Make FFXIV more like FFXI and less like WoW!

[Shurrikhan]

Preferences don't make people crazy - however, playing a game that does not have these elements over one that does against one's own preference and better knowledge does seem a little crazy. I mean, one of the main reasons I am not playing guild wars 2 right now is the horizontal progression, but that just means guild wars 2 is not a game for me (as much as I adore the Asura), so I naturally picked another with a different model. The market is pretty diverse after all, so everyone should be able to find a pretty good fit (although 100% fit is likely never achieved), which in turn sends signals to companies.

I mean, don't get me wrong - monitoring the market, reacting to trends, adjusting the product to the customer's needs and serving profitable nichés are good things! But you also have to consider that not all customer needs and nichés are compatible and it's often better for everyone involved to have different needs served by different games.

I really meant that question to be more clearly just rhetorical, but fair enough. Good points.

My concern is when an entire design philosophy (e.g. anything but pure instanced gameplay hub worlds) is outright rejected by a given set of the playerbase when it may have far less effect on them than they assume. And the "there are other games you could play" advice, while generally accurate, isn't effective in the discussion of broadening any target audience, with or especially without sacrificing quality within its so-called niché. Yes, there are other games that have more interesting open world models that might appeal to me or even less openly interactive ones that might appeal to others, but those models are just a part of what make their games. I can't play with my Asura, female humans models, practical but attractive starter gear, gliders, lore-filled world, or even my concept art hype from GW2 without its overlying endgame meta, Fractals, Ascended Gear, etc., but that doesn't mean that the two parts necessitate each other; the prior does not necessarily cause the latter. And at the same time I cannot presently play with the animations I so love from this game with the semblance of a living, immersive, or emergent open world, but that is not to say that there is something in the art assets that prevents or makes unfitting any of those things. If anything, XIV has had a much shorter time and total update output compared to most of its spotlight competing MMOs to show that its development has been in the direction of making XIV all it can or should be. Its niche is, necessarily, less a process of self-tailoring or purposed reiteration towards a final goal, than other, longer historied MMOs. And even then, at least to me and seemingly to many others I've read from on this forum, its updates show comparatively lacking proof of long-running or manifest design. Any so-called "best fit" in whatever systems or niché to the assets that otherwise make up XIV has yet to be solidified. It is a game still in development, as almost every MMO is to some extent. At least it still has the chance to seem genuine and ambitious about that development, as opposed to, say, the push and pull of various decisions, take-backs, reshapes, and reskins that WoW's design iterations have become notorious for.

But that's not even the biggest thing. To return to the beginning, let me just reiterate that focusing on any given niché is not as necessary as many make it out to be. There are various shades between whatever two extremes that each side can read as favoring of meeting the needs of their side, rather than as a muddied compromise. Phasing is just one such example. Instancing and open world don't have to be in conflict; nor, even, do personal resource use and community effects on resources (see personal mining nodes, tracks, or suggestions made on such systems). In other cases, one side can be supplied without harm to another. Look at so-called "non-combat" abilities that have nonetheless built up identity for numerous MMO classes. The only possible conflict they could have with the combat abilities is bar space, which XIV has shown minimal care about as is and still have available solutions such as staged triggers (LB>RB or RB>LB, etc.).

To say that a game is necessarily one niché or another when it has so much that is yet untapped denies it the ability to progress. To deny entire player types access to a game's assets, still conceptually divorced even if packaged with those niché-like systems, when you could appease both sides is financially unsound. And to stop short of feeling out the proper balance of such systems, and appealing to a maximum number of player types—not just the mean, not just the mode—based on those assets that really make your game... that stops short of the ambition I'm fairly sure we'd all want from an MMO.

[Duelle]

In another example, the Scorpion Harness was among the best DPS body pieces in the game for a long, long time - it was crafted gear, and while terribly expensive any DPS could get one if they saved up for it; likewise, the Noble's Tunic the best healer piece. And yet, very few people would turn away a DPS or healer simply because they didn't have one.

To offer a contrary anecdote, a Scorpion Harness or Haubergeon was pretty much required for partying and you were a seen as a gimp without one. Could be that you got lucky with people and I just kept running into shitheads, but there's two sides to that coin.

Whatever the case, it's unquestionable that gear itemization in this game is excruciatingly boring. Whatever piece of gear you obtain, no matter how difficult, challenging, or grindy, it's all going to look the same: another notch up in Primary Stat, with a sprinkling of the same old tiresome substats.

As has been discussed in other topics, you're messing with gear balance and gameplay when you introduce something like "special" stats on individual pieces of gear (I'm open to discussing set bonuses but no one on these forums seems to want to talk about them for some reason). You'd still be subject to BiS lists and the other elements people seem to hate from WoW. It'd actually be worse because instead of seeing people get called out for terrible gameplay, you'd see people get called out for not having X piece of gear (which is why the Sentinel cooldown reduction example Yoshida presented makes a lot of sense).

It's not going to last you for years like a Scorpion Harness or Astral Ring would

This ain't a bad thing.

If SE had had the foresight to keep primary stat OFF the accessories, they could have left those slots free for progressive experimentation.

Just to comment on this, SE could easily make this happen naturally through scaling. If all accessories released with "The Spires of Alla Migho" (or whatever they decide to call the expansion) have no primary stats, armor stat scaling would eventually make up the difference by the time you hit level cap (probably before even reaching the expansion's equivalent to Neverreap and Fractal Continuum).

Equip left-side gear for primary stat advancement, and use right-side gear for interesting stuff like "Raise cast time reduced by 50%" or "Adds 20 potency Fire Damage to auto attacks". Situational stuff that's more useful in some fights than others - and for those who cry out that inventory space is too limited to have situational gear, just how much free space do you have in your Accessory tabs? I see no issue with having a few extra pairs of earrings that I could swap in for certain battles where they're more useful.

You're trying to decry absolutely real inventory issues by presenting an attempt at a loaded question.

Nevermind that one of FFXI's biggest problems is inventory bloat. They had to come up with more bullshit systems to store things because of it, from mog sacks to satchels to multiple ticket-based off-character storage NPCs. The fact the problem festered as a result of the game's design (because the devs didn't kill gear swaps when they had the chance) makes the negatives of situational gear quite evident. We already have space issues on anyone that wants to gear more than one job, and you want to make the problem worse by essentially forcing people to have multiple pieces per slot?

[Zojha]

My concern is when an entire design philosophy (e.g. anything but pure instanced gameplay hub worlds) is outright rejected by a given set of the playerbase when it may have far less effect on them than they assume.

In the extract I quoted, you were talking about having desirable facilities be available/unavailable depending on things like content participation/PvP, or more plainly put, risk, as well as "forced community". This is something that is not compatible with the desire for convenient access to facilities and content as the matchmaking systems provide and trying to appease both groups is a futile effort - either the facilities are insignificant enough that people not interested can ignore them, in which case the people enjoying such a concept are disappointed or they are so significant that you push players into a concept they want nothing to do with, leading to them being disappointed.

Now you are talking about open world content in general. That is a different thing altogether, because, as you say yourself, interests do not necessarily clash, unlike in the previous example - a quite important and relevant difference, wouldn't you say? Thus, I get the feeling you misunderstood me - I say if two concepts are not compatible, such as forced community and optional community or resource competition and free access to resources, they are best served in different games, because any attempted compromise can only be unsatisfying for both sides and likely will end up appealing to neither.

Forgive me when I don't address the rest of your post, because it's working under a faulty assumption and merely serves to reassure the readers that there is compatibility - a case in which I, at least, show no opposition in the first place, provided the implementation is financially feasible. It's where desires necessarily need to clash that I feel people should, in fact, play a different game, if it's particularly important to them.

[Shurrikhan]

Now you are talking about [open world]* content in general.

Forgive me when I don't address the [rest of your]** post...

* I wasn't even that specific. ** Not even from the start.

If a post doesn't refer back to two quotes prior, perhaps that's because no direct connection was intended?

It was a reply to your quote, which was also quite general. Do you see a single mention of open world gameplay in your quote? It was aimed at unwillingness to consider other models for a game, or to try to find ways to appeal to both sides of a given spectrum in a game's own way; open world vs. closed world models, so to speak, were only one such example given.

In either case, we return to this crux:

I say if two concepts are not compatible, such as forced community and optional community or resource competition and free access to resources, they are best served in different games, because any attempted compromise can only be unsatisfying for both sides and likely will end up appealing to neither.

I did not misunderstand you, nor by including a quote to provide thread-context for my thoughts did I mean to imply that you were in disagreement with anything I said. I agree that at times some concepts may be incompatible, for instance. I just can't find something to actually be necessarily incompatible until that determination includes looking at the particular and possible (where moving towards an positive outcome even in other ways for that added effort) circumstances of the game. You can treat it as habitual skepticism if you like, to be taken with no more importance than "half-empty; half-full"; I just dislike when things are considered certain by prior implementation or general design without yet being placed in scenario. To others, that'd just be pragmatism; I find it wasteful.

I realize therefore what I've written may not have been much use to you, but if you'd like concrete ideas for how open world immersion and community interaction and instanced convenience can play out together, I'll need surrounding theme and assets of, say, the zone and expansion in which that model would be introduced. As I said, to me it's paramount that a game use what assets it has or that the model work hand and hand with them. I'd rather show how they shape each other than argue impression in a vacuum, a tedious and rarely completed process.


:: I apologize if my quote range lead to any confusion. Your quote itself seemed general enough to me that I assumed your main point, alike to the "it's where desires necessarily need to clash that I feel people should, in fact, play a different game, if it's particularly important to them" argument above, which I may have equated to some extent with the "there's always another game out there for you" common retort, was not limited only to the open world, phasing, and instances-only discussion before it.

[Velhart]

For starters, shouldn't your comparisons be to the systems already in XIV where this can be a problem (Hunts, FATEs, and Diadem), or where that problem is (albeit awkwardly) avoided, such as in leves?

Sorry to answer a question with a question, but are these open world interactions condemned to be ever disappointing just because someone else can have an affect on the resources or tasks available to you? The same concepts are largely lauded in other MMOs, wherein the players must make an effort together in order to keep a given zone functioning, or where world PvP can push opportunities for players in their respective factions for better or worse. Are those people just all crazy for enjoying that element of risk and/or (forced) community?

Hunts themselves are pretty much a prime example how conflicting content like open world dungeons can be. If you put something of value in there, you will be fighting countless others to get it done. FATE's to a lesser extent, but they scale based on how many players are there, the more higher level ones at least.

I am 100% open to finding ways to put more into the open world. I am not for ideas that involve crowding a ton of people and making people conflict with one another. Things like treasure maps is definitely a step in the right direction.

Phasing. You don't have to compete against hundreds of others and people can still get their open world fix.
http://support.enmasse.com/tera/channels

You are right, there is open world content where you do not have to conflict with anyone. Its just your ideas are not that.

There were times I would go up into Sky alone and solo stuff I wasn't supposed to. But I couldn't solo everything. It was amazing for the option to run into people and have an experience of community, not an event of community. An example of event type is everyone going to a huge peace/love festival like The Burning Man, and even though there are thousands of people, you are really only interacting with who you came with if you are staring at your phone and the people two feet in front of you the whole time.

Interesting, because usually what I saw is "That LS better not be farming Despot or Ullikumi." Usually turns into a match of who can claim the mob first.

Having a zone with interconnecting areas and the ability to get lost, gives you the Christopher Columbus feeling you can't get with bread crumb trails and lobbies. Not saying I don't enjoy my share of instances. But when a game puts all it's eggs in one basket and shuns another, that is a limit on what someone might consider fun.

Difference of opinion here. I believe instanced content opens up to letting developers be more creative with an area and do things you would not be able to do in a open world setting. That in itself is open to criticism and interpretation, but it definitely makes things more interesting.

Diadem has the capability to offer that open world exploration feeling while being instanced. Best of both worlds. SE just needs to get it right. Hopefully the revamp of it will do that. Diadem really is what people should focus on being content like Sky/Sea if anything.

[LineageRazor]

To offer a contrary anecdote, a Scorpion Harness or Haubergeon was pretty much required for partying and you were a seen as a gimp without one. Could be that you got lucky with people and I just kept running into shitheads, but there's two sides to that coin.

Yeah, there were a few such individuals - but the vast, VAST majority of players understood that it took a while to drum up the cash for these items. They'd all had to do it themselves, after all. Just because an individual wasn't wearing one didn't mean they weren't working toward one.

As has been discussed in other topics, you're messing with gear balance and gameplay when you introduce something like "special" stats on individual pieces of gear (I'm open to discussing set bonuses but no one on these forums seems to want to talk about them for some reason). You'd still be subject to BiS lists and the other elements people seem to hate from WoW. It'd actually be worse because instead of seeing people get called out for terrible gameplay, you'd see people get called out for not having X piece of gear (which is why the Sentinel cooldown reduction example Yoshida presented makes a lot of sense).

I'm not sure how set bonuses are any less subject to balance issues and BiS discrimination than individual pieces. They ARE more annoying - much like the much-reviled Darklight pieces, you can't upgrade from a set until you have all the gear to upgrade ALL the pieces of the set.

And on the topic of gear discrimination, it all depends on how powerful the boosts are. Sentinel recast is obviously going to be overpowered - but what about Blunt Arrow recast? Speculate a boss that needs to be Silenced every 20 seconds (like ADS, back when ADS wasn't a joke). A BRD that can handle that alone would be nice to have, but no sane group is going to turn a BRD away simply for not having that piece, not when they can simply cycle between two silencers instead.

Just to comment on this, SE could easily make this happen naturally through scaling. If all accessories released with "The Spires of Alla Migho" (or whatever they decide to call the expansion) have no primary stats, armor stat scaling would eventually make up the difference by the time you hit level cap (probably before even reaching the expansion's equivalent to Neverreap and Fractal Continuum).

I thought of this - but unless the "unusual stats" were overpowered, or ilvl requirements forced players to leave them behind, players would ALWAYS choose the way-underleveled gear with primary stat over the primary statless new stuff. Players in ilvl 500 left-side gear, sporting ilvl 260 accessories, for as long as the game's ilvl requirements allowed it.

If SE were serious about this change, what they would really need to do is adjust all the gear at once, high and low, moving primary stat from the accessories to the armor, or, alternatively, just wiping it out from the accessories, and adjusting mob balance to account for the lower primary stat values. While I, personally, would approve of this effort as it would open the door for experimentation with interesting itemization, I don't see it as likely to happen.

Nevermind that one of FFXI's biggest problems is inventory bloat. They had to come up with more bullshit systems to store things because of it, from mog sacks to satchels to multiple ticket-based off-character storage NPCs. The fact the problem festered as a result of the game's design (because the devs didn't kill gear swaps when they had the chance) makes the negatives of situational gear quite evident. We already have space issues on anyone that wants to gear more than one job, and you want to make the problem worse by essentially forcing people to have multiple pieces per slot?

While I won't deny that inventory bloat was a huge issue in FFXI (particularly with nonsense like eight different element-specific versions of the same item, like the elemental staves or various elemental defense items), NOT killing gear swaps was likely the best game decision they ever made. The knowledge that, after getting the Ultimate Helmet you had several other Ultimate Helmets to strive for gave players reason to participate in a variety of end-game content.

The game kept a level cap of 75, with no ilvls to carry beyond that cap, for more than half its lifespan, and not once during that time did I hear a player complain that "there's nothing to do," an all-too common complaint here. There was ALWAYS another piece of gear to try to collect, to fulfill some niche. BiS MND pieces for MNK, for when they wanted to use Chi Blast. Casting Time reducers for mages - along with casting potency pieces to swap in before the spell finished casting. Accuracy and Haste gear for building TP, Attack and stat gear for Weaponskilling. There was always room to improve your character, somehow.

That said, the idea of changing clothes mid-battle IS kind of absurd, but from a gameplay perspective, all these different gear options gave the game incredible longevity. The lack of mid-battle gear swapping in this game limits the possibilities here, but does not eliminate them.

[Velhart]

snip

What you are describing is already having issues. Your BRD example. If there was that fight where it was necessary for the BRD to have a shorter recast time, then that BRD is required to have it despite it's ilvl. If SE designs content, they cannot be in the mind set that those unique stats come into play. Then on that same note, people could easily exploit it. I just don't get why people want this type of thing. All it does is open another window for the game to get broken and more work on the development side. You know, just for the sake of being unique, right?

Set bonuses I am definitely open for...if done right.

[Moomba33]

I guess I'll jump in.

I'm not against taking ideas from other games and making them work in XIV.
I tend to be against it when people ask for things from XI because they usually want to restructure XIV in ways I don't like.

I have no interest in horizontal progression. I don't want to carry multiple sets for one class as my inventory is already stuffed. I don't see the appeal of keeping one piece for years over frequent upgrades.

I don't want the world to change significantly based on players failing events. We have minor examples of that in the game already with the vendors at Highbridge and the Redbelly Hive disappearing if the FATE chains fail and players needing to win other FATEs to bring them back. I ran into this issue when I wanted to buy the minions from these vendors and FATE grinding was dead at the time I was on. It was irritating trying to get a group to help me kill the FATEs.

I like instanced content because it makes sure that everyone can get something without interference from other groups. I like things like treasure maps and leves that bring activity to zones without competition.
I hated Hunts when they first came out because of the massive zergs and drama over early pulls. I can only imagine how much worse the drama would have been if only one group could claim a hunt.

I'm neutral on adding set bonuses or whatever else to gear. I feel like it would be more work for the developers than it'd be worth but if it makes a lot of other players happy then I guess it's worth the effort.

[Zafrei]

Raid mounts - Aren't these just another type of glamour in the end? They do not add anything lasting to your character except something pretty to ride on.

Raid weapons - Again, worth getting for one patch cycle then they become glamour.

Relic Weapons - Mostly glamour. They are not BiS more than they are BiS.

Last gear - Weekly lockout. After about 8 hours of content everyone is at the same power level whether they play 8 hours a week or 8 hours per day.

You are absolutely correct about the treadmill runs into infinity.

Yeah I guess it all amounts to glamour eventually. However that's not what I was trying to say, what I was trying to say (and did very badly, sorry about that) is that while being glamour, these things are also trophies.

They're meaningful because you can only obtain them by completing tough tasks - they're a permanent and lasting mark of your achievements in that respect. That's all I was trying to get across.

[Sandpark]

You are right, there is open world content where you do not have to conflict with anyone. Its just your ideas are not that.

Do you not read things? Channels have alternate versions of the same open world. You get big competition on a big enemy? Switch channels until zero competition. You don't want to give it a chance? That's fine but don't alter truths to make your post seem you are right. Or that open world cannot be done right like my idea lays forth. Phasing works very well.

Hunts themselves are pretty much a prime example how conflicting content like open world dungeons can be. If you put something of value in there, you will be fighting countless others to get it done. FATE's to a lesser extent, but they scale based on how many players are there, the more higher level ones at least.

I am 100% open to finding ways to put more into the open world. I am not for ideas that involve crowding a ton of people and making people conflict with one another. Things like treasure maps is definitely a step in the right direction.

Hunts are the worst example of open world done right, even XI got NMs better than this game and that game is over 10 years old. Phasing do you need it? Fixes every single argument you made in this post.

Difference of opinion here. I believe instanced content opens up to letting developers be more creative with an area and do things you would not be able to do in a open world setting. That in itself is open to criticism and interpretation, but it definitely makes things more interesting.

Diadem has the capability to offer that open world exploration feeling while being instanced. Best of both worlds. SE just needs to get it right. Hopefully the revamp of it will do that. Diadem really is what people should focus on being content like Sky/Sea if anything.

Sure because team jump-rope and tedious done wrong mechanics make instanced content more interesting.

I could point out every flaw Diadem made but that would just turn into some way to skew the debate into "Open World has no place in an mmorpg because instanced is always more interesting and fair and open world content cannot learn from it's mistakes and advance in technology."