What's your first impression of Eureka?

[Lissandra]

At first I thought it was fun, but after a few rounds, it's all right. It's a great place for socialization though.

[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.

[Ghastly]

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

[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.

[Galaktica]

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+

The thing I hate about this phrase - and, I apologize, it's not meant to be an attack on you or anything. I've just seen this phrase thrown out there a lot recently. - is that how much is really enough?

An hour? Two? Three? Ten? When is someone allowed to voice the opinion? The first day Eureka came out, people were saying, "ah, you only spent an hour in there, go in for like 3 and tell me if it's still boring then!" Then the next day it was like "omg you need to get to lvl 10 to really enjoy it because it starts so slow!" And now, people are out there like "You can't really talk about Eureka until you hit lvl 20 and experience the whole thing! It's not that bad!"

My rebuttal to this line of thought it this: how much Eureka fundamentally change from beginning to "end"? There's a big difference between someone who puts 1 hour in a game like Street Fighter or Tekken and someone who has put in 1000 hours. At that point, they're essentially playing two different games because the knowledge one would gain along the way is simply impossible to grasp in such a short time. Now, again, going back to Eureka, what is the big difference between someone who has played 1 hour and someone who has played 1000? I know it hasn't even been out for 1000 hours yet, but you get my point. Aside from knowledge of the map and enemy locations, as far as I can tell, Eureka is virtually the same all the way through. So, again, how much time does someone realistically need to put into Eureka before they're apparently qualified to form an opinion?

[Vidu]

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.

Thanks!
To be honest, right now I'm sitting here, shaking my head and are wondering who is actually missing the point - me or Fyce.

I'll conclude, at least for myself and after the given explantion, that its not me... because wether or not we agree on the definition of "new content" or figured out under what circumstances Eureka can be classified "new content", it doesnt change the fact that Eureka is uninsipred, not innovative, according to the devs the reason we got less other "new" content (cut back on dungeons), delayed the relic and is basically what they promised it wouldnt be: Diadem 3.0.
You can still think, that Eureka is new content, for all I care.
And you can enjoy that content and have fun with that - all power to you here!

But at the end of the day Eureka lacks innovation, new ideas and even proper rewards. All things that shouldnt have happend after 17 months. If anyone wants to dismiss those arguments based on how to define the word "new", they're probably not worth discussing with.

...am I getting all of this right?

[Marluxia]

Ah, the ol' Final Fantasy 13 defense. "After about 5 hours it gets good!"

Put your hand on a hot stove for 5 hours and you'll probably stop feeling the pain, but by then you'll have done serious damage to yourself.

Unless we're talking about mere minutes, "It gets better at <x>" is not a particularly strong defense because, well, why can't it be good right now?

I doubt you'd cover a third of your steak in motor oil and claim "After you eat the motor oil the steak tastes good."

[Fyce]

...am I getting all of this right?

Yes. I'm simply saying that jumping at people for saying "new content" is just a matter of sementics, which is why people should stop doing it. And since you and Marluxia did it, I replied.
I don't know why my point is so hard to graps.

P.S. English is not my first language either, btw.