Working customer service foir the last 15 years, I can tell you that there is precious little a service provider can do to an upset customer when a customer cannot or refuses to qualify his complaint. When a customer complains that thing X is a problem, the very first thought is "why is that a problem?" followed by "how can we make this better?"
Without these questions, it is nigh impossible to formulate a solution to the customer's complaint. This is usually why stores just give customer's their money back, provide coupons, etc. It is the only thing they can think of when the customer refuses or cannot respond to the queries about improving anything. And unfortunately, even if the customer would have a solution to the issue, it runs counter to the service provider's interests.
Old man walks into a store, and spies an endcap of canned goods, and complains that the canned goods are problematic. He does not say why. Perhaps he perceives the arrangement precarious? But without further information, the store cannot respond adequately to the old man's complaint, and so attempts to mollify him through either direct questioning, deflection via conversation, or, more likely, by throwing a little extra money at him.
The design of a store's endcap, the arrangement of cans on a shelf, is often designed outside the store, and in this there lies the real difficulty when dealing with complaints like the OP's: The mechanic is working as intended, and to solve the problem involved in prolonged battles. To prevent the content from being merely tedious and repetitive, as in the same sequence of Tetris blocks falling at the same speed for 20 minutes, the content involves mechanics that force responsiveness in a variety of ways and with the requirement of "deal with it or die."
Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that this system has worked in MMORPGs for nearly two decades, and attempts to deviate from this require a distinct combat system, such as Monster Hunter's, in which the various moves against you are merely strong, but force player skill to higher ends. The preference of the community also tends to be towards a system for party play that forces these mechanics to the sidelines, and as such that "true action combat" must be mitigated.
The holy trinity is at fault here, but this is the preferred method by which MMO players wish to play (GW2 started this way despite arguing against it, but then devolved into all DPS, negating many weapon sets in typical combat), and that means you need aggro tables, ways of dealing with aggro, and ways to manage damage. This forces monsters to be defensive against this, and thus extending combat while making things fairly hectic for the player(s). Hence, instant death mechanics, which makes the game "exciting." Every MMO has them, even the ones with "true action combat."
So, I reiterate: To state that there is a problem, one must find evidence that there is a problem, rather than as with the OP that one person has A problem with a system. To have a problem, if there is one, one must have a solution. You can work at this from another angle: If there is a way to build a better mousetrap, in this manner, than one can say that the previous version is not as good, and the "problem" is one of perspective rather than true error. But I say that the error lies in the expectation of the player, either for not correctly describing his issue, or with what, precisely, there is a "problem" with.


Reply With Quote






