Stop the Grind-to-the-Endgame madness!

[Hyrist]

I really doubt anyone pulling from their experience from XI want this game to be XI-2. Then again if we don't quote something with WoW level subscribers it seems we are going to get pointed in another direction becasue what we thought was fun obviously didn't sell well enough.

Man CoD must be the best game evar.

*laugh* It certainly is popular, not that I like it.

Anyways, no. There are a lot of good ideas from FFXI. But many people have very contrasting views about what was good from XI.

What about the mentions of Campaign, Beseiged, Conquest? Hamlet defense falls short of this so far.

We've got Arena PVP coming, but what about Balista? I know that had a cult following, and if it had rewards relevant to PvP I bet more people would jump on that.

We've already gone over HNMs on another thread and I reminisced on how Sandworm and Dark Ixion both had a special place with me.


What's getting opposed is broad spectrum ideas, things that seem to want to be transplanted without adjustment or acknowledgement of the things that cause it to snag in FFXI. When you talk huge concepts like the level progression, or necessity to party to do anything in FFXI, then you're starting to tread upon areas that caused many people to defect away from XI to begin with, and often at the cost of mechanics many players like here.

If I absolutely had to party to level at a decent rate in this game, I'd drop subscription. I like the thought of being able to train in private as well as with a group.

But there are a vast amount of concepts in FFXI that are interesting, that really aren't being touched on. It seems that the few people who are champion XI are championing the same small scope of mechanics over and over again.

Maybe it's because some of those mechanics no longer exist in XI and you're looking for an alternative vent, but it is defended so staunchly that there does not seem to be any room for negotiation for it to work with a broader audience.

[Jynx]

If I absolutely had to party to level at a decent rate in this game, I'd drop subscription. I like the thought of being able to train in private as well as with a group.

For the most part even in XI you could solo for pretty decent exp, of course party play was "The best" because it had to be rewarding for people to gather together otherwise everyone would just solo.

Hell it's mostly why Black-mages ended up becoming ostracized by party players it wasn't the meele burns that did them in, for years before that Black-Mages were off soloing for better exp they could ever get in parties. Many parties would kill for a Black-Mage for Magic burst damage.

They even had entire jobs based around being able to solo (Beastmaster and *kind of* Puppetmaster) FFXI had a MASSIVE spectrum of support for a bunch of types of players. I think people forget how broad the leveling process could be outside of just grind parties.

[Hyrist]

For the most part even in XI you could solo for pretty decent exp, of course party play was "The best" because it had to be rewarding for people to gather together otherwise everyone would just solo.

Hell it's mostly why Black-mages ended up becoming ostracized by party players it wasn't the meele burns that did them in, for years before that Black-Mages were off soloing for better exp they could ever get in parties. Many parties would kill for a Black-Mage for Magic burst damage.

They even had entire jobs based around being able to solo (Beastmaster and *kind of* Puppetmaster) FFXI had a MASSIVE spectrum of support for a bunch of types of players. I think people forget how broad the leveling process could be outside of just grind parties.

On paper it might have seemed that way to you, but I was a soloist. Your 'decent' rate of solo was a bout a tenth of the rate of a party unless you were a BST or were camping BST pets. And that was only to level, virtually everything else required a party.

That eased, gradually, as time went by in FFXI, but if you were there soloing in the first few years of the game, you had a very rough time of it, and were generally looked down upon. Garliage Citadel bats on the basement floor is a perfect example of that conflict.

The solo support here vs the solo support there are years apart both figuratively and literally. To the point where I want to say the Party Support in this game could use a little boost, content wise. But I am glad they made sure that smaller groups and soloists were covered first, cause that will defiantly keep players occupied on their downtime between events and group quests. Nothing was worse than sitting idle with your flag up because solo content was limited to the point of exasperation or progress solo was just too slow to not be sitting there trying to get a party together.

That changed in FFXI, mind you, but those were not pleasant memories.

[Jynx]

There was a massive incentive to solo even in the early stages of the game. Just because the exp wasn't the best it was one of the best ways to make cash while leveling a job.

Yes most jobs outside of Beastmaster or Blackmage were terrible for solo but it was part of making each class unique that some were better at some tasks than others, not this white-wash everyone can do everything we had in the beginings of XIV. Soloing was included in one of those tasks you could be awesome at or not.

You had choices for Solo exp and because you thought Party exp was better you chose to not do them, especially in the mid-years of the game it was foolish to sit around town with your flag up. You either made your own party of seeked while completing other tasks such as crafting, gathering, gardening, NM hunting, Farming, you had a near limitless supply of things you could do while waiting for a party if you didn't want to make one yourself.

Again the rewards for being in a party had to far outweigh solo exploits otherwise people would just solo because they could. Look at XIV people avoid others like a plague unless they need to because they don't need to interact with others outside of instances.

[Rutelor]

But we are talking about the field of recreation, a subjective art, at best. And the only true measurement of success really is the number of people who enjoy it. In which case this is a matter of 'majority rules' in spite of other examples you would compare with other factors to consider.

To draw an example parallel, this would be like comparing Coke to say Pepsi or some other off-brand rather than trying to compare it to water.

I fundamentally and absolutely don't agree with any of the above. I firmly believe, with many philosophers and thinkers within the fields of psychology of pleasure, and aesthetics, that taste is part of the language of gratification which is essential to art, but it's not its subject. I believe emphasis in subjectivity is both just a market ploy, and a very popular political platform. Again, the full-fledged reasoning behind this, alas, is way too far outside the nature and tone of these forums. Just let it be enough to state that there is at least one person here that does not think that artistic quality is solely determined by subjective standards. That would render all art theory, and the efforts of anthological history of the arts, bogus. Which would make our discussion and these forums irrelevant. They might happen to be that, for reasons more related to the quality of our reasoning than to the subjectivity of our positions.

Subjectivity sways perception of the arts, and our opinion of them, but does not define them solely. There's plenty of objective territory, and room for argument.

BTW, I didn't intend to make Wow the Coke to FFXI's Pepsi. I didn't mean for the parallel to work that way. But you are correct in your criticism. Coke vs. water does not cut it. May I suggest then sugared soda drinks vs. bottled mineral carbonated water? Not as zippy, but perhaps more valid.

The second major point that must be addressed immediately here is that your statement implies that the because the minority and the majority opinions conflict, that the solution must be exclusive to one or the other, as if neither camp could be satisfied while any amount of the other is.

This is simply not true.

You do wrong to your own carefully expressed reasoning, Hyrst, when you state that implication is obvious in my statement. I never implied it, nor does my text express that idea. As a matter of fact, the whole point is that there's a majority, and then there must be an opposition to balance it. To state that the unfettered opposition should rule is, beyond ludicrous, a fallacious corollary, if ever there was one. The obvious corollary is one much closer to your own conclusion of compromise, which is what is exemplified in a correctly-functioning democratic government. To assert that I implied the contrary to the logical conclusion of my own argument is absurd.

I just wanted to dispel the notion that it is an absolute notion that FFXI and its qualities are completely excluded from all possible consideration in our argument because it was way outsold by WoW. Which is something you did seem to imply.

While there is a fringe of players who enjoy a specific type of content and will be inflexible to the point of quitting over it, the ideal solution is to appeal to as broad as an audiance as possible - this includes more hardcore perspectives such as enjoying a longer grind.

But as a minority, it must be stated that the concept of compromise may come greater on that part than on the part of the majority, because the end goal is commercial success. It really is the only way you can truly measure this kind of success objectively.

The implication I refer to above, however, does seem to dissipate when you speak of compromise. This I do agree with. What I don't agree with is the concept that commercial success is tantamount to beating WoW numbers, or even reaching them. That simplifies the situation far too much, and puts it in an unrealistically binary plane. I want a game that by definition will be more rarified, and therefore less populated than WoW was. Viable, and profitable, yes... self-sustainable, absolutely! But in my compromise I wouldn't sacrifice concepts that I consider important just to ensure the numbers match or exceed WoW's. It's obvious, however, that this point won't be subject to my call, since this is a private commercial venture, and I'm not a part of decision-making team. What I can do, however, is honestly and clearly try to express my position to see if it gains traction within the community; because as a collective within the player-base, we can make a difference in the outcome.

[Onisake]

There was a massive incentive to solo even in the early stages of the game. Just because the exp wasn't the best it was one of the best ways to make cash while leveling a job.

Yes most jobs outside of Beastmaster or Blackmage were terrible for solo but it was part of making each class unique that some were better at some tasks than others, not this white-wash everyone can do everything we had in the beginings of XIV. Soloing was included in one of those tasks you could be awesome at or not.

You had choices for Solo exp and because you thought Party exp was better you chose to not do them, especially in the mid-years of the game it was foolish to sit around town with your flag up. You either made your own party of seeked while completing other tasks such as crafting, gathering, gardening, NM hunting, Farming, you had a near limitless supply of things you could do while waiting for a party if you didn't want to make one yourself.

Again the rewards for being in a party had to far outweigh solo exploits otherwise people would just solo because they could. Look at XIV people avoid others like a plague unless they need to because they don't need to interact with others outside of instances.

I agree with this. there should be a massive incentive to party. I have a group of friends I play with. and that is nice. but really we need more small-group content and i would not object into being forced to party after 15 or 20. the first 10s of levels should be sufficient to get someone comfortable with the interface and commands.

after that we should be looking at party play. fighting should be balanced at 4 people, so small groups can still XP and get things done effectively. larger groups should also receive incentive.

[darkstarpoet1]

as long as there are levels there will always be a grid to end game. if you get rid of levels there will always be the grind to be the first or the best to do something. there's many people that play mmo's for the competition. that's why you have people asking for open world because they like the claiming wars. i'm one of them.

no matter what you do you will always have people that strive to be the first or best regardless of what it is.

[Hyrist]

[QUOTE=Rutelor;759853]

Subjectivity sways perception of the arts, and our opinion of them, but does not define them solely. There's plenty of objective territory, and room for argument.

Alas, now you push into the territory where the artist in me disagrees with the businessman in me.

Subjectivity is the essential aspect of art. It is how we subjectively view the world around us that becomes interpreted into form that makes art. In this case, the aesthetics as pertaining to the creator is most important, and the debate over it is part of what makes the art worthwile.

But the businessman reminds me that this isn't just art for arts sake, but rather a commercial art, in which case the goal is to sell the product. At that point there is a certain quantifiable set of variables to debate over, which we are now. It is subjective, but the subjective is focused to a target audience. The real question therin lies to Square Enix and Yoshida's crew - what is your target audiance, and how much of it can you capture and maintain? That is the ultimate goal here.

To the artists working under that goal, there is always the internal debate between your instincts of creating art for arts sake, and making the bottom line bigger. Where that line is drawn, as you said, is out of our hands, and I do not envy their position.

BTW, I didn't intend to make Wow the Coke to FFXI's Pepsi. I didn't mean for the parallel to work that way. But you are correct in your criticism. Coke vs. water does not cut it. May I suggest then sugared soda drinks vs. bottled mineral carbonated water? Not as zippy, but perhaps more valid.

You're talking quality of experience.

Speaking purely as a player, I understand what you mean, but again my personality comes into conflict with itself. If left with a choice between a healthy game and all the mechanics I wanted in it, I would sacrifice the mechanics.

The obvious corollary is one much closer to your own conclusion of compromise, which is what is exemplified in a correctly-functioning democratic government. To assert that I implied the contrary to the logical conclusion of my own argument is absurd.

Regardless, without clarification of such a term, others may have taken your words as such an absurd assumption, and I was moved as such to clarify to prevent such a reconstruction of you words. To be clear, we both agree that the answer is compromise.

I just wanted to dispel the notion that it is an absolute notion that FFXI and its qualities are completely excluded from all possible consideration in our argument because it was way outsold by WoW. Which is something you did seem to imply.

mm. Thats a good correction of my words. To be more clear, I believe that the leanings of compromise need to error leaning away from flaws of FFXI rather than towards its assets. This is because the track record of failed "WoW Clones." still net a higher subscription rate than FFXI at its peak. If we adapt FFXI concepts in there, it should be done with that fact in mind. We want to attract customers with Final Fantasy tropes, not push them away.

The implication I refer to above, however, does seem to dissipate when you speak of compromise. This I do agree with. What I don't agree with is the concept that commercial success is tantamount to beating WoW numbers, or even reaching them. That simplifies the situation far too much, and puts it in an unrealistically binary plane. I want a game that by definition will be more rarified, and therefore less populated than WoW was. Viable, and profitable, yes... self-sustainable, absolutely! But in my compromise I wouldn't sacrifice concepts that I consider important just to ensure the numbers match or exceed WoW's. It's obvious, however, that this point won't be subject to my call, since this is a private commercial venture, and I'm not a part of decision-making team. What I can do, however, is honestly and clearly try to express my position to see if it gains traction within the community; because as a collective within the player-base, we can make a difference in the outcome.

My standard is this: So long as the creators can capture the essence of what it means to be Final Fantasy within a game that keeps itself entertaining, and successful all else is open. But to do this with FFXI still in existence, FFXIV needs to seek it's own target audience. It can overlap, but it also has to appeal outside of FFXI's own scope to be successful.

I don't beleive FFXIV has the capasity to match WoW's audiance, nor do I beleive that should be the goal. Like you I beleive the audiance should be somewhat defined. But the definition for me is as simple as "Final Fantasy fans will enjoy this." Personally, if that is accomplished this game will be a success. However, given the diversity of those fans, that is still a tall order to fill.

That means various styles of gameplay, multiple references, a gripping story-line and a fun combat and progression system.

But beyond that, it also needs to be extensively replayable, as per the MMO mantra. That is a quality not really Final fantasy per se. The stories might get you to play again, but there have been no real mechanics that encourage replaying, like Chrono Trigger's Newgame+ (Ok, FFX-2 had it, and that was cool.)

Now there will always be differences in opinion, but I do beleive we still maintain the same goal. I ultimately agree with the general theme that Endgame should be reached as a natural conclusion, not as the goal you have at the start of the game. But to achieve that there needs to be a manner for endgame to reach down to the leveling base and vice versa. That latter part needs some work as far as lower levels reaching impact to help higher levels. I'm still thinking on how we can achieve that.


As far as leveling itself. Many of the Final Fantasy games were expertly paced based on their story, especially in some of the later games (Excluding 13). I think this is where they can tie in a proper leveling pacing. They've got good experience in this field and if they create an ever expanding story to fit with the level caps, we'll do fine.

I would like them to make this pacing better than it was in FFXI, however, which means faster than the old FFXI's pacing. Because, to be honest, you ran out of content before you ran into the next good series of quests, level wise in XI. If they can better fill that in, then the leveling pace is still going to seem fast, because you're drinking up rich story content.

Anyways, I'm out of time. I would like to talk more along the lines of what you and I would do as specifics for the compromises then. A way to keep leveling paces good for those who both want to get to endgame swiftly, and those who prefer to move casually along. I don't believe pacing should be enforced upon the player who wishes to progress quickly, but I do believe the slower one should be rewarded somehow for their patience. Is there some way we can achieve that? That would probably be a great framework to start from.

[Firon]

Ho dare ppl get to lvl cap so they can enjoy what they think the best part of mmorpg's are!!!

[Rutelor]

Ho dare ppl get to lvl cap so they can enjoy what they think the best part of mmorpg's are!!!

I don't think you should generalize. Even though I understand it, because of the market trend.

However, the only good part, and the only fully enjoyable one, of an MMO does not have or need to be the endgame. That's the whole point of all this writing.

As things stand right now, with this trend, your statement, removing the sarcasm, does make perfect sense. Oh, ok... leave the sarcasm in, if you want. :-)