But casuals can have the same ilv as raiders, through tome gear. So I don't see the issue here. Like I said as well, Anemos rewarded gear that contends for BiS for some jobs when Savage gear isn't taken into account.
If by "simultaneously" you mean "same patch", Gordias came out 3.05, Diadem was 3.1, so that descriptor doesn't work either. Also in 3.1 was Void Ark, which gave out the Mhachi items that were traded in for gobdips etc to upgrade 200 to 210 as well, as I recall. The 24 mans do that to this day, btw.
If you're talking Diadem 2.0, which had the 280 weapon, you should note relic weapon holders were a lot more vocal than raiders about it at that point.
We Really Need To Talk About The State And Path Of FFXIV
Printable View
-
08-30-2018, 12:43 AMDualgunner
-
08-30-2018, 12:50 AMMisteI never claimed raiders have zero impact on the game, just to be clear. There is a difference between having a bit of influence on something and having full control.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bahati
The person I responded to said raiders are killing the game so I was disputing that. Only the creators can kill their MMO, only the creators choose who or what they listen to, only the creators make the final decisions on everything involved with their game.
Despite your reply being unrelated to what I said....sure I'll answer you.
Some raiders did complain about the diadem drops, but SE never removed the gear? Maybe they nerfed the drop rates of it? I can't find anything in the patch notes showing they removed the gear or nerfed the drop rates though. This kind of change would have been in the patch notes.
Looking at Patch 3.2 notes it added in the option to desynthesize i210 gear from The Diadem. i210 was the same item level as Gordias Savage raid gear so it seems it was not removed like you are claiming. If you check patch 3.1 it lists all the i210 gear from diadem that they added and it is never said after the fact that any of it was removed, or nerfed.
"[2.0] The following items can now be desynthesized:
Iron clapper / Item Level 210 gear obtained from the Diadem."
source: https://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodes...d0980ac2b5a39c
Also when they released the second iteration of diadem sometime after 3.4 they added in a weapon that was better than the raid weapon. If raiders had such an impact on SE's decisions then why did they do it AGAIN a second time after all the complaints the first time?
Is this really all you have to back up this idea that people should be bitter at raiders? It is an extremely weak argument full of holes.
If you are speaking of Diadem itself not coming back.....it didn't come back because I guess SE decided it was failed content. Barely anyone did it or was interested in it and every subset complained about it for different reasons. The only thing that was fine about it was the gathering aspect.
You cannot claim diadem didn't come back all because of raiders, since raiders were not the only community of players who complained about diadem. All types of players had criticism about diadem as a whole.
So unless you can prove diadem was taken away from us solely due to raiders complaining about the gear in it, with some kind of statement from SE to confirm it, then this is a weak argument to use to be "bitter" towards the raiders.
How about we get some facts to be bitter about and not just bias perceptions? -
08-30-2018, 01:19 AMStanelisa) Yes you can. People have been playing some games for decades and even centuries now. As an example, chess does exist since 1200 after JC. Also, even today, people play old school video games that were very well designed, despite not having any "rewards".Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne_Endeavor
b) As already stated in my previous post, there must be various situations with various ways to tackle it. Because there is only basically only one gameplay situation in the current FFXIV, there can only be one matched solution (eg homogeneized classes). But it is a misconception to assume alternatives aren't possible, especially by making the game less battle centric than what current FFXIV is.
c) Fates have always been terrible in FFXIV and the only reasons people used to do it were xp and atmas, but it support what I m basically saying : in FFXIV, nobody would do anything if there weren't any reward because the gameplay is lacking. Would you see people in pagos if there weren't any rewards ? No you won't, and that's why there is a problem.
d) there are several ways to do that, by making daily quests asking you to find one particular monster accros the lighthouse, by making the lighthouse some sort of places where players would have to complete various quests, etc. There would be endless ways to accomplish that, ways that used to exist in games such as FFXI, FFXII, everquest or more broadly tabletop RPGs. And regarding your concern about the so called "time efficiency" of exploration, it could be easily solved by getting rid of that "hamster wheel" reward structure.
e) FFX is indeed a single player games, but FFXI isn't. And FFXI is built upon a very strong battle system, gameplay wise. It would have been possible to make a game like FFXI without all the associated timesinks that were implemented in order to artificially make the players subscribe. As an example, the depth of the group centric battle system can be preserved with the trust system, that allows players to progress as if they were in a group but without having to wait hours to find one.
f) there are no such thing as "old school" or "modern" design when it comes to game design. It is a forgery coming from the PR teams of blizzard when they started to decide game design was overrated (but it did eventually backfire, and hard). Furthermore, I didn't suggest anything, as it is pointless to give any ideas here because SE doesn't give a damn.
When did we talk about warcraft ? WoW used to be a RPG back in 2004 (my figure doesn't cover the lifespan of the warcrafts RTS).Quote:
Originally Posted by Dualgunner
-
08-30-2018, 01:53 AMDualgunnerAbout when I brought it up. You didn't disqualify the RTSes that it was based on until just now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanelis
Are you saying that WoW was not always an MMO? Or are you saying it used to be an MMORPG in 2004, and it's no longer an MMORPG? -
08-30-2018, 01:57 AMStanelisI still don't understand why you're talking about the RTS. They were never intended to be RPGs. The only link between wow and warcraft is the lore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dualgunner
What I m saying is that wow used to be designed as a RPG before WOTLK, then blizzard tried to make a pseudo action game out of it that only make a few players happy, then came back to RPG since legion. -
08-30-2018, 01:57 AMMisteYou know...every time you change the quote of the person you are responding to to something snarky and passive aggressive you basically already lost the argument before your post even gets to your points.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanelis
-
08-30-2018, 02:02 AMDualgunnerWell, read my post and maybe you'll understand. Your goal posts didn't shift until the post after I brought up Warcraft being an RTS. I'm not as precognisant as I may seem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanelis
So by your logic, if it came back to RPG in Legion, it would have spiked in popularity using this hilariously bad metric of googles over time.Quote:
What I m saying is that wow used to be designed as a RPG before WOTLK, then blizzard tried to make a pseudo action game out of it that only make a few players happy, then came back to RPG since legion.
But it doesn't.
https://trends.google.com/trends/exp...0of%20Warcraft -
08-30-2018, 02:08 AMStanelisIf blizzard had kept designing wow like it used to be in wod, nobody would be playing the game today. They saved the game with legion. Please do not forget wow in a 16 years old game, so it is natural that the playerbase would be declining. The fact that a 16 years old game is still the most popular MMORPG out there and one of the most watched game on twitch should tell you something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dualgunner
And even by reading your post I don't understand why you talked about the RTS. Wow was never meant to replace warcraft, it is simply a different sort of game, but it never did pretend to be a RTS.
Honestly I m tired of seeing people tossing around over a decade of bad PR explanations that blizzard came up with, without exercising critical analysis about what they are talking about while thinking they are the one who came up with the idea. And honestly I m not even trying to win anything there, I m just tossing my displeasure about the game as a customer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Miste
-
08-30-2018, 02:10 AMClaviusnexWhich brings me to my biggest peeve with this game. SE's insistence that we have large group scenarios for all of this stuff but won't fix their infrastructure to support it. I'm tired of object culling removing my current target, hiding AoE's and hiding party members standing next to me. It has been a problem with world bosses, Diadem FATES and Eureka NM's (which are really just another FATE). I've argued with SE about fixing their culling algorithm but they had no interest there acting like they had no idea what I was talking about. SE needs to quit creating large group content unless they get serious about fixing their code platform.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dualgunner
-
08-30-2018, 02:15 AMDualgunnerThat's a bold claim you made. Unfortunately, there's no way to prove or falsify that claim.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanelis
First, google searches over time is a hilariously bad metric to use for a lot of reasons, I don't even know who started bringing them up, because people invested in their communities won't be searching up the game name of the community they're in very much. For instance, I don't google "Final Fantasy XIV" or any variation of it despite being a loyal customer of the game. I have bookmarks to access the communities I'm in that revolve around it. But even taking that data as gospel...
Second, since you mentioned the time aspect, this only makes the RPG claim that much harder to prove. Yes we see the decline, but you can't prove to me if that was a natural over-time thing, or if it was because of WoW focusing on action-based gameplay.
Warcraft was an RTS game for RTS lovers. While I'm sure people flocked to a Warcraft RPG, I don't think they were as married to the idea of it being an RPG as you claim.Quote:
And even by reading your post I don't understand why you talked about the RTS.