So people are defending the msq dc exploit

[kikix12]

But that choice isn't available. As has been previously pointed out, the cutscene itself, even when viewed in an Inn, is unskippable. It's all or nothing, due to technical limitations. Either newbies get to experience the story as it should be, or they don't.
So yes, it is the best option currently available.

The option was available BEFORE implementing this. You could have used party finder for "No skipping cutscenes" and go with that. You could get your friends/Free Company members join with you and not skip the cutscenes/not fighting while you watch them. You had options of not skipping cutscenes...or skipping cutscenes. There are no such options now.

The lone fact that this was not used is proof of how few people actually give a darn about watching the cutscenes and fighting the mobs as they go. In case you didn't notice, vast majority of the players (you included) that stand "in defense" of the rookie players...are far from being rookies. It's the unrelated people that want to be the white knights of the new players. There are few here or there, don't get me wrong. There are new players that enjoy this possibility...first time around. But mostly it's not. Mostly the defendants of this change have little to do with the audience it is for.

It's good if they are actually someone that runs those dungeons with those rookies, but there are most likely as many or more people that do not. That are just talking for the sake of showing themselves on a supposedly moral high horse.

[Zohnax]

The lone fact that this was not used is proof of how few people actually give a darn about watching the cutscenes and fighting the mobs as they go. In case you didn't notice, vast majority of the players (you included) that stand "in defense" of the rookie players...are far from being rookies. It's the unrelated people that want to be the white knights of the new players. There are few here or there, don't get me wrong. There are new players that enjoy this possibility...first time around. But mostly it's not. Mostly the defendants of this change have little to do with the audience it is for.

It's good if they are actually someone that runs those dungeons with those rookies, but there are most likely as many or more people that do not. That are just talking for the sake of showing themselves on a supposedly moral high horse.

That's a lot of ignorant assumptions out of you.

Maybe some people understand what it takes to make for a decent gaming experience; let alone an immersive story, especially in an role-playing games where that's literally the objective of the genre.

Again, if the devs changed it to be this way, there's probably a reason.

[kikix12]

That's a lot of ignorant assumptions out of you.

What are ignorant assumptions?!

The fact that there weren't many people using party finder for doing those dungeons?!
If there were, there wouldn't been this whole witch hunt against the bad veterans.

The fact that most of the people defending this change are not the actual rookies?!
Just look at the forum join dates of the posters. Only ONE poster is actually new and saying that she recently did the content and was happy for it being this way. She also said that now that she is a veteran she rarely does it because she doesn't have the kind of time for that.

That even among those rookies that DO enjoy it being like that, for many it's only first time around?!
Just look above. She literally says that she doesn't do it more than once or twice a month because she doesn't have the time. Ultimately they take less than an hour, an hour maybe. So she have the free time to actually play them if she have the free time to actually play MMO's...but they are not enjoyable to her enough to win against other content when that time is restricted to that 1 or 2 hours.


So tell me...where are the assumptions?! Assumptions are something taken out of thin air. Not something based on information. That's analysis. You ASSUME things, then taking into consideration that assumption you analyze or test things. That's how research goes.

Maybe some people understand what it takes to make for a decent gaming experience;(...)

This is just false. "Decent gaming experience" is 100% relative. There are people that love game X and can play it for hundredths of hours...while others cannot force themselves to pass the 1h mark. There are TONS of popular games that I drop within several dozens of minutes. There are TONS of them I don't even pick up. That's because I have mostly a "niche" interest and dislike rather common design choices. But that does not make these games bad nor does it make my tastes wrong.

No one argues that players shouldn't be allowed to see the cutscenes and play that content. If you think otherwise then you are either lying to yourself...or YOU'RE the ignorant one. What we are talking is that this forcing 'band-aid' is a wrong choice. They should FIX the problem so that people that want to run that content without cutscenes can do so, while those that want to run it with cutscenes could do so. That is entirely possible. Even a simple box when queueing in "Do you want unskippable cutscenes? Yes/No" with reward based on which you pick would be better than this dumpster idea.
And before people inevitably cry "But then no one will run that roulette with cutscenes and rookies still won't watch them!"...that's what you are literally asking for. "Don't do it if you don't like it." is just that. If these people could not take advantage of this method to speed it up for them (and seriously, for some just the doing something part is probably helping to deal with it), they would not queue. At that point what is the difference?!

Of course, a real fix would be making that content possible to do solo with AI. At that point no one loses anything. Players can take as much time as they want playing around with it (with an instant queue!)...or they can go and queue with people to roflstomp it in a rush. But of course...that would take a little bit of effort from the developers for old content...(these instances are way too simple for the effort to actually be all that much, seeing as the squads stupid AI would be better for it than it is for some other dungeons that were released for it). That's a fix.

Again, if the devs changed it to be this way, there's probably a reason.

Developers are not infallible. They made Diadem for a reason too. They made Eureka for a reason too. They made Lord of Vermilion for a reason too. And the Glamour Dresser.

And your point is?! All of those are either effectively dead or severely crippled compared to what players actually wanted. Eureka is so active because of the relic and tons of other collectable incentives forced into it, not because it's good content. If it was so devoid of unique rewards it'd go the way of Diadem long ago.

And classes?! They made Scholar and Summoner tied to Arcanist, but that was a completely stupid idea from the beginning. They admitted that it was a mistake themselves. They too had a reason to do it that way. It sounded "cool" to them, it seemed like a "fun idea". They failed. And they failed even more because they were burned on the first attempt at a cool system just because they used it in the worst possible way. The problem never was a class branching into two. It was always with what that classed branched into. Arcanist have nothing to do with Summoner thematically or mechanically, while it have nothing to do with Scholar as a healer role-wise. It couldn't have worked.

[Ilan]

That's a lot of ignorant assumptions out of you.

Maybe some people understand what it takes to make for a decent gaming experience; let alone an immersive story, especially in an role-playing games where that's literally the objective of the genre.

Again, if the devs changed it to be this way, there's probably a reason.

Besides that long and unskipable CS in the middle of a dungeon are not a good design choice in an mmo. You put something like this in solo content and let the players decide if they want to see it or not.

[Seraphor]

Not everything gets changed for good reasons. A good example of bad changes aside from the MSQ roulette cutscenes is how bad they made Pagos after Anemos.

Pagos was already finalised before they got feedback from Anemos. Which is why the issues weren't addressed until Pyros.

[Zephera]

Pagos was already finalised before they got feedback from Anemos. Which is why the issues weren't addressed until Pyros.

And Pagos is still an intolerable mess that left a permenant black mark on Eureka as a whole. The issues might've been addressed in Pyros, but Pagos is still bad.

EDIT: How about some other controversial changes too? Some people utterly loathe the simplification of PvP skills, some also hate the removal of chat in Feast. One really bad change they walked back hard on was when they didn't have any STR on tank accessories when SB released.

My point is, is that some changes can be good, but they can also be bad.