What's your first impression of Eureka?

[Miles_Maelstrom]

The word "new" can be used to describe content that got added to the game recently. What you criticize is the lack of new concepts and gameplay mechanics.

You guys mostly agree on the same idea. You just aren't using the same definitions. It's basically arguing sementics.

And you're deflecting. The simple thing is whether or not you consider eureka new content it's simply not what people are complaining about, no one is complaining because eureka is new content. Which you asserted in your other post.

[Fyce]

And you're deflecting. The simple thing is whether or not you consider eureka new content it's simply not what people are complaining about, no one is complaining because eureka is new content. Which you asserted in your other post.

I'm simply saying that people are arguing sementics regarding the definition of "new content". What's your point exactly?
I'm not talking about what people are complaining about or not. I'm simply showing that people are currently having a meaningless argument. That's not being "deflective". That's pointing the obvious.

I don't know what kind of assumptions you are making regarding my intentions when I made that previous post, but you are clearly not getting the right idea. Is it wrong to try showing people that they fundamentaly agree with each other, yet are arguing because of sementics? Or is it wrong because it's coming from me?
It seems that anything I'll say will be used to start a fight with me now. Even if I'm not actually arguing about anything.

[Vidu]

I'm simply saying that people are arguing sementics regarding the definition of "new content". What's your point exactly?
I'm not talking about what people are complaining about or not. I'm simply showing that people are currently having a meaningless argument. That's not being "deflective". That's pointing the obvious.

Well, I could go back and change "new content" to "new concepts and gameplay", if thats what it needs to make you happy?

English isnt my first language, so I'm sorry if on occassion I'm not able to express myself that well, but I honestly feel you're a bit nit-pcking here.

Eureka might be a new zone, but without new things to do in it - so by my definition its not really new content and certainly not new content that was worth a 17 months wait.
They could introduce a Garuda HM version thats all dyed red instead of green, but with the excat same old mechanics etc. and it would be "new content" because it just got released, but not "new content" in the sense of "something new to do".

The core of my - and apparently others - complains is that Eureka was supposed to be "new content" in the sense of: innovative, creative, something, we didnt have already in the game. Thats the content we were promised. Its not the content we got. And wether or not you call it "not creative" or "not innovative" or "not new" doesnt really change the core of the argument.

[Fyce]

Well, I could go back and change "new content" to "new concepts and gameplay", if thats what it needs to make you happy?

English isnt my first language, so I'm sorry if on occassion I'm not able to express myself that well, but I honestly feel you're a bit nit-pcking here.

Eureka might be a new zone, but without new things to do in it - so by my definition its not really new content and certainly not new content that was worth a 17 months wait.
They could introduce a Garuda HM version thats all dyed red instead of green, but with the excat same old mechanics etc. and it would be "new content" because it just got released, but not "new content" in the sense of "something new to do".

The core of my - and apparently others - complains is that Eureka was supposed to be "new content" in the sense of: innovative, creative, something, we didnt have already in the game. Thats the content we were promised. Its not the content we got. And wether or not you call it "not creative" or "not innovative" or "not new" doesnt really change the core of the argument.

That's my point. You guys are debating over the meaning of the words "new content" without it having any impact on the debate whatsoever. I don't think that anyone here would say that Eureka isn't using gameplay mechanics that we haven't seen before, except for losing EXP and the Magia board (which, again, everyone agrees to say that these two things are new in FFXIV).
So, if everyone agrees on that, there's nothing to argue about. That's simply what I'm saying.
You can call it nit-pcking if you want, but if it serves to reduce meaningless argumentation, then that's fine by me.

For example, you said that Chimera and Hydra were "new trials and had new mechanics". Well, someone might say exactly the same thing for a lot of Eureka's bosses. Someone else might argue that they were just trials like we've always seen in the game, thus not being "new", or that Chimera wasn't even a new monster, or that 8 people dodging AoEs is the same thing whatever trial you do. Whatever the case, this debate would be absolutly pointless, as it just dives into sementics.
And that's why I pointed it out. To make meaningless arguments stop being used.

tl;dr: It's pointless to jump at people because they used the words "new content", when their subjective definition of these words isn't even the same as yours.

Even shorter tl;dr: Stop doing that:


Continue if you want, I already made my point and won't go any further into this rabbit hole.

[TheAngelneer]

Even shorter tl;dr: Stop doing that:


Continue if you want, I already made my point and won't go any further into this rabbit hole.

I'll just leave this here.

[Fyce]

I'll just leave this here.

It has no connection to the real world. It's an analogy. It doesn't need any rational explanation beyond the point it's making.

It's a picture trying to show that people will disagree because of a difference in their point of view. The two characters are arguing about what they legitimately perceive from their position, leading to a pointless argument. Nobody "painted" the 9/6. There's no "driveway" or "building". These characters do not exist and do not serve any other purpose than this analogy. There is no other context to that picture. Trying to explain it outside of the meaning it was designed for is stupid, as it wasn't meant for that purpose at all.

Besides, note that I choose a picture without the text. I really wanted to express the main point shown in the picture. This was deliberate.

I can't believe I have to explain this concept to someone.

Edit: And you are upvoted for this post too. Do you guys really don't understand what is an analogy? Or has this thread just derailed to the point of just being a choir preaching itself, even if it defies common sense, just because it's fun to make me "the antagonist that people should disagree with"? You guys have no interest in having a constructive discussion. Such childish behavior is scary.

I have no clue why such a toxic thread is still open. That's the second proof in a single page that this thread is just a hater nest.

[Ruf]

Thread went from describing that eureka is nothing to you draw an image! Hard to miss the point on the picture now, there is greater than>& lesser than & that's self explanatory on my standing point of view about eureka theres plenty of feedbacks about it already & I think the balance seems pretty clear to me

[Tridus]

I have no clue why such a toxic thread is still open. That's the second proof in a single page that this thread is just a hater nest.

It's a feedback thread. People are giving feedback. If you want the "only people who like Eureka" echo chamber thread, it's over here: http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...-Eureka-thread

That most of the feedback is super negative suggests a problem with the content, rather than "OMG toxic people being mean!"

[MilanFrozen]

Edit: And you are upvoted for this post too. Do you guys really don't understand what is an analogy? Or has this thread just derailed to the point of just being a choir preaching itself, even if it defies common sense, just because it's fun to make me "the antagonist

The problem is that the analogy is poorly made. The "glass is half empty" analogy would've worked better for your argument as it is truly about perception.

[Vstarstruck]

Well, I could go back and change "new content" to "new concepts and gameplay", if thats what it needs to make you happy?

English isnt my first language, so I'm sorry if on occassion I'm not able to express myself that well, but I honestly feel you're a bit nit-pcking here.

Eureka might be a new zone, but without new things to do in it - so by my definition its not really new content and certainly not new content that was worth a 17 months wait.
They could introduce a Garuda HM version thats all dyed red instead of green, but with the excat same old mechanics etc. and it would be "new content" because it just got released, but not "new content" in the sense of "something new to do".

The core of my - and apparently others - complains is that Eureka was supposed to be "new content" in the sense of: innovative, creative, something, we didnt have already in the game. Thats the content we were promised. Its not the content we got. And wether or not you call it "not creative" or "not innovative" or "not new" doesnt really change the core of the argument.

Since you stated English is not your first language, I need to point something out why it is not worth talking to Fyce.

Strawman Fallacy

Description: Substituting a person’s actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position of the argument.

Logical Form:

Person 1 makes claim Y.

Person 2 restates person 1’s claim (in a distorted way).

Person 2 attacks the distorted version of the claim.

Therefore, claim Y is false.

They are using a ton of different argumentative fallacies, this and red herring being the top. You are perfectly correct. This diadem 3.0 is not new content. They even threw an argument to me saying " a recycled bottle is new" at me, implying they very well know this content is recycled and not new. We did not get what development team told us, something new and innovate, said it would not be like diadem, then turn around and give us diadem 3.0

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_dispute

Also note they are doing this to you as well

You are also correct we are not seeing 17 month investment, we are not seeing the investment taking away content in SB and fixes to spend time on this black hole (I use the black hole term here, as in a black hole takes light itself and does not escape. This thing took time, money, work, without seeing anything come out of it) Let me know if you fully understand the point, as I really hate seeing you debate with someone like Fyce with English not being your first language.

I've gone back and forth with Eureka, at first was fun, then boring, but now I have to say it's fun again because NMs don't take too long to spawn now and overall it has a flow to it. It could be better with so many of the ideas we've posted in this forum but since this is just the first step of the relic it's fine the way it is. So for me, if they want my review of it I would say it's fun and a good first step but they need to fix the exp gained the low level experience of it because of how few NMs one can spawn at level 1-6. NMs are the fun of Eureka and it's fun in all honesty, it just takes a while to get there in terms of levels and stuff.

So yes I've changed my mind, Eureka is fun and people should give it more of a chance, it specially picks up around level 6+
It's not perfect though, Eureka part 2 needs to have a lot more variety

That is exactly the issue, you shouldn't HAVE to torture yourself to pass over this huge wall to start to feel progress. It would be like if level 1>2 was 10 million exp, while 69>70 is 5000 exp, they did progress backwards.