Of course everyone will overlook Jeff's post because most players could not look at it seriously and not feel at least slightly responsible for this design. You, mostly, all play these games like treadmill monkeys anyways, barreling past content in huge swathes at breakneck speed to reach that all important "optimal" number without even really stopping to appreciate and play the games. The metrics I'm sure, of any level based game would support the massive over representation of this play style. Stop being obsessed with with gaining levels as fast as you can, and developers will stop giving them to you faster. The end.

This. Amidst all the complaining that the game is far too easy and streamlined, they introduce some old school MMO camping mechanics (and very forgivable ones) and people start to blow a gasket. If anyone wants to know why MMO's suck, ladies and gentleman, I now present to you, exhibit A. Can we have our genre back now?

Sorry but OP is not telling the truth. If you really were unjustly banned you might be outraged about it, in which case you might make a post here. Or you might just go through the correct channels to get it amended, or you might just not give a damn. Posting here telling everyone that you're laughing about unjustly being banned makes no sense, you want to share the lulz of you being unfairly treated with everyone, or what? Makes no sense if it really doesn't matter to you. There are ulterior motives. OP is more like "hehe I got caught, I kinda wanted to get caught, now I want you guys to catch me too!" Or OP is simply thrilled about cheating and getting away with it, and since he didn't really get away with it, pulling one over on the general players is the next best "thrill". It's not that BW is incapable of making a mistake in banning someone. It's that they simply didn't in this case.

Mudkips?

Rey could never love Kylo, after what he did. Forgive him maybe. There will be no same sex relationships in the trilogy. Rey and Finn's friendship was already well established earlier in the movie. They didn't need to take considerable efforts to highlight the fact Finn saved her.

The longer MMO's are around, the longer these "I hate the game, I'm quitting the game, the game is ruined" posts become. The longer MMO's are around the more the playerbase naturally contracts. As you make changes to and refine your game, you're naturally going to exclude more and more people from your vision of the game. Eventually you have a small group of hardcore fans that the games features specifically appeal to. You can not avoid this as a game meant to last years and years can not afford to remain stagnant. Regardless of the design directions they take with any game it will appeal to someone, and it will piss someone off. Design decision has no correlation to quality, simply preference. What I'm seeing on the forums is just the reaction of people who have an emotional attachment to the game, because they've been around awhile, who are upset that they are being excluded from the games design. That's what MMO's do. It does not mean the game was "ruined". To add, it's ironic that LOTR was used as an example of a cohesive meaningful story that doesn't trivialize the contributions of it's characters, when LOTR is a story that does exactly that. Being a continuation of The Hobbit where Thorin sacrificed his life and great pains were taken to defeat The Necromancer, the efforts of characters in the Hobbit were basically meaningless. They didn't defeat the Necromancer because he is later revealed to be Sauron. The dwarves reclaiming their homeland and defeating Smaug was pointless, they still disappear from Middle Earth anyways. The Elves, for all their contributions, still traveled west and disappeared from Middle Earth anyways, like they always intended to do. And all this took place during the main characters lives. So many of the main characters had the same fate they would've had if nobody ever did anything. Everyone else in the world got a happy ending, everyone else meaning people who didn't actually do anything and were probably unaware of the all of the events in the book to start with (Men, and hobbits). Let's wait until we read the whole book here before we say what the book does or does not accomplish.

I didn't accept it, oh well, that's up to me now isn't it? I didn't accept what you were trying to say because I wasn't convinced, and later in the posts you made I was able to get the truth, and you even admitted "yeah I was making that direct comparison there". You were Jedi mind tricked. Like I said, pre-pub 9 Jedi.

You can't keep saying you weren't really making the comparison, and then respond by continuing to make the comparison. You can't have it both ways. If it wasn't what you intended originally, why keep perpetuating it? Rather than say "I wasn't actually saying that" you continue to say "I wasn't actually saying that...but it's just like the NGE cause." You're basically trolling yourself here.

Actually bloodfin isn't the most populated emulator of SWG, it's a very poor representation of the great work the real team has done. Probably not the best place to be talking about this, but if you want "it" back it's out there, search for it. Or send me a PM here and I will answer any questions anyone might have about it. But yes, OP, it's coming across like you only want to talk about the NGE and SWG. I love SWG but this isn't the place for it, as I pointed out above. As Princess_Chibi has pointed out also, you're not doing your argument any favors by going down that road. As you've now found out, mentioning the NGE resonates with people. And I said, it seems as though you mentioned it because you wanted to solicit a reaction in people. Well you did, but obviously not the one you were expecting. If you're going to bring it up in a conversation, especially if you're going to use as a main point in an argument relating to another game, you better damn well do it with your guns loaded and know your stuff. If you do it recklessly or without a good reason, people will call you on it. I'm done arguing about NGE. If you do want to use it as some basis for your argument and ignore the points of veterans of that game, go for your life. But if it is not me or Princess_Chibi it will be some other prepub 9 Jedi coming along to make your life difficult. Also, your post latest post is so inaccurate it's not even funny. I could really just hammer you, but i can't be bothered. Read Raph Kosters blog if you want more of the true story of SWG, it's a good read for everyone, even if you didn't play SWG. http://www.raphkoster.com/tag/star-wars-galaxies/ And nahhhhhhhhaaha...Gotten to!

You're really taking my assertion that ESO is an MMORPG to heart, it's quite sad that it's gotten to you so hard. Hilarious, but sad. The industry views ESO as an MMORPG. It's marketed as an MMORPG. It hypes rewards that are only given to MMORPG's on it's official website and twitter account. Zenimax is a billion dollar company. I think I will take their word over some guy ranting about religion and politics and semantics on a message board. ESO is an MMORPG. It's documented. It's fact. There is no fallacy, I'm afraid. You have contradicted yourself, on several occasions, if you'd like I can remind you how you've done so. But that isn't needed as it's clearly stated just a few posts above, which you've failed entirely to address. But I'm sure in the subsequent novel you furiously pound out on your keyboard, you will find a way to contradict yourself again. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. Since now you want to discuss presidential debates, Here is a quote from one of your former presidents: Now I challenge you to read any single one of your posts, and actually try to extract a single reasonable thought from it. It's gonna take awhile, because most of it is utter crap. That is all.

You can interview all you like, but I have not contradicted myself at all. I've merely pointed out the numerous times you have done so yourself. Your arguments don't even make sense at this point. "I never said ESO failed" when I directly posted you quoted that you did in fact say that it failed. "They marketed themselves as an MMO, that's what I meant." When the interview you linked was from an interview before the game even released. You're attempting to use quotes to support your position, and then they directly disprove what you're attempting to say. That is what we call, a disaster. I'll also add that the quote did not surprise me at all, I read it, a couple of years ago when I was following ESO's development. I actually thought you were going to provide something where they stated it was not an MMO, which he did not say. Do you have any such quotes? "Oh, but why is it so important to you to say ES is an MMO, that's what I meant, he said it wasn't." You really have no point or nuance, if so they were badly reverse engineered after the fact. ES has always been a single player game. The interview was conducted with the exact intention of addressing what non-MMO players could expect from ESO, so Matt Firor appealed to them directly, and addressed their concerns. It's called marketing spin my lad. That's what E3 is for, to market your upcoming games, and that's what he did. I personally couldn't care less if you want to use that as evidence that ESO is not an MMO. You're the guy who also tries to claim LoL is an MMO, I don't think you even know what an MMO is. Like I pointed out to you, the "financial reports" you're referring to, would also tell you Candy Crush is a PC game. Yet you continue to use them as evidence of something. ESO, SWTOR, etc. Are MMO's, that is shortened version of MMORPG by the way. That's just the way it is. Sorry it upsets you that they don't force you to pay $15 a month anymore, but you still can, if you wish. Also, you've done little but get upset and have resorted to personal attacks, while claiming I am defensive. So much disaster, so much text.

They tried to make a financially successful game, they succeeded. That's funny, since the interview with Matt Fior that you keep referring to actually took place before the game was even released. If you're saying that excerpt from an interview is irrefutable proof they are no longer an MMO, then they never "sold" themselves as one. Genius. They're still selling themselves, on Steam, under the massively multiplayer section. I guess that was the industry definition you were referring to, or the ones who hand out awards for MMOs which ESO has won. You're making stuff up still. You're confusing payment model and game type. Changing to B2P does not make an MMO not an MMO, nor does changing to F2P, which most MMO's have done. Your definition of MMO seems to be "sub model" that is not the industry definition, it is your definition. As for the rest, you're getting insanely defensive at this point, practically frothing. Massively Multiplayer Online makes no sense. If an MMO has RPG elements (RPG simply means roleplaying game, it doesn't mean "you pay 15 dollah" or whatever you'd like it to believe.) it is an MMORPG. Your entire argument is that of semantics, so yes, "I know you are but what am I". LoL is a MOBA. Did you know, financial research on "PC games" actually includes mobile games? Yet they are not played on a PC. Less smacktard, more logic.

It is an MMO, stating it is not an MMO is arguing semantics.

Wrong again, LoL is a MOBA. MMO is the same thing as an MMORPG. What Matt Fior said was a marketing blurb, they are the same thing.

Yes, you did. Where am I being defensive? I just don't have to type out seventeen paragraphs to get to the point, and I'm data mining your posts, that is not being defensive at all. It's a requirement to keep this readable. As for what Matt Fior said, he was saying that appealing to ES fans who were wary of the franchise becoming an MMO, it's called marketing. Saying it is more of A than B it is another is not the same as saying it is not B. It still has plenty of elements from B, hence why they are happy to accept awards that are only awarded to B.

Except: 1. You've still not provided any evidence that Zenimax has come out and said publicly that ESO is not an MMORPG. 2. Your criteria for labeling ESO a failure is something you made up, and the game is actually very financially successful. The whole basis for your post is made up. It's kind of funny that right on the home page for the game there is an award referenced for "best MMO of 2015" yet your claiming the games creators do not acknowledge that they have made an MMORPG. Sounds very made up, the whole thing. http://www.elderscrollsonline.com/en-gb

So in all your examples you've managed to establish that the changes to SWTOR are more in line with changes to EQ2 or WoW, that is a more logical comparison that falls in line with reality. Look I get it, you like the vapid mind number gameplay that was the NGE, but the 200k other people that left including myself were not happy with the change. NGE=turning an adult game into a childrens game. Changes to SWTOR=changing a 5 year olds game into a 4 year olds game. You actually liked the NGE, yet you're here using it as a negative example to changes to SWTOR. So you're admitting that the comparison is not valid since you liked one change and not the other, and are in fact just using it for dramatic effect rather than an actual comparison between the two games. And that's exactly what I said you were doing. Hitler analogy still in play. And it begs the question, if you're comparing what you consider a "blunder", even though you enjoyed it, to the changes in SWTOR, which you apparently do not like, do you even know what you want? My guess would be no, absolutely no idea.

Your entire argument has now shifted to "well Zenimax said they're not really an MMORPG anymore, so it doesn't matter." Actually, it is an MMORPG, as the definition to qualify as an MMORPG is very loose and the game fits all the prerequisites. It is entirely likely that it is a more successful game than FF XIV, your argument was that their shift in payment model was indicative of failure, we've already establish that it isn't. Now, I will await for you to establish that ESO isn't an MMORPG. But, just for the record, MMORPG definition: an online role-playing video game in which a very large number of people participate simultaneously. Since it is so vague I'd be interested to hear how ESO doesn't qualify, or how SWTOR doesn't for that matter.

Pretty sure that was my original point, you wanted to debate against it, and claimed that it was simply false without backing up your statements whatsoever. This is what you had to say in response: If anyone is moving the goal posts at this point, it's you. You lack the ability to actually focus on the point you're arguing against, I'm not really reading all of that tbh, learn to consolidate points into a more digestible format. It does not matter how a developer chooses to design their game. You can throw in as many time sinks and barriers as you like, and players will still find a way to circumvent them and trivialize content. There has not been a single MMO released to date that has been able to adequately and uniformly solve this problem that I'm referring to. I'm telling you it isn't possible, because players will not engage in things that they're not being rewarded for, and you can not make all things in the game equally rewarding and still have coherent design. So were left with two solutions: Either developers make new content, which they're not always going to be able to do. Or players accept the fact that they're not going to constantly be rewarded equally for activities and simply play the game or don't. I clearly pointed out as well that: You can increase the amount of time it takes from getting to point A to point B, but those techniques involve making SWTOR something it never was to begin with. It was never a difficult MMO, or an incredibly long grind. I take it since people reading this are still here this many years after launch, they are on board with the original design, and any solutions I could suggest to make the game have a longer shelf life would not go over that well, as the game was never designed like that to begin with. It's not rocket science, just logic. As for new players wanting to catch up, I'm pretty sure they would. That is what is streamlining is for and why it is a uniform change a certain period after launch for every MMO. Pointing that out is not arrogance, it's just the way MMO's are changed eventually after launch. I don't like it as a vet when it happens in my games, but there are reasons for it and they all involve the desires of developers and the desires of new players. All low level content is eventually trivialized, because people will simply rush past it anyways, which was my original point. Now I await a massive wall of text that addressing like a tiny fragment of something I said there.

You're missing the part where they haven't done anything that is even partially relatively the same. What they've done is par for the course. You don't have lectures in the game design community about how SWTOR ruined their game through reitemization, or streamlining because all MMO's do that. You don't have any examples of them removing classes, content or features on a massive scale, because they haven't done that. NGE is used as an example by developers about what not to do to their game. It is an infamous example because it is the only one we have. By even bringing it into the discussion at all you're greatly over dramatizing the issues you have and making it impossible to take your post seriously. You're relating a car crash with genocide. Maybe if it wasn't for your sensationalized crap I could be bothered being constructive. You've already tried to argue that it is in fact an A=B example afterwards, just a couple of posts ago, by using some derpy math equation. lol So yeah it's pretty safe to assume you do think this is NGE 2.0. I'm here to not allow you to make that assumption by giving you facts. I'm not seeing the problem. But I can see why you'd have a problem with it, but that's not my problem. My problem is that you're resorting to using the gaming equivalent of the Hitler comparison in an attempt to prove a point about your game. It automatically invalidates every other thing you've had to say in your post.

Uh, no I wasn't. I think you need to read the first post I made on the thread again. I'm talking about MMO design. This doesn't even make sense as an argument regardless. An apologist for what? lol "You can't stop it" is at the crux of the point I was making. You can't. People will rush through your content regardless of how you design it, that is a fact that all MMO developers have to deal with. All of them. If you put considerable effort towards hindering your players from doing something that they're going to do anyways despite your best efforts, you're sacrificing quality in other areas for a fools errand. That's why you don't do it. That doesn't mean advancement should be fast, advancement should be coherent to design. And in SWTOR's case it was coherent to what they were trying to accomplish at the time. It doesn't change the fact that many people chose to rush through it, and were left with little resistance to do so. That is not unique to SWTOR. So people will rush, so what? Speaking of SWTOR specifically, they don't want you to pause. They want you to play the game and catch up, because that's what new players generally want to do. Their decision to streamline their game is supported by their own metrics, and all logic that we have about mature MMO's that have released up to this point. And by mature I mean they've been around awhile. So you may want them to stop players or hinder players from advancing, for whatever reason, but the players themselves and Bioware don't share that goal at all. I'd call them the relevant parties involved. Welcome to MMO's there sport. Git gud at raging scrub. 2/10 would not read again.

Errr what? All the original 8 classes stories are still there, you can still play them. What they've added on in an expansion afterwards is irrelevant to the matter, were talking about changing the core game here, ie, what the NGE did. Try playing a Master Ranger in the NGE and tell me how much success you had. Not possible. Try playing the agent story here in KOTR and let's see if you have any success at all, oh wait...the class quests are still there? I'll be damned...it really isn't the same thing is it? For them to even approach doing what the NGE did to this game, they'd have to make it an FPS, rename it to Smugglers of the Old Republic, and just give you the smuggler class mission and maybe one Boba Fett raid and tell you to shut up. Not...the...same...thing. Did you seriously just use some kinda math equation to rationalize your thoughts? That's hilarious. I could sit here and talk about SWG all day, you're wrong about BH's by the way, most BH's were 3XXX + Melee profession because that was the most effective way to take out player Jedi, which is what most player BH were actually doing. If you're talking about the CU, nobody even remembers the CU. But I'm not really here to talk about SWG, which why it'd be nice if you could stop making this ridiculous comparison. Thanks.

Yes, it was. I'm not sure if you're aware of this but 770,000 subscribers without the benefit of a console launch is a pretty good number to have. Especially when we consider the vast majority of players who enjoy the franchise are console players. Also, there's little evidence to show that FF XIV has more than that currently. Also, metacritic lol. No knowledgeable gamer uses metacritic as anything more than a rough guide these days, it has no integrity as a basis for quality whatsoever. Also it has little to no correlation to a games financial success. And ESO still has subscribers. In fact it had about 750,000 to one million subscribers about a year ago. http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/137279/1-2-million-subscribers In fact it's quite possible that it has more subscribers right now than FFXIV has. I know you seem to like to put that game up on a pedestal due to it using an outdated payment model, but there's nothing wrong with providing players options. Sometimes, as ESO has shown, it can be beneficial. There's a few reasons why they chose to dump subscription based service specifically when moving to console, none of them have anything to do with the game "failing" or any of the nonsense you're going on about. First of all, the developers didn't believe that players who are accustomed to playing Elder Scrolls games would be thrilled about being forced to pay a sub, on top of already paying an online subscription fee to Microsoft or Sony. This was not an issue when FF XIV first launched, as that was on PS3 originally which did not require a subscription to play online. Not to mention fans of Final Fantasy were already familiar with the concept of paying a subscription with FF XI, this was entirely new territory for most ES console fans. Cross platform has everything to do with current MMO design. It is the future of the genre. There will be future cross platform online worlds that put FF XIV contributions to shame. It's a nice MMO, but it's nothing ground breaking. It's just the most obvious subscription MMO to point to. It used to be WoW but then that's gotten a little too passe. Could use EVE, but that's a little too hardcore. Regardless, you'd have to be insane at this point to develop a AAA MMO, assuming someone chooses to do so anytime soon, without tapping into the much more lucrative console markets. It's right there for the taking. But all of this is largely irrelevant. Showing one or two MMO's that operate a certain way as evidence of that methods superiority, especially when WoW's numbers continue to plummet and FF XIV's numbers aren't all that impressive, doesn't really say a whole lot about it. Nor does it say anything about where were going, it's far more telling of where we've already been.

lol Okay I'll bite and ask the question, what the hell am I ever going to do with 20 max level toons. Why is this even a thing?

ESO is doing very well, actually it's always been doing well, they switched to B2P (not F2P) because they wanted to maximize box sales on console. Console availability is also a big part of the reason for the success of FF XIV. It is a different market now, it will be a different market 5-10 years from now. What were seeing now in development is major studios backing off the WoW model hype train, and people turning to crowd funding pipe dreams to get their fix of pending MMO fanboi love. Yes, there is a major lull in development right now. Don't worry, if you're wondering if the market has changed, the developers will be the first to tell you, they have all the data, we have conjecture. And they're saying the market has changed, by not having anything noteworthy in development. Anyone can tell us what's happening right now in this genre, that doesn't mean much. But what's the next move? Persistent online worlds will make a comeback, the original design of MMO's realized. Not theme parks, not limited rides with predetermined skirmish battles and token grinding, but real worlds with harsh logic and severe rulesets. There are several MMO's like this in concept phase that may never see the light of day due to funding issues, but..if one of them does get funded, other studios will fall in line and we'll see a dramatic shift in direction. Also, people must stop with this misconception that moving to FTP means a game has failed. MMO's move to a FTP model because they deem it to be a more profitable model. Studies indicate on average gamers pay more for a game under a FTP model than they do paying a monthly sub. Putting a monthly sub on your game, while not without its merits, may in fact impose a profit ceiling on your game that otherwise did not need to be there under another model. Some guys who basically invented the genre, with no prior instance to go off of 16 years or so ago, slapped the arbitrary $15 a month price tag on it. It stuck, and it's still sticking around. That just isn't enough of evidence to suggest that it's the ideal way to price your product.