Originally Posted by
Zantitrach
No, they gave Tataru lore (with a fair bit of credibility) that she's been mining for awhile and she just ordered a new hammer and starts the whole fiasco. This gets explained over DOZENS of lines in the quest. I emphasize dozens because this is the type of information required for lore reasons for these random NPC's in the beginning of every instance.
http://ffxiv.gamerescape.com/wiki/Picking_up_the_Sledge
Yes. They added in lines that said she was good at it, without any real precedent for it. They just said "Oh by the way she can mine now" and gave her a quest series for it. How does that not come off as Retconning to you, but having an NPC say the same thing in a dungoun that was sent to help you to the entrance would?
There's 43 dungeons alone (33 Trials, 25 raids if you were curious [again OP and others in this thread are asking for EVERY instance]). So you're saying each NPC (That needs unique dialogue to create his presence in these menacing dungeons) Can explain all that in 1.5 "lines"? No........
Yes, actually. A very fast, single, succinct line from an NPC would be more than enough to define their purpose for being there. The issue seems to be that you're expecting them to have full quest chains. Characters in the world often have only 1-3 text bubbles containing 1-2 lines at most.
I'm not saying to flesh them out like the characters were in MSQ. I am saying that flavor text, or just re-using the models of the guards standing outside of the dungoun that gives them continuity, is equally effective and isn't nearly as much work as you're making it out to be.
I WOULD rather have the choice, the choice of LEVELING a crafter for the PERK.
which is a choice that is NOT TAKEN AWAY by the presence of an NPC in the dungoun. They add the NPC, you still have the choice to level so you can use it whenever, wherever, at a cheaper cost, going over 100%. You need to stop acting like this takes away from it - AT ALL.
It is not faulty reasoning OR coming up short as a failsafe. You just don't agree. That does not make it faulty nor coming up short. This entire thread is pure opinion from both sides. Conversely, I see it as sound reasoning and being a full fledged failsafe. (google define fail-safe: a system or plan that comes into operation in the event of something going wrong or that is there to prevent such an occurrence.) The system/plan is to level a crafter in the event of something going wrong (gear break).
No, it is very faulty. It assumes everyone has leveled the job, thus that the failsafe is available to all. It is a very poor failsafe, but a great pre-emptive measure (And I'll define this for you too:
a. Undertaken or intended to deter or prevent an anticipated, usually unpleasant situation or occurrence:
As you can see, the purpose of leveling your crafts is the perfect definition of a pre-emptive measure. It is done with the intent of preventing the anticipated occurance of being in a situation in which your gear breaks and you do not have a way to prevent it. It is not a failsafe, because it is not a neutral state that can occur in the case that the said 'fail state' DOES happen.
And surprise the game does not FORCE them to do anything. They can repair from ANY of the various towns they are probably standing in at that exact moment. They CHOSE not to repair. As others have hyperboled in the thread, you can just keep taking this request further and further as a "failsafe''. I need access to my retainers in dungeon, as a failsafe. I need access to the Market Board in dungeon, as a failsafe. There is your only full proof failsafe. Every instance needs access to the MB/Retainer/Repair NPC/Vendor NPC (Can't forget those guys who have their entire inventory full [people posted the first week of patch about missing the Fenrir pup drop from PvP since their inventory was full). You called it a slippery slope fallacy, and well its a slippery slope but not a fallacy in this context. Their IS a failsafe, you think its insufficient so you want an ADDITIONAL failsafe. Your argument is that it hurts no one. Access to the MB in every dungeon hurts no one either. Access to your retainers in every dungeon doesn't hurt anyone either. Etc. Etc. It is a REAL slippery slope and not a fallacy.
It is not a choice to forget to do something, and this is where your arguement falls apart. Someone who forgets, is not saying "Hey, I'm just gonna forget about it." Think of it more like going to your car, and going "Oh ****, I forgot my keys!" I did not CHOOSE to forget my keys and have to go back to get them. I forgot, as is human nature, on things that come naturally that we become accustomed to.
Your entire arguement is a slippery slope in this paragraph. "We shouldn't add it because people will ask for more!" is completely absurd. There is nothing you need a MarketBoard for, a Vendor NPC (Food is optional, gear is on-hand, and crafting mats shouldn't be mid-dungoun or else it'll wind up like Diadem.)
Yes. you are right. Access to the MB in the dungoun doesn't hurt anyone. But what in the heck would be the point of putting it in? This is a major reason why a Slippery Sloap arguement doesn't work. Because the 'logical' (used that word loosely) conclusion that More will come of asking for something, doesn't work.
Why would someone ask for a MB in a dungoun? To do their crafting? They can't change to their crafts in dungouns, so that won't be a problem. To buy a piece of gear? Well, members who are able to enter into the dungoun meet the minimum ilevel requirement, thus they do not require any additional gear. Compare this to a member who's gear breaks middungou, that person NEEDS repairs.
Need vs. Wants is a very real subject, but using it as the foundation of a slippery slope is just... bad.
Slippery Slope:
The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question.
Understand why this is a bad, fallacious arguement. And instead, focus on the issue at hand.
1) The programming is almost a copy/pasta from melding. As you mention it also existed from 1.0 which means they DO have the code already (100% its backed up somewhere) they just have to find it.
2) No trading needs to be done, why don't you understand this.
3) No gil exchange needs to be done, why don't you understand this.
4) Your marginalizing an already marginal issue.
1) I do not think the programming is going to be a straight copy-pasta for the differences of melding a single piece of gear at percentage chances vs. repairing a gear with varying degrees of percentages and various potential grades of materia. No, the system does not, currently, in FFXIV exist, and to say "It'd be easy" without any way to substantiate it is completely personal opinion. Accept that it would take more work, however, than something that IS Available in the game.
2-3) Again, the model of the idea is following behind the model of Materia Melding. If Square puts in a Request system for Repair, it is likely to have a system that enables someone to include a 'tip' for the work. It is an exchange between players, is what oyu need to understand. This means that it could be used in a way to move gil. Why do you not understand this?
4) No, I'm creating a very real scenario in which the failsafe that you suggest fails in its most basic function. Players are not garunteed to level a Crafting craft to 60, but they ARE garunteed to level a Combat class to 60 if they're in a level 60 dungoun. Do you understand that 100% of the time, a character will have a combat class at 60 if they are in a 60 dungoun, but not 100% of the time the player WILL NOT Have a crafting class at level 50/60?
1) NPC's already exist, yes but don't forget you have to give them unique lines, backstory and program the functions on to them and then make sure its not programming it onto their character model OUTSIDE of the instance either, heck this means making a duplicate NPC model and attaching the repair menu to it.
2) No argument there, but the programming also exists for the other option.
3) Yes again, the programming exists for both options.
1) Actually, you don't have to go so far. That is like suggesting that all the NPC's at the entrance to the dungouns needed specific backstory to them. They are a member of the Adders/Flames/Maelstrome. This is their backstory. Having a single line of flavor text is not difficult. The issue is, you are going to such an extreme to prove the point, that you're forgetting that at times - less is more. The continuity of the character from outside being the one at the entrance of the dungoun in itself is already world building. Having a single line of flavor text that mentions their discomfort / amazement with the area and looking forward to your success further adds to the characters. But I do not need a story of how their mother was actually Bahamut and their father was Shiva.
2)You have no proof that the programming exists 'for both options', only that the programming exists for melding.
3) You have no proof that the programming exists 'for both options', only that the programming exists for melding.
And as far as I'm concerned the exact opposite is true. The programming already exists for both, one just requires 0 ret con or lore re writes or additional models being loaded into dungeons.
Neither require a retcon of lore. However, only one is proven to exist. Until we have some degree of proof that a system that existed only in 1.0 still exists in the code of 2.0, then we have to work by the assumption it would be more work to implement the system in than a system that already exists and is actively used in the game.
[qupte] They also don't get the benefit of your additional failsafe if they don't have enough gil on them when they queue in. TBH its probably equally likely for both scenarios. [/quote]
Man that'd be like... the worst possible situation, but I can't deny it'd happen to someone, sooner or later. However, I do believe we can agree that - the majority of players have enough gil to repair their gear. It is just a matter that sometimes, these players enter without remembering to fix thier gear.
For those who don't have the gil to repair, I am not sure how to help those without the gil to repair. I know some people get by on 40k gil. I couldn't imagine it personally.
OPTION which is not a payment. Simply disable that option. Its practically changing a 1 to a 0 in code in complexity.
And reformatting the window to properly be scaled to account for the fact that there is no longer that option, and changing the fact that the payment option is no longer in there, and making sure that it checks that you have hte PROPER GRADE of a DIFFERENT ITEM, and making sure that it checks your current Repair %'s and makes sure to add it on properly. Seriously, it is so much more work than having an NPC that works EXACLTY HOW THEY ALREADY WORK.
Hah, we both ended up doing the same thing and even the same definition. However...
That's not what pre-emptive means at all. Repairing above 100%, is pre-emptive. Leveling a crafter or carrying dark matter is not.
No, repairing before hte dungoun is a pre-emptive measure.
Leveling crafters is a pre-emptive measure.
However, adding an NPC, is a failsafe. It ensures that, should both those systems fail, there is a 'zero-state' that protects the player.
Currently, there is no failsafe in the system. If you do not have your crafts leveled, and your gear breaks, you're kinda screwed for the stats. You might still be able to clear, but it will be at the cost of extra effort and strain on 3 other people in the party.
For "intial" yes. That's less than 1/2 of ARR + HW's lifespan.
More like close to 1/2 or 3/4th. Crafted gear for BiS remains relevent for the entire content patch. It likewise could ALWAYS be used to bring your uncapped classes up to snuff for raid, something I have had to do more than once.
The whole reason I'm mentioning this is because this applies to both scenarios. Everything you said for a crafter making millions applies to battle classes as well. No effort, no profit. This point you're trying to make literally cancels itself out.
Not necessarily. A crafter can make millions on their own, with enough effort. A battle crafter who wnats to sell runs will have to work with 6 other people, and is reliant on others. A battle crafter can go and farm things slowly, over time, and yes - it can earn gil. But the amount of gil a battle crafter will earn will likely not compare to someone who produces items for profit.
Let's think of it this way. It's like comparing someone who runs a mom and pop shop to the CEO of J.C. Penny's.
No, this thread has come up a few times in the past. But the scarcity of it shows general lack of care by the public. This topic has less followers than the "Give Roegadyn chest hair" club and a metric ton less than the "Give Miqo'te their booty back" club.
This is my first time seeing it, sadly. But I do think it's a good idea. It's very possible for ideas not to be mentioned frequnetly by virtue of the fact that it doesn't come up as an issue until you, personally, experience it. That is likely the position the OP spoke from, as well. "I'm tired of having to abandon dungouns." They clearly struggled with it.
That's exactly what 0% effectiveness means. Its broke to the point of unusability until someone fixes it, just like the stuff that we have to spend 5 quest chains on, or several patches worth to fix.
First of all, the quest chain to make the relic was literally creating a brand new relic. That is a poor example. We used the broken, COMPLETELY USELESS, pieces of the original relic moreso as a blueprint, but everything was built around that. It was not the simple repair of the weapon - but rather, it was creating a whole new item from it.
Something being unusable does not mean that it is completely useless, though. If the shield breaks, but can be repaired, it still has a value - compare that to a shield that has broken, and been eroded by YEARS of not being used, to the point that it litearlly doesn't even resemble its previous form. The Dark Matter can't fix that. But the one that could be reasonably repaired, makes sense.
Originally Posted by
Fyce
Since some people don't want to see the obvious flaws of a repair NPC in dungeons, well, here's another one: having such NPC will create more problems than it can currently solve.
People will start to wrap their minds around the idea that it doesn't matter anymore if they don't prepare themselves before going on duty. But this will only be true for dungeons (more or less, it doesn't prevent you from not having enough gils to repair, or to forget food/potions... It doesn't prevent you to be in the wrong job when queing either).
People will actually start to forget even more to repair outside duties. This will lead to even more cases of players with broken equipment in trials and other duties where you wont have the possibility to repair.
People like the OP will have to think even more about it and ask themselves "What I'm queuing for again? Is there a repair NPC in there?".
The only way to solve this would be to have such NPC everywhere, in every duty, for every situation. Yes, this means that you'd need to have an NPC right inside Ifrit's fire arena, on Bismark bait floating island, even on the freaking Chrysalis, right infront of the boss. This NPC would then magically leave the arena once the battle start, and come back if there's a wipe.
Stop breaking immersion because you can't think about being prepared before going on duty.
It's like plumbers asking everyone to have all the tools in their house incase they forget theirs. It's silly. Stop it.
There have been a number of characters that 'teleport out when X situation is met" or likewise "Teleports in when Y situation is met." for example, void ark spawning Cthulu-tentacle-oh-god-why. Characters spawn for Fates that you can interact and talk with, whcih would be easy to enable/disable for the pull.
Hell, you're gonna try to argue immersion?
We have bikin-clad cat girls running around with more defense than the rest of the mildly armored party. We have a world where it's considered 'realistic' for a Dragoon to literally travel via jumps (Dear god I died laughing when I first saw Eistinien enter/exit his cutscenes. It was hilarious.) We have literal magic.
But a character being in a zone, who by all rights SHOULD be there, as he is the SAME NPC that showed you the way from outside the dungoun, is somehow a streatch of the imagination?
We can be summoned to a giant mother crystal in some land we don't know, and float around like fairy princesses (God I hated that cutscene on a personal level), but some explorer who dabbles in repairs somehow sets you off?
You want to say that it's more realistic for there to be a glowing "Shortcut" that takes us to the last boss room we beat, but find it so unrealistic for someone who was waiting for us to wish for our well being?
Heck. If I want to keep in continuity with the shortcuts, let's just add a giant piece of floating crystal. We'll call it the "Mother Crystal", and when you interact with it, it says "It pulses with a warm light." and then pops open the repair window. It fits with the same level of absurdity of everything else, but to try and argue "Muh immersion" for an NPC who COULD in theory be at the start...
Also, I'll add - I still hold a strong belief to just dungouns. I think it could be done for raids, too, but I don't feel it is NEEDED for raids, because for the most part - raids (and when I say raids, I refer to Alexander and Coil) are not long enough to risk the breaking of armor. And when they do risk the breaking of armor (Assuming you reach 10% in the course of the fights), your more likely to have Vote Abandonens than anything else. But going into broken armor is very possible without wanting to vote abandon for a duty.
Reply With Quote
