Highly Notorious Monsters

[Coglin]

Sure you're not talking about your own reading comprehension? Pretty damn sure it fits with the competitive content you are talking about.

And have they changed the claiming system since that poll? If you had reading comprehension, you would understand the question is 100% condition on the reference to the claiming system. No where does it mention anything about HNMs. Pretty sure NMs, HNMs, and dungeons are very different.

I do thank you though. I appreciate you keeping all these 40+ page threads that are 80%+ post of pro-open world post.

[CrystalWeapon]

And have they changed the claiming system since that poll? If you had reading comprehension, you would understand the question is 100% condition on the reference to the claiming system. No where does it mention anything about HNMs. Pretty sure NMs, HNMs, and dungeons are very different.

I do thank you though. I appreciate you keeping all these 40+ page threads that are 80%+ post of pro-open world post.

They did change the claiming since then... that was around the time they modified it to allow you to claim more than one monster at a time. Before that leves were the main form of exp. After it people started the whole large claim + aoe kill parties. So yeah... they did change the claiming system after that poll was done. The new claiming system caused issues with people PL'ing and what not.

Linky

Yoshi even did a large post about the issues the changes to the claiming system caused. Don't call me flat out wrong on things in an insulting way and expect me not to come back with proof of things I've said.

On topic: You have the right to support large timmers on NMs I have my right to oppose it.

World NMs: Yes, Please.
Special condition pops: Yes, Please.
Force pops: Yes, Please.
Large timmers for the sake of a cheap thrill: Thanks for the offer, but I'll have to pass.

[Coglin]

111

They did change the claiming since then...

Exactly. So, If they are not planning on changing the claiming system, because they already have. That quetion thats absolutely conditional and based on the premise of them changing the claiming system, is absolutely irrelavent.

Unless you have evidence they plan to change the claiming system in the future.

[Coglin]

Don't call me flat out wrong on things in an insulting way and expect me not to come back with proof of things I've said.

I didn't call you wrong because of what you said being wrong. Although it was. I called you wrong anticipating you would find the proof, which in turn prooved you were wrong.

I know they asked a question about content that was 100% based on the changing of the claiming system.

I knew they had already changed the claiming system before I asked you.

I know they have no plans in the future to change the claiming system.

I know if the question is absolutely dependent on, and specifically conditional to the claiming system changing, which we all know is not planned on happening. Then we all know your point referencing an ancient question, with non-applicable conditions, is well, not applicable.

We all already know Odin Is to be open world. Its going to happen. Argueing aginst Open world content is kind of futile and a little one sided. Argueing for reasonable equality in both instanced and open world is really the only logical arguement.

[CrystalWeapon]

I didn't call you wrong because of what you said being wrong. Although it was. I called you wrong anticipating you would find the proof, which in turn prooved you were wrong.

I know they asked a question about content that was 100% based on the changing of the claiming system.

I knew they had already changed the claiming system before I asked you.

I know they have no plans in the future to change the claiming system.

I know if the question is absolutely dependent on, and specifically conditional to the claiming system changing, which we all know is not planned on happening. Then we all know your point referencing an ancient question, with non-applicable conditions, is well, not applicable.

We all already know Odin Is to be open world. Its going to happen. Argueing aginst Open world content is kind of futile and a little one sided. Argueing for reasonable equality in both instanced and open world is really the only logical arguement.

They changed the claiming system AFTER that poll ... I don't even anymore... Did you even play the game back then? lol

I'm also not arguing against open world content. The ONLY thing I have ever argued against in this thread was unnecessarily long timmers. Even in the recent posts I've made tonight I've continually supported the system I just don't agree with it needing long timmers. Shall I go back over a year ago and pull out replies I gave in a similar topic? I believe my stance was the same back then. "Notorious Monsters should be Notorious because of how difficult they are, not because of how Notoriously late they are at spawning."

I'll say it again (this time I'll bold it so you actually read my stance on this issue):
World NMs: Yes, Please.
Special condition pops: Yes, Please.
Force pops: Yes, Please.
Large timmers for the sake of a cheap thrill: Thanks for the offer, but I'll have to pass.

[Coglin]

They changed the claiming system AFTER that poll ... I don't even anymore... Did you even play the game back then? lol


World NMs: Yes, Please.

Thank you Captain Obvious. Thats mypoint. If they changed the claiming system after the poll (which we know they did) then the poll question is definently irrelavent.

Read the question outloud. Word for word.

You used that question previously, as well as others, to foolishly attept to claim that a large portion of active players want strictly instanced content.

Now when you read that outload to yourself, you did say the part about the claiming system change right? that was conditional to the question. Since the question was before the change. Now that its after the change, its no longer relavent. Because a condition of a claiming system change is the only way its relavent.

I appreciate what you said in red though. Its a little confussing at times, you come into the thread bashing the idea of HNMs, and now you specifically say your for Open NMs? I assume you mean HNMs?

Yet then you offer your support for them only conditionally of the fact that they only spawn under special circumstances?

It somewhat makes your position dificult to judge.

Are you for open world HNMs or against them?

[Sephrick]

I didn't call you wrong because of what you said being wrong. Although it was. I called you wrong anticipating you would find the proof, which in turn prooved you were wrong.

I know they asked a question about content that was 100% based on the changing of the claiming system.

I knew they had already changed the claiming system before I asked you.

I know they have no plans in the future to change the claiming system.

I know if the question is absolutely dependent on, and specifically conditional to the claiming system changing, which we all know is not planned on happening. Then we all know your point referencing an ancient question, with non-applicable conditions, is well, not applicable.

I was going to stay out of this thread because I honestly lost my temper about half way through and rage posted since things can be a little one-sided unless you absolutely agree.

So don't take this as a rage post. I'm calmly and kindly asking you: What are you talking about?

That player's poll was conducted on February 2011 and the results were posted in March 2011. The changes to the claiming system came as a result in 1.19 in September 2011. Therefore, the contingency of "if the claiming system changes" already has been met.

10. If the current target claiming system were done away with, would you prefer for content such as dungeons and battle to be converted into instances as much as possible?
* "Instances" refer to those events and areas that can only be occupied by a single party, or certain characters, at once. This serves to prevent players from competing with one another for the same enemies, for example.

By saying "yes" to Question 10, those voters were saying "if you do change the claiming system, I'd like to see content be instanced."

Why is it that you're suggesting that unless they change the claim system again they can't focus on instanced content?

Furthermore, I offer a post I made in another thread that I think is relevant here.

And let me be clear, I'm not against open world content. I'm only against fighting over claim and I think that's a side that deserves attention here.

Anyway, here's my other post:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's tiring seeing people continue to dismiss the Players' Poll data because "it's a year old."

That data went to shape how Square-Enix is designing 2.0.



This is why most things need to be instanced. The above is from SE's PDFs they released back in November.

The idea behind 2.0's sever structure is to allow a "worldless model" to allow players to use a content finder to team up with other players no matter what server they will be on.

The people have spoken. As such, we'll be operating under the premise that new PvE content, such as dungeons containing sought-after loot, will be instanced. By instancing content in this way, we'll be able to reduce claim wars and counter-camping and all that. There's also the added merit of enabling the level design team to work with a clear theme in mind, and create much more engaging and challenging content.

The whole idea behind 2.0 is to make PvE a cooperative experience. But putting major content in the open world nullifies that entire concept. What's the point in restructuring your servers and engine to allow cross-server play if your content renders it useless?

But what about those wanting competition?



In those same PDFs, SE listed plenty of PvP concepts they'll introduce in 2.0.

The growth of Free Companies, a Colosseum-style arena and battle for territories in Frontlines are just some of the things we can expect to allow us to compete against our rivals in 2.0.



Does all of this mean there shouldn't be an open world to explore? Or things like big nasty monsters in it to kill?

No.

But it does mean major content should be where SE is designing it to be put in 2.0. And if in response to the infamous "Question 10" they decided to create an entire server structure for content finder and cross-server play because Yoshida took the response to mean "people want sought-after-loot in instances," then that's exactly what they should do.

But I think it's wrong to equate instances with "easy mode." Granted the game's current instances aren't exactly dynamic. But this is 1.xx, not 2.0. DD/AV/CC are proof of why we need a new engine. And Ifrit is proof of why we need a new server structure.

1.xx isn't meant to be a sign of what's to come. It's just short-term content to say "thank you" for sticking around. Kind of like half-priced appetizers before a gourmet meal.

I think that's why a lot of people seem to be "against" open-world content. It's not that we don't want an open world, we're just here to play the game SE's new team said they're giving us in 2.0.

I really hope the E3 press push includes some info on what instances will be like in 2.0. Yoshida made a large boast saying "there's also the added merit of enabling the level design team to work with a clear theme in mind, and create much more engaging and challenging content."

I also hope everyone gets a game they may enjoy. As has been mentioned, Odin is in the works as a "Wandering Primal." I just personally want to see SE do what they said they were going to do and keep the competition in PvE against the content and not other players.

[Coglin]

By saying "yes" to Question 10, those voters were saying "if you do change the claiming system, I'd like to see content be instanced."

Why is it that you're suggesting that unless they change the claim system again they can't focus on instanced content?

My point is, that the question was based on a situation in which players had not experienced the change in the claiming system. Most were not even sure what the change meant. There mentality in answering the question was based on the premise of a system to come. Its not logical to "assume" that there answer is the same now with an actually different system. Particularly now with the influx of new players, and alot of old players gone due to the now monthly fee. We have a very different player base, and a diferent claiming system.

1the poll, you are exaggerating the hell out of how low the numbers were during that poll. Neither one of us know the amount of people who voted in it. Even if it were only 5k people. 79% of 5k = 3,950. 3,950 dwarfs the 144 likes in support of this idea. Just saying...

That doesn't read to be very supporting to me

Thats my point. At this point your promoting an question based on an unexperienced claim system. Which now, may well change the answer to that question by the current player base. A player base that is very different then the one back then. Between the now pay to play situation, and the clear influx of new players due to th word geting out about the games improvements.

Clearly we have a very different player base with different experiences. You cannot compare the two. Thats similar to making assumptions of a president being re-elected after he had a horrible 4 years even though they currently have a very low approval rating. All the while claiming you base your predictions of the re-election on a poll taken pre-election.

[Richard_BG]

tl;dr version: I just personally want the competition in PvE against the content and not other players.

see wasn't that much easier?

The whole idea behind 2.0 is to make PvE a cooperative experience. But putting major content in the open world nullifies that entire concept. What's the point in restructuring your servers and engine to allow cross-server play if your content renders it useless?

This is why most things need to be instanced. The above is from SE's PDFs they released back in November.

No it doesn't. Look at GW2. Look at Tera. Look at Rift. Both have co-op open world content as well as open world competitive content. The whole idea behind 2.0 is that 1.0 fking sucked.
Restructuring servers is not solely for cross-server co-op play. It needed to happen regardless of what content they are adding into the game. The point is they can do MORE with upgraded servers and they will be doing it.

"Most" things don't need to be instanced, there needs to be a perfect balance between open world and instanced content. You will always lose players from one side of the coin or the other if you only offer a single type. FFXI only (really) offered open world competition and lots of people hopped over to WoW because of it. WoW only (really) offered instanced content and lots of FFXI people stayed on FFXI. Only now are we really starting to see a merging of both content types in some next-gen MMOs coming out.

If Yoshida (and SE) we're smart they'd use this second chance, this breath of life that was given to XIV, and create content that caters to both crowds as much possible to rake them in. They are introducing pvp into a FF title which is...OK I guess - it's not really SE's strong point. I think they would have been better off putting that time and effort into making sure their PvE rooted fans we're happy first thing.

[ThePatriarch]

see wasn't that much easier?



No it doesn't. Look at GW2. Look at Tera. Look at Rift. Both have co-op open world content as well as open world competitive content. The whole idea behind 2.0 is that 1.0 fking sucked.
Restructuring servers is not solely for cross-server co-op play. It needed to happen regardless of what content they are adding into the game. The point is they can do MORE with upgraded servers and they will be doing it.

"Most" things don't need to be instanced, there needs to be a perfect balance between open world and instanced content. You will always lose players from one side of the coin or the other if you only offer a single type. FFXI only (really) offered open world competition and lots of people hopped over to WoW because of it. WoW only (really) offered instanced content and lots of FFXI people stayed on FFXI. Only now are we really starting to see a merging of both content types in some next-gen MMOs coming out.

If Yoshida (and SE) we're smart they'd use this second chance, this breath of life that was given to XIV, and create content that caters to both crowds as much possible to rake them in. They are introducing pvp into a FF title which is...OK I guess - it's not really SE's strong point. I think they would have been better off putting that time and effort into making sure their PvE rooted fans we're happy first thing.

Ah, back on a PC I can actually post!

It is pretty interesting seeing people from multiple MMO genres merging into FFXIV. People are pretty closed-minded on alternative forms of content that is new/foreign to them. You hit it on the nail, people have been going on about how 2.0 is going to enhance the Instanced Raids we have. It will also greatly enhance the possibilities for great open world action.

Regardless, its just hard to fathom even after all this time why SE strayed from the beaten path they had set themselves in FFXI. I think however, that between all the great ideas mentioned so far for the compromises of Instanced Content meets Open World content, that SE could make a wonderful game. I am highly anticipating 2.0, and for the sake of my future subscriptions, I surely hope that they pull through!

Also, PvP; I'm intrigued to say the least. Ballista was (lol) kind of fun, I'm ready to see what kind of PvP they will bring into FFXIV.