Sorry SE, but endgame won't work if you don't fix something.

[Astarica]

The architecture is the source but the design complicates an already bad architecture. It'd be like if you have the worst army and a decent navy but you still try to fight everyone in landlocked territory and wonder why you keep on get owned. There are more than one way to make a challenging encounter, and when your system totally sucks at dealing with dodging stuff, it'd be a good idea to only use such mechanisms when necessary. Instead the endgame is just an endless sea of red circles that you got to dodge or die horribly.

[Goodberry]

Astarica, thanks for saying it better than I ever could. Liked a lot your army/navy example.

[Sunarie]

The architecture is the source but the design complicates an already bad architecture. It'd be like if you have the worst army and a decent navy but you still try to fight everyone in landlocked territory and wonder why you keep on get owned. There are more than one way to make a challenging encounter, and when your system totally sucks at dealing with dodging stuff, it'd be a good idea to only use such mechanisms when necessary. Instead the endgame is just an endless sea of red circles that you got to dodge or die horribly.

Oh, I am not disagreeing there at all. I am disagreeing that the fight design choice is the core of the problem, and that fixing that would magically fix everything else. The person I was quoting said there was no architectural problem, and that's simply not true.

I would rather fight (as much as one can "fight" for something in a game) to get the core issue fixed, than try and rework the design of fights already in the game to hide one aspect of an overall problem.

[Goodberry]

Oh, I am not disagreeing there at all. I am disagreeing that the fight design choice is the core of the problem, and that fixing that would magically fix everything else. The person I was quoting said there was no architectural problem, and that's simply not true.

I would rather fight (as much as one can "fight" for something in a game) to get the core issue fixed, than try and rework the design of fights already in the game to hide one aspect of an overall problem.

Double sigh.
How can I make you understand that I am NOT suggesting reworking the fights already in the game? Periods again? :P

[Goodberry]

You remind me of the drunkard who was looking for his lost keys under a streetlamp because elsewhere it was too dark.

The issues you listed are all real, of course, but fixing them would entail a big redesign of the game code. Don't even dream about it.

Whereas my kind of "fix" would cost practically nothing... or just the redesign of HM Titan. On the other hand, it would entail SE changing their "philosophy", i.e. starting to design fights with interesting and fair mechanics rather than split-second-dodge-or-die (or split-second-silence-or-die, if you prefer).

So, it's a moot point after all, as we will get neither "your" kind of fix, nor "mine". As I said, that would be tantamount to Blizzard starting to favour Alliance. Won't happen in any foreseeable future. These things NEVER happen, no matter how much people may dream about them. :P

[Sunarie]

snip

I am not saying they can't do your "fix". In my very first response to you I even said that I am all for adding fight variety. I just stated that isn't a fix, because it's not, and I don't want SE to think that is an end all fix. If you want to only fix one aspect, then that's fine.. that's not what I'm after though.

You made a statement in your first post in this thread that there was no architecture problem. I was arguing there was. That is it. I wasn't calling your idea bad, I wasn't saying they flat out shouldn't do it. I was simply making the point that your idea is hiding issues and is not actually fixing them. I'm not letting them off the hook just because it's difficult to fix, or costs lots of money. In the end it still needs to be addressed completely.

I don't care if you want to compare me to some drunkard just because the issue is gamebreaking for me in different ways than it is gamebreaking for you. I don't have the problems you do.. so the fix you're describing is akin to me telling you my fish died, and you telling me we'll go out and look for them as if they were lost. You're solution is for a different problem than the one I am having.

Also, to Axidrain. If the problem was caused by latency then it would be present in literally every MMO. There are always people connecting with high latency somewhere. There are always times when latency spikes or packet loss occurs. The difference, is other MMOs are designed around handling that because it's a natural process of using the internet in many cases. 300ms in any other MMO results in very little difference in playability. 300ms here will likely get you killed.

[Axidrain]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxdJnzySpks

doesnt seem to affect me in the way u guys are talking about. i have about 150ms ping with jap datacenters btw. like ive been saying all this time. if its something wrong its most probably ur isp, ur latency, graphics lag or u just being slow. also notice that im moving on cast. not before.

[Goodberry]

Ok, Axidrain, I'm old and slow. In one word, bad. I hope U R feeling better now.

P.S.
On the other hand, my name is way better. :P

[Axidrain]

Ok, Axidrain, I'm old and slow. In one word, bad. I hope you are feeing better now.

P.S.
On the other hand, my name is way better. :P

wow. u just dont seem to get it do u? there are many factors that might contribute to u guys lagging. identify which one it is. if its latency related u guys are screwed even with the delay fix

[Goodberry]

No, I get it, but I just can't do anything about it.

Can't get younger, nor can transfer to Japan or Canada to play the game.

Where I live, I am lucky to have an Internet connection at all.

But there IS a thing I can do: playing other games where I have none of these "issues". :P