come back to the story later. In a way I suppose you could consider it a selfish request on my part, but I do acknowledge that FF14's story should be maintained as a core component of the game even if it is no longer a requirement. I don't want the people who disagree with me to have to give up anything that they enjoy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alleo

I think that with a lot of games people take any sort of criticism towards it as an insult towards them. So all criticism it the same for the no matter if one is just a "I hate x" or a post with many good thoughtout points. (And some just want to troll)

You will have people that enjoy the story of a game and that post that anyone who does not like it or complain about it just simply did not understand it..like the complainers are not intelligent enough..they are bascially putting down others to make them feel better. So maybe those that are so aggressive with even constructive criticism have low selfesteem too? (Or too much of it and believe to be always right)

Even here on the forum you have enough posters that are so unbelievable passive agressive to most of the criticism even if it makes sense or would not hurt the game or them in any way..until they too have something to complain about...

So I guess its just discussion culture in general. You will sadly always have those that are insulted by any criticism no matter how good it was..

---

Yeah, you are right. It's people seeing outside of their echochamber. By others talking about issues with this game, or improvements that can be made, people are probably seeing that as a personal attack - especially when it comes from new players, or players from another game. Like their opinion is wrong. Good take.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shougun

That is entirely possible, but I tend to believe we are not the ones that should be SE's 'final' content planners to that scale.

---

I don't think that's the point as SE will do what it wants. At the same time, by having those voices, SE is also notified that there are existing players within its player base that do like the existing content how it is. So when SE decides what new content to make and possibly what existing content to not make new iteration of (either temporarily or permanently), it can take all the feedback it gets.

Quote:

---

Yes, I think you made a real possible example, but also no I don't think players should be playing the accountant / content gate keeper :p. Like I see fairly often people with very fixed ideas of what lore can or can't do, with zero room for maneuvering, but then a month later SE proves them wrong, SMN can't do that, beast tribes can't have this, etc, etc, then SE is like 'but wait they can!". lol.

---

The problem is not that SE can't do something new, but that SE often has to sacrifice something else in the process (even though they may be unrelated). To keep a consistent content cycle, SE has a limited amount of things to work on for each patch.

Quote:

---

Personally think it's better we say what we wish, why we wish it, and perhaps if you've the thoughts the how as well, while not threatening SE of course. And if you legitimately hate the game then sure.. of course you should probably go play another game, but I've seen and both been personally told to play other games because a bit sour feeling about a single piece content out of a huge pile, or if a bias to a certain type that could or does already exist without a complete reconstruction of the identity of the game.

---

Well, obviously, I don't think telling people to go away for any criticism is productive. But it depends on the person, and sometimes the game may just not be a right fit. It's certainly something to consider in some cases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linayar

I don't think that's the point as SE will do what it wants. At the same time, by having those voices, SE is also notified that there are existing players within its player base that do like the existing content how it is. So when SE decides what new content to make and possibly what existing content to not make new iteration of (either temporarily or permanently), it can take all the feedback it gets.

---

Maybe when I said final content planner it wasn't super clear. I didn't mean not to give feedback, I meant players shouldn't put themselves into the position of gate keeper. That they are in no position to slap their seal on things, and are regularly proven wrong and yet still attempt to do so. I was just addressing that concept.

I love feedback, that's good lol. And I've the sense that if feedback is 1000000000 miles from what SE intends that they've the mind not to rip their ship upside down to accommodate it so I don't see it necessary or valuable to have players act as SE's final approval board (you like how it is is and why, and that their suggestion will have repercussions onto that is different than saying it can't change or be accommodated because.. 'because'). It would be better to communicate the value of the concept and apply constructive criticism, assuming good faith (which should always be done in the beginning of new conversations at least), and go from there.

SE can do SE. Honestly it sounds like we're agreeing here, maybe I just wasn't well spoken lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linayar

The problem is not that SE can't do something new, but that SE often has to sacrifice something else in the process (even though they may be unrelated). To keep a consistent content cycle, SE has a limited amount of things to work on for each patch.

---

True that nothing is free, but wouldn't you also say it's true we've no idea what they've secretly worked on, what they secretly WANT to work on, who is free, who isn't, who would be willing to put in extra hours because they see some value people want? That we don't have an adequate concept to actually plan our their resources?

I can understand if you're like "seriously SE did you just tell me you spent 10 mil on allowing players to animate players taking their sandals off?" "REALLY?". lol. Of course that's a hyper exaggerated example, but one can be annoyed at the use of resources but I don't think it validates one's ability to affirm or deny the use of resources.

Still no right or actual power to be the gate keeper. People will of course up vote the gate keeper it if they don't like something, but I feel they've offered nothing of value to the conversation if they say it can't be done because they're planning out SE's budget. There is of course a difference from "that doesn't seem like a good use of resources, because X" and "that wont happen because I determined it so".

Like using lore as an example as I see that fairly often, difference from saying something is unlikely because of x and can't because of x when the only reason it would be can't is because a refusal to believe in wiggle room or that new lore can be added. NO WAY EMET CAN COME BACK, ignores the fact they could have flash backs, ptsd, fragments, or what have you- no actually you're not right in say it's impossible, but you could say its unlikely because reasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linayar

Well, obviously, I don't think telling people to go away for any criticism is productive. But it depends on the person, and sometimes the game may just not be a right fit. It's certainly something to consider in some cases.

---

Totally agreed mate. That is simply what I'm pushing for. Consider things sincerely, approach with good fatih, if it's worth criticizing then do so because this is called communication and that's acceptable, but do not position yourself as the de facto seal maker for SE because you (generic you, not saying literally you lol) have no position to be in that chair (unless you're secretly Yoshida posting on the forums, but then how would we know :p).

Mostly you can read my long freaking posts XD as a tl;dr of "shutting stuff down is not impressive, especially when you're at fault (misunderstood, giving yourself the gate keeper seal, etc), it's not impressive to take an exceptionally narrow perspective and determine that is the only way possible, and makes me think you don't even care to have a conversation and more onto just hearing yourself say no, and that makes me a bit sad because the sincere back and forth are a hallmark of quality feedback and communication".

Of course if people put no effort in the start maybe it's not as desirable feeling to put effort in return, but I see a lot of people putting effort in the start and then another person coming by and just slapping it down with few or zero considerations 'yolo style'. Or more succinctly and as you put it, I would like people to sincerely consider. It would be nice to see more people approach with good faith (that someone is attempting to be constructive and reasonable, and not a tyrant to their existence), and as such attempt to constructively criticize back if they've find they are at odds with someone would like.

Feels like a FFXIV message at some point lol.

Hear, feel, think. XD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melichoir

For example, the transmog format of WoW I think is broadly superior to how the glamour dresser here works.

---

Just a little nitpick. That's not the transmog format that's superior to how glamour dresser works. It's the appearance collection.

You add an appearance collection and hook it up to the glamour dresser and that would be a superior glamour system than WoW's transmog system, in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Haruka_R

The Big Mac can go. Such a weak-ass burger. Ain't even that big either.

---

Yeah, I'm so sad thinking about it. But it's still delicious, so I just buy 2 Big Macs nowadays. (Of course, I only eat it very rarely as it's probably not very healthy.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kaynide

Right right. The bad thing is, there really isn’t any way to “vote with your money” like you could with a burger shop, as it’s pay the sub for everything or not. I guess it might be more comparable to buying a car?

Though I’ve always been of the mind of doing in game kickstarters. Players buy generic crysta pledged towards something they really want, and if a threshold is met, SE will commit to make whatever it is. Players keep the crysta to shop in mogstation.

Personally I’ve never bought any, but if I knew I could influence getting a new job or dungeon, I would be much more likely to do it. Maybe big spenders get an NPC in dungeon they can name XD

---

You know, that's probably why some people are quick to tell others to leave. The sooner they leave, the less dissenting voice there may be, and the hope is that SE will cater more and more to those who stick around and new comers who are like minded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PyurBlue

The story being part of the game is something different entirely than making the story required. This is why I don't understand why people bring up that it's a Final Fantasy game when people want to prioritize doing something else ahead of the story. Unless people ask for the story to be removed, which I don't really recall seeing, no one is attempting to make it any less of a Final Fantasy game. If anything an optional story would benefit the MSQ. There would be no need compromise it for the sake of trying to make it appeal to everyone.

---

You're still missing the point. It's not that the story cannot be optional, it's that the story can be mandatory.

There are other games where story is optional, and those stories just don't draw me in as much, especially if it's supposed to be an ever expanding story, as there is a disconnect between wanting to experience the story and knowing that it's all optional, so let this one be. If FFXIV's story had been optional when I started playing, I probably would never had been able to go through it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linayar

Just a little nitpick. That's not the transmog format that's superior to how glamour dresser works. It's the appearance collection.

You add an appearance collection and hook it up to the glamour dresser and that would be a superior glamour system than WoW's transmog system, in my opinion.

---

I was over simplifying the terminology for how WoW handles glamour, but yeah, the catalog system from WoW joined with the glamour plate system so you can have a catalog and make a few separate glamours you can use on the fly would be the most ideal hybrid we could get. Would also be nice if we could apply plates anywhere too.

If only we lived in an ideal world /sigh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skivvy

When ARR launched, it added male Miqo'te, female Roegadyn and female Highlanders to the game, all of which were not a thing in 1.0. Seems they thought it would be a good idea to add the missing genders for the reboot.

Now jump ahead to the announcement that Viera. I remember being so incredibly confident that there was absolutely no way they'd limit it to only female, especially given their inclusion of the missing gender options at ARR launch, but alas, we know how that played out. To say the least, I was completely shocked and amazed that they went with that decision.

The Devs have given there reasons why they opted to go this route, but to me it all just feels like an incredibly bad decision and any criticism is well deserved. I've not read a majority of the pages in the Viera thread, but I 100% understand why they want them to be a thing why they feel they should be a thing. To write it off as a mere delusion is really doing a disservice to the playerbase and their voices.

SE has made plenty of questionable decisions in other areas of the game as well, the limited races are just the latest to be tossed onto the heap. I wonder if all the backlash was worth it for them (I'm not just talking the forum backlash).

---

There's a difference between wanting a thing and expecting a thing. In that thread they have delusional expectations of when they would be added. 5.x or 6.0 being their usual expectations (but not everyone's). That's what I'm calling delusional. There's nothing wrong with wanting something. However when you've talked yourself into believing something that has no substantial proof, in fact it has quite the opposite, then you're in dangerous territory. I've seen a few around here saying they're going to throw a fit if they're not introduced at 6.0.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gula

I saw a personality disorder about that. I wonder if the DSM VI is going to have a section literally just called twitter.

---

There probably already is, knowing how crazy Twitter is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arngrim_Greyashe

There's a difference between wanting a thing and expecting a thing. In that thread they have delusional expectations of when they would be added. 5.x or 6.0 being their usual expectations (but not everyone's). That's what I'm calling delusional. There's nothing wrong with wanting something. However when you've talked yourself into believing something that has no substantial proof, in fact it has quite the opposite, then you're in dangerous territory. I've seen a few around here saying they're going to throw a fit if they're not introduced at 6.0.

---

Ahhh, gotcha. I was taking it as the overall idea that male Viera should be a thing is the delusion itself, and that I'd take some issue with. :X Sorry for the misunderstanding.

But I do completely agree with your comment here. It's one thing to really hope for something, maybe even to push strongly for it, but at the end of the day it all boils down to being SE's decision on how/if they implement something. Probably not a good idea to set hard deadlines for things happening in game, unless of course they just really like dealing with disappointment.

My issue usually arises with players from other games (not that it’s a bad thing) I love new players and perspectives but as someone already said some of these players ask for things that would change the game at its core. Yes this game needs a lot of changes in certain areas especially content but I think people forget the amount of work that goes into an MMO, I help develop smaller platform games and that alone is a hassle with a team and now you’re talking about a huge live online game.....a lot of the asks are really hard to produce and keep everyone happy at the same time. “You want more savage/ultimate well now we have to cut back on other things such as dungeons and 24 man raids” that’s an extreme example but this is the budget and team size SE is working with on this game

Also this is not new at all in the MMO genre, I’ve been eaten alive in my early WoW experiences as well as ESO and BDO. These are all games with just as an emotional community as this one, you have to learn to take it with a grain of salt and move forward knowing you put your point out there wether liked or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skivvy

Ahhh, gotcha. I was taking it as the overall idea that male Viera should be a thing is the delusion itself, and that I'd take some issue with. :X Sorry for the misunderstanding.

But I do completely agree with your comment here. It's one thing to really hope for something, maybe even to push strongly for it, but at the end of the day it all boils down to being SE's decision on how/if they implement something. Probably not a good idea to set hard deadlines for things happening in game, unless of course they just really like dealing with disappointment.

---

You're good! I figured my point didn't come across clearly. I think I typed that up while falling asleep last night anyways. But you're right, wanting something is fine as long as we realize that SE has the say on if / when it's implemented. I don't think 6.0 is a reasonable expectation given how much trouble these two races have already given them.

To the actual subject since I don't want to drag too off topic, people are opposed to criticism because they're taking it as an insult rather than constructive criticism. I've tried a few times over the past few years to help people and it's usually met with a snarky comment. So I've ceased trying.

LOL, you post too fast, I didn't even see it while trying to catch up on the thread.

Anyways, just a few comments:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shougun

I meant players shouldn't put themselves into the position of gate keeper. That they are in no position to slap their seal on things, and are regularly proven wrong and yet still attempt to do so. I was just addressing that concept.

---

One thing I would say is that no one can be an actual gate keeper unless they're an in-game bully, which is a reportable offense.

Quote:

---

True that nothing is free, but wouldn't you also say it's true we've no idea what they've secretly worked on, what they secretly WANT to work on, who is free, who isn't, who would be willing to put in extra hours because they see some value people want? That we don't have an adequate concept to actually plan our their resources?

---

And that is why all we can do is voice our opinions, both in support of some ideas as well in opposition of other ideas. Let SE deal with the rest. It's just that places where ideas are shared can be places of arguments, which can be fun, but can also be unproductive or, worse, toxic.

Quote:

---

Like using lore as an example as I see that fairly often, difference from saying something is unlikely because of x and can't because of x when the only reason it would be can't is because a refusal to believe in wiggle room or that new lore can be added. NO WAY EMET CAN COME BACK, ignores the fact they could have flash backs, ptsd, fragments, or what have you- no actually you're not right in say it's impossible, but you could say its unlikely because reasons.

---

This is essentially my argument for removing race-class restriction in WoW. The lore argument to keep it just doesn't hold true and people don't realize that lore doesn't (and maybe shouldn't) be static, at least not entirely.

Quote:

---

Hear, feel, think. XD.

---

So, no room to speak then. :cool: The internet might be much emptier, hmm, probably for the better in some cases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linayar

LOL, you post too fast, I didn't even see it while trying to catch up on the thread.

---

VROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMM. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linayar

One thing I would say is that no one can be an actual gate keeper unless they're an in-game bully, which is a reportable offense.

---

Technically true, doesn't stop people from acting like what they say is the law SE must follow though. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linayar

And that is why all we can do is voice our opinions, both in support of some ideas as well in opposition of other ideas. Let SE deal with the rest. It's just that places where ideas are shared can be places of arguments, which can be fun, but can also be unproductive or, worse, toxic.

---

Yee, yee indeed!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linayar

This is essentially my argument for removing race-class restriction in WoW. The lore argument to keep it just doesn't hold true and people don't realize that lore doesn't (and maybe shouldn't) be static, at least not entirely.

---

I've started to coin it as the lore-no. Usually the people who use it are quite knowledgeable in the lore but they have restricted themselves very tightly around it too. For example I had asked for Tonberry beast tribe and was told that because they're not technically beasts that it couldn't be done. Now the person who said it I know isn't evil or whatever (generally quite nice), but instead of saying it's unlikely or that maybe the system could be fun but the concept of beast wont work so we'll need a different system they just flat out said it can't be done. Well wouldn't you find it funny when about two weeks later SE comes out with a beastmen lore book page that says it's more of a concept than a technical description of body, a racial word in essence or a usage that can be something akin to calling something third world. And wouldn't you find it even funnier if they released a beast tribe of lalafell in a subsequent expansion.. like.. wouldn't that be just... funny... . .. . . . Cause they did. XD.

Lore-no's usually lead me to the 'you weren't really trying to have this conversation were you?' feeling. Eager to share their knowledge, which is nice, but not eager to actaully engage the potential ways to make the concept a reality. Like SMN and it's egi thing, back before it had demi. Sometimes people really do suggest things that are like "you literally have to rip out the lore to do that, and there is no other possible way what so ever" but just like people suggesting FFXIV be an RTS.. those type of suggestions are not 'that' common.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linayar

So, no room to speak then. :cool: The internet might be much emptier, hmm, probably for the better in some cases.

---

Loool. I cry :p.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linayar

This is essentially my argument for removing race-class restriction in WoW. The lore argument to keep it just doesn't hold true and people don't realize that lore doesn't (and maybe shouldn't) be static, at least not entirely.

---

Out of context, I know, but just to use this one topic as a bit of a microcosm...

I feel like race-class restriction in WoW has followed pretty decently from the point and purpose of the game at its various times.

It started very restricted when the game was more about lore and world-building and distinct cultures. But every expansion since has softened those restrictions (be them by race or by faction) to some degree, just as the original lore, world, and their paradigms have been deemphasized. Until recently, what they allow in those regards has been reconsidered with each expansion, and at least to me it's always felt "right" at that time, perhaps because they played a good balance between protecting their intent and allowing what players less invested in those intents wanted (especially when they could shift their vision to accommodate those wants without sacrificing what they, the developers, wanted).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shougun

Of course the more extreme example of someone asking for this game to go from MMORPG to RTS, well okay.. sure.. lol. Can't happen, insane for thinking so, but vast majority of feedback isn't to that wild of a scale. And as a smaller example, what can happen, is we do have LoV (kind of rts content). Now of course LoV is a bit of a red feathered step child chocobo of the black tipped choco family, but just an example that SE has a history of, and will continue to, branch out.

Just because you don't think it's likely, even if SE said they've difficulty achieving whatever desired feature, or you just don't like the idea at all doesn't mean it isn't potentially constructive criticism.

High quality very likely to be implemented perfectly in line with your world view constructive criticism, which is what I feel a lot of people are 'actually' looking for when they say that- well yeah that'll be far more rare lol.

Unless someone here is secretly actually working for SE at a high level position I find the people telling others off on their desires based on nothing more than 'it can't fit, because I say so- even though I've been repeatedly wrong before' tend to be more in the wrong than the person with the wild idea who may of jumped the shark a little.

---

Thank you for you well thoughtout post. :) And I agree with it. Of course there will be people here that are posting certain topics just to get a rise out of people (but even in a troll thread you can find good discussion) and sadly a lot of people take the bait and just keep the thread going without any good points.

But we really should not take down people who have real concerns and wishes and post them. Of course a lot of those might be impossible or dont fit but asking for them hurt nobody and some of the reactions to such threads are often so harsh...Dont worry SE wont just suddenly change the whole game because of one person posting something about it. But that point could be used for other ways. Maybe it will spark some kind of other creative idea for them. Heck Yoshida himself said that he made the staff play MMOs like WoW to get a feeling of it.

And just to be sure. I dont mean that you cant be against the idea. Thats 100% fine. But the way some people post about it..wanting the person to unsub and get their stuff..wanting them to shut up and being quite passive agressive about it too..that also not constructive..but seemingly that is allowed in their eyes but a fine post about something, even if its something unlikely, is seen as the bad thing..

FF14 players are passionate about the game. Some can handle the game being critized and do it themselves, others cannot handle it and object sometimes loudly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

Out of context, I know, but just to use this one topic as a bit of a microcosm...

I feel like race-class restriction in WoW has followed pretty decently from the point and purpose of the game at its various times.

It started very restricted when the game was more about lore and world-building and distinct cultures. But every expansion since has softened those restrictions (be them by race or by faction) to some degree, just as the original lore, world, and their paradigms have been deemphasized. Until recently, what they allow in those regards has been reconsidered with each expansion, and at least to me it's always felt "right" at that time, perhaps because they played a good balance between protecting their intent and allowing what players less invested in those intents wanted (especially when they could shift their vision to accommodate those wants without sacrificing what they, the developers, wanted).

---

What do you think is their intent? (I've heard it say race-class restrictions had to do with balancing the race population so that people just don't end up as one popular race, but I feel like each race has enough following and it really shouldn't matter in the end.)

And with the new universal (mandatory for new players, optional for older players) starting area, I think Shadowlands is a really fitting point to remove all restrictions. Although the expansion after when players return to Azeroth (maybe) could also work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shougun

Lore-no's usually lead me to the 'you weren't really trying to have this conversation were you?' feeling. Eager to share their knowledge, which is nice, but not eager to actaully engage the potential ways to make the concept a reality. Like SMN and it's egi thing, back before it had demi. Sometimes people really do suggest things that are like "you literally have to rip out the lore to do that, and there is no other possible way what so ever" but just like people suggesting FFXIV be an RTS.. those type of suggestions are not 'that' common.
.

---

"stares wondering" =w=

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linayar

What do you think is their intent? (I've heard it say race-class restrictions had to do with balancing the race population so that people just don't end up as one popular race, but I feel like each race has enough following and it really shouldn't matter in the end.)

And with the new universal (mandatory for new players, optional for older players) starting area, I think Shadowlands is a really fitting point to remove all restrictions. Although the expansion after when players return to Azeroth (maybe) could also work.

---

There's probably several reasons for them not removing it, but I think a big one is they don't want to make unique totems and beast forms for every race, which is something people would definitely expect should they open up Shaman and Druid to everyone.