Yet another game reports that Raiders and PVP players are a vast minority.....

[Daekarus]

Are you saying the Fantasy side took an 'arrow to the knee'?

 

Lol, yeah, I think I am.

[Lotharofxev]

I'm sorry, but if you can't do the oricon story to get your entry level gear, but want to raid, then I wouldn't want you in an op with me, cause that tells me that you are lazy, or you don't care

 

/\ Ayep.

 

A guildy took cut his chops on raiding by reading an old guide written by one of the Dark-Side PvP guilds on one of the EQ Zeks.

 

Suffice to say one of the first lines is, "I will summon lights to kill you and I will pay them to do so." However, if you can ignore some of the "Now is not the time to talk" harshness, he does make some good points.

 

SWTOR raiding is Romper-Room level compared to EQ.

[CKNORTH]

/\ Ayep.

 

A guildy took cut his chops on raiding by reading an old guide written by one of the Dark-Side PvP guilds on one of the EQ Zeks.

 

Suffice to say one of the first lines is, "I will summon lights to kill you and I will pay them to do so." However, if you can ignore some of the "Now is not the time to talk" harshness, he does make some good points.

 

SWTOR raiding is Romper-Room level compared to EQ.

 

First thing that comes to mind IS The fact anyone can just stay in fleet and do PVP or KDY to level not know any dynamics of the Ops but be in 180 gear that they purchased from the GTN because they sold what ever from the CC store and Splat goes the Ops troll rage ensues and rinse repeat, it's also why I get into a WZ or KDY and every other que has someone with no Advanced Class but is Lvl 28+ Lol!!

 

Makes you wonder where the real progression is, is it really in Ops?? Or someone's "Cough" bank account??

Edited July 8, 2014 by CKNORTH

[Rion_Starkiller]

What's the point of this thread?

 

A vast minority compared to what? Total number of players that have ever created an account? that are subscribers? players that play regularly? players that spend money?

 

OP makes a vague assertion, and for what purpose? Agenda, please.

Edited July 8, 2014 by Rion_Starkiller
stuff

[Jandi]

It isn't a matter of "you are useless go away". It's a matter of some people's ego not letting them take a little constructive criticism because their mother told them they were a unique and perfect snow-flake.

 

It's a matter of you are not geared for this content. Be a responsible participant and gear up to the minimum.

 

The quest display when you select the daily/weekly tells you what the recommended gear score is for the content. There is NO excuse for someone to be hopelessly under-geared in a HARD MODE. Period, dot, end of discussion.

 

Once you are geared, be willing to LEARN. It really is that simple. Put forth a little effort to get the right gear score and then research what it is you'll be doing and how to do it. Follow that up with put on your thick skin and take orders/course corrections. It isn't personal even if it seems like it is.

 

This.

 

I wouldn't even queue for a hm fp/sm ops without having 156+augments. It's incredibly selfish to do so. I recently got back and haven't really done ops since early days (EV+KP) so I have no gear nor experience in any 55 ops yet when I did few operations last week, I said "I have no experience with this operation/hm fp" and every time people said "ok, we'll go over the tacts".

 

This preconception that raiders are mean etc is simply not true. Most people just expect you to come PREPARED to actually *do* what you're there to do instead of leeching off of others. Sure, there are ******es here and there, but they most certainly are not the majority. If you see those ops groups that demand achievements of massive overgearing, avoid them cause they are almost universally ran by horrible players who were carried themselves and want to compesate their incompetence by completely overgearing the tier they are doing.

 

Stop pointing the finger at others for your own laziness/inability to get your own gear in order.

Edited July 8, 2014 by Jandi

[LordArtemis]

What's the point of this thread?

 

The same point of any thread. Discussion. Which is in progress.

 

A vast minority compared to what? Total number of players that have ever created an account? that are subscribers? players that play regularly? players that spend money?

 

For that information you would have to solicit Turbine. You could, of course, take the time to do the research and see if Turbines conclusions are the norm or the exception...if something like that interested you. Or you can dismiss their statement. That is your choice, and you are entitled to it.

 

OP makes a vague assertion, and for what purpose? Agenda, please.

 

OP posted a link, presented the idea that this game could very well be the exception, and then opened it up to discussion. I think it's pretty obvious who has the agenda IMO......

[Kalfear]

Only read the first few pages but I just wanted to catch some perceived elitism and I'll apologise if someone already tackled it.

 

Point: Just because people don't like PVP/Raid or whatever does NOT make them a casual gamer.

 

There's plenty of people who like to solo, or who just want to experience the story-side of things. Not everyone facerolls from 1-50 and spacebars through every conversation to get glibs and stick other players in the back with a sharp pointy object.

 

Also, plenty of people don't have the time to hang about and raid/PvP, plenty can't be bothered with the attitudes of some groups, others simply don't find PvPing or big wiped group content that much fun. It doesn't make them a casual gamer by any stretch of the imagination. There's plenty who can dip into both categories and choose not to.

 

Really, if the statistics about raiders/PvP is as low as the claims are, then it's not really surprising. There's been an obsession from developers and game designers for 'multiplayer' (on consoles in particular) and PvP for a while and it usually ends poorly because they give it far too much importance than it warrants.

 

.

 

Yup, I tried to make this point earlier but couple refuse to see the truth in it.

 

Hardcore is about how hard you go at something

This "suggestion" that hardcore means you are goal orientated is silly to me as every player out there is goal orientated in these games.

 

The separation that comes, comes from who is willing to put the time into it and who isn't. Be it PVP, Raids, Crafting, PVE, Role Playing, what ever.

A casual player will go at it slowly bit by bit

Hardcore player will try to get it done in 1 hour/day/what ever.

 

So right with you on disagreeing how they define hardcore and casual in this thread.

Been playing these MMORPGs since 1991, and Table Top games for couple/few decades before that, and hardcore has always been about the time invested to get it done fast vrs casual gamers who looking for same result ultimately, just spread over a much longer period of time.

[LordArtemis]

........and hardcore has always been about the time invested to get it done fast vrs casual gamers who looking for same result ultimately, just spread over a much longer period of time.

 

No, it hasn't.

 

For the dawn of gaming, when games started to remove permadeath and player looting, hardcore was defined as those players that supported that kind of play.

 

Around the time of BC in World of Warcraft the definition morphed into time invested in gaming, a definition that grew from EQ. Some debate raged in total time or time to target, both found their way into different views.

 

In the last 6 years or so the definition began to change again as serious studies started to come out on MMO gaming...and once again the common definition changed to driving force...reward or experience. Because time investment could no longer clearly define players. Casuals were playing longer, sometimes as long as or longer than Hardcore players. In some cases casuals were also grinding content to unlock further content, engaging in "hardcore like" leveling behavior.

 

You are welcome to accept or deny this definition, and your definition is not necessarily wrong....what is wrong, however, is to dismiss recently accepted definitions simply because you wish to cling to old ones.

 

It is an old standard that most folks in the industry have moved away from in studies. Take that as you may. I don't think that folks are rejecting the "truth" in what you say...they are rejecting the idea that that is the modern definition because that is no longer the case.

Edited July 9, 2014 by LordArtemis

[TravelersWay]

We don't express our ideas as vocally as some of the rest of the community but being a long time consumer since the beginning of the "Video" game lifespan we do have a ample amount of interesting "tips" that could be valuable, but that's just my point of view from my gaming experiences...

 

Exactly. Some can be more impartial than others, but ultimately, what each one of us wants to see in and get out of a game largely depends on our own personal preferences as players. There's nothing wrong with that, but each of us has to understand that not everything we like or think is a good idea is actually good for a game.

 

Fair enough, but I would say that customer opinions about your product is not only the most important resource to build sales, it is the only resource to focus development.

 

And of course I would categorically state that the idea that "gamers" giving ideas that have been adopted has never worked in games and/or entertainment is a silly notion at best. In fact, most of the good ideas that have kept games afloat have come from players or devs that were players themselves, most of the bad ideas from upper management that were NOT gamers.

 

There are far too many examples to list. Suffice to say that it takes a bit of insight to know when the "minority" in a forum is speaking for the masses, and devs are not alien to this concept. Ideas are pruned from game forums quite often, and many successful additions to games (including this one) were born in some form from player ideas.

I am not dismissing the value of good customer opinions and input. But in order to run a successful business and game, one must understand what is good for one's business based on the ideals of how one wants to run the business and have it received by the customers. Customer opinion is a good way to gauge which way the wind is blowing, but should never be used for more than anything other than that - unless serious and obvious problems are detected. When talking about a game, where a large part of the experience comes from personal playstyles and preferences, then those whose job it is to design the game should know best how to implement things that complement said design, despite how many (or few) of the playerbase would benefit from said design.

 

I take umbrage at comments that would seem to indicate that the developers of any game are not in fact gamers themselves, when the opposite is actually true. The benefit those developers have of not only being gamers themselves, is actually having the knowledge of what it takes to create a game and what it takes to implement features in said game. Hence my comments about those who are merely gamers with little to no inclination of what really makes an idea not only "good" but also feasible in a game. Of course, part of that "good" involves a lot of that personal preference and playstyle I mentioned, and for anyone to doubt that there are an equal number of people who think that "good" idea is actually "bad" are just deluding themselves.

Edited July 11, 2014 by TravelersWay

[TravelersWay]

I understand your concern, but I do not find either term pejorative. Casual and Hardcore, at least based on the most common definitions I have seen in studies of MMO behavior (links have been provided in the past and in this thread I believe) define each as I have stated....in simple terms naturally.

 

The amount of time you spend playing the game does not matter IMO. Your driving reason to play is what defines you. This is not a demeaning classification IMO. It is simply descriptive.

It is an old standard that most folks in the industry have moved away from in studies. Take that as you may. I don't think that folks are rejecting the "truth" in what you say...they are rejecting the idea that that is the modern definition because that is no longer the case.

 

Ahh but therein lies the problem. Just like time spent playing the game does not define the category you fall into, neither should the driving reason you are playing it. That is where I think the industry, the studies, and the community fall short. We are still trying to place only one overarching description to a category that simply cannot be categorized in such a way because of the very nature of the media we are talking about.

 

Hence, my added descriptions from an earlier post: dedicated and recreational. Take sports for instance. You have fans, but within that broad category you have fans who are more than fans, and then you have fans who are just fans. You can say a sports enthusiast is the hardcore fan while the guy who just watches games on Sunday afternoon is just the casual fan. The enthusiast knows all the player's stats, knows the best match-ups, knows the ins and outs of the rule book, etc. The casual fan just knows he wants his team to win and might not even know all the players' names on the team, let alone the stats.

 

However, if the enthusiast does not have season tickets (perhaps because he cannot afford them), does that make him any less hardcore? What if the casual fan actually has a minimum season ticket plan - does that suddenly make him more hardcore than the enthusiast? I don't think so.

 

To me, someone can most certainly place value on the experience of playing the game, and place little value on the rewards, yet still be very much hardcore. They can do endless gameplay videos, they can spend as much time on the forums as they do in the game, they can work to learn the best rotation or spec for their class, they can play every aspect of gameplay in the game regularly. They can do this because the experience of doing such is enjoyable to them over the rewards they get in the end. If that is still not hardcore, I simply do not know what it is.

 

In order to accurately define hardcore and casual, we simply must use more than one descriptor in order to do so. Being hardcore/casual is more than just the reason you are playing. It is the amount of time you spend playing; it is the amount of time you dedicate to the game outside of your gameplay sessions; it is the amount of time you spend learning the nuances of the mechanics and gameplay. By not taking these, and more factors into account, we are simply doing disservice to any discussion on the topic at hand (and thusly, any study does a disservice to itself and the industry as well).

Edited July 11, 2014 by TravelersWay

[MasterPromithes]

I would also like to point out that he OP is using an MMO with a different layout. LoTRO is completely different MMO with a completely different fan base. The argument that "most mmos are like this" has no validity. If you want an mmo where the raiders and pvpers are the majority, EVE. There you go. Now I personally don't care if you are casual or hardcore as I have been both. However, I dont think that players should be just given the gear when they hit 55. I am a founder, my level 55 Shadow is in full 168, at one point he was in full 162s, I never had a problem DPSing and rarely wiped. I grinded tmy 162 set doing dailies and random queueing for FPs. With the x2 xp events more and more players are rushing through their characters, not taking the time to properly learn how to play their class. When I get grouped with someone who has never run a FP and they are level 54 and wont listen to the more experienced players, that is when I get angry. (was grouped in a KDY with a guardian that was leader, we had to kick one member because they wouldn't attack anything, and then this guy wouldnt requeue or pass lead)

 

What everyone has to remember, especially on the forums, is that people pay to play this game. While it is not necessary to play the game it does unlock features and settings that are not available to the F2P. That being said when I go into a warzone or Flashpoint I expect people to not be completely undergeared and to know how to do the role they have chosen. I personally refuse to tank, because i am bad at it and i don't find it enjoyable. i just got my 55 sentinel fully pvp geared, while i admit he had some greens and blues i never once queued for ranked and i always warned those in my warzone that i was undergeared. I wasn't expecting to be carried but I knew I wasnt contributing all that much.

[LordArtemis]

Exactly. Some can be more impartial than others, but ultimately, what each one of us wants to see in and get out of a game largely depends on our own personal preferences as players. There's nothing wrong with that, but each of us has to understand that not everything we like or think is a good idea is actually good for a game.

 

I am not dismissing the value of good customer opinions and input. But in order to run a successful business and game, one must understand what is good for one's business based on the ideals of how one wants to run the business and have it received by the customers. Customer opinion is a good way to gauge which way the wind is blowing, but should never be used for more than anything other than that - unless serious and obvious problems are detected. When talking about a game, where a large part of the experience comes from personal playstyles and preferences, then those whose job it is to design the game should know best how to implement things that complement said design, despite how many (or few) of the playerbase would benefit from said design.

 

I take umbrage at comments that would seem to indicate that the developers of any game are not in fact gamers themselves, when the opposite is actually true. The benefit those developers have of not only being gamers themselves, is actually having the knowledge of what it takes to create a game and what it takes to implement features in said game. Hence my comments about those who are merely gamers with little to no inclination of what really makes an idea not only "good" but also feasible in a game. Of course, part of that "good" involves a lot of that personal preference and playstyle I mentioned, and for anyone to doubt that there are an equal number of people who think that "good" idea is actually "bad" are just deluding themselves.

 

Ahh but therein lies the problem. Just like time spent playing the game does not define the category you fall into, neither should the driving reason you are playing it. That is where I think the industry, the studies, and the community fall short. We are still trying to place only one overarching description to a category that simply cannot be categorized in such a way because of the very nature of the media we are talking about.

 

Hence, my added descriptions from an earlier post: dedicated and recreational. Take sports for instance. You have fans, but within that broad category you have fans who are more than fans, and then you have fans who are just fans. You can say a sports enthusiast is the hardcore fan while the guy who just watches games on Sunday afternoon is just the casual fan. The enthusiast knows all the player's stats, knows the best match-ups, knows the ins and outs of the rule book, etc. The casual fan just knows he wants his team to win and might not even know all the players' names on the team, let alone the stats.

 

However, if the enthusiast does not have season tickets (perhaps because he cannot afford them), does that make him any less hardcore? What if the casual fan actually has a minimum season ticket plan - does that suddenly make him more hardcore than the enthusiast? I don't think so.

 

To me, someone can most certainly place value on the experience of playing the game, and place little value on the rewards, yet still be very much hardcore. They can do endless gameplay videos, they can spend as much time on the forums as they do in the game, they can work to learn the best rotation or spec for their class, they can play every aspect of gameplay in the game regularly. They can do this because the experience of doing such is enjoyable to them over the rewards they get in the end. If that is still not hardcore, I simply do not know what it is.

 

In order to accurately define hardcore and casual, we simply must use more than one descriptor in order to do so. Being hardcore/casual is more than just the reason you are playing. It is the amount of time you spend playing; it is the amount of time you dedicate to the game outside of your gameplay sessions; it is the amount of time you spend learning the nuances of the mechanics and gameplay. By not taking these, and more factors into account, we are simply doing disservice to any discussion on the topic at hand (and thusly, any study does a disservice to itself and the industry as well).

 

I think both of these opinions have merit, so instead of nitpicking I am just going to let them stand as they are. Though I may not agree with every point, well said none the less.

[Vincire]

I would also like to point out that he OP is using an MMO with a different layout.

 

I don't think this is true. LOTRO and SWTOR follow roughly the same format as they both are based around the same basic formula (F2P/Subscriotion hybrids modes, Solo/Group quests for leveling, Small Group Dungeons, Raids, Crafting, "mini-games", and Faction Based PvP). Certainly there are variations between the two but the basic structures are more or less the same.

 

This decision by Turbine might be a unique occurrence but it could also indicate a trend in MMOs where more developers may decide that a focus on Raid PvE endgame may not be the most financially secure philosophy. Marvel Heroes is another example. While they've just recently implemented raids, they realize that raiding isn't for everyone and they're implementing alternatives for solo and small group players ways to acquire the raid loot drops.

 

I'm not saying that all MMOs should drop their raid game as there is a community significant enough top warrant allocating resources to this sort of content. However, I don't believe that Raids should be the end all, be all of endgame content either because in many games including this one, non-raiders are left in a state of content drought much sooner since nothing really new or interesting is presented for them beyond what they've already done.

 

I believe Gazillion over at Marvel Heroes has the right idea for long term sustainability since it will keep more players engaged and entertained for far longer at level cap.

[LordArtemis]

I would also point out that LotRO is simply the latest data point, other data points that speak to this have been posted in this thread and elsewhere in the forum.

 

It is a general consensus. It was just a post to point out yet another game has reported the same.

[Vincire]

I would also point out that LotRO is simply the latest data point, other data points that speak to this have been posted in this thread and elsewhere in the forum.

 

It is a general consensus. It was just a post to point out yet another game has reported the same.

 

I'm interested to see what MMO developers do to solve the issues that contribute to the low participation trends as pointed out in these data points. I'd like to see some innovation personally and it's time the genre grew.

[LordArtemis]

I'm interested to see what MMO developers do to solve the issues that contribute to the low participation trends as pointed out in these data points. I'd like to see some innovation personally and it's time the genre grew.

 

I think this is a good conversation point. I would say, personally, that I feel tacticals are a step in the right direction...bolster helps as well.

[Kalfear]

I don't think this is true. LOTRO and SWTOR follow roughly the same format as they both are based around the same basic formula (F2P/Subscriotion hybrids modes, Solo/Group quests for leveling, Small Group Dungeons, Raids, Crafting, "mini-games", and Faction Based PvP). Certainly there are variations between the two but the basic structures are more or less the same.

 

This decision by Turbine might be a unique occurrence but it could also indicate a trend in MMOs where more developers may decide that a focus on Raid PvE endgame may not be the most financially secure philosophy. Marvel Heroes is another example. While they've just recently implemented raids, they realize that raiding isn't for everyone and they're implementing alternatives for solo and small group players ways to acquire the raid loot drops.

 

I'm not saying that all MMOs should drop their raid game as there is a community significant enough top warrant allocating resources to this sort of content. However, I don't believe that Raids should be the end all, be all of endgame content either because in many games including this one, non-raiders are left in a state of content drought much sooner since nothing really new or interesting is presented for them beyond what they've already done.

 

I believe Gazillion over at Marvel Heroes has the right idea for long term sustainability since it will keep more players engaged and entertained for far longer at level cap.

 

Very Well said

 

Raiding and PVP are not the end all be all for MMOs

Bur they do deserve some attention and content

 

One arguement I always find interesting from modern Raiders and PVPers.

 

A player will ask for a alternative way to get Raid/Ops level gear that doesnt require them to do Raid/Ops content over and over (and you see same for SW:TOR PVP because of insane gearing achieved through PVP here)

 

With out fail one of (or group of) Raiders/Ops players will counter with

 

"If you hand out the best gear in game elsewhere, why would anyone do Raids/Ops?"

 

I wont lie, when ever I read that I'm struck with though "So what your saying is you don't do Raid/Ops because you enjoy it. You do it strictly for the gear drops, which honestly does seem rather counter productive if people forced to play content they do not enjoy just to get gear."

 

Personally I would like to think players would continue to do content they enjoy long after the rewards off the table.

 

But that's kinda the problem with modern day players honestly.

They think they NEED to be rewarded constantly for doing something.

Enjoyment and entertainment doesn't seem to be enough reward anymore.

[Uruare]

I suspect MMO gamers are moving steadily away from the things that make them feel forced into certain playstyles and social proximities. More options in gaming altogether have made it easier and easier over the years to do what we like, and for most any of us to be able to find a stable of things we might like no matter our tastes.

 

Once upon a time, there was Ultima Online and Everquest. If you didn't like how they did things, sucked to be you. Love it or leave it, the end. We can easily tell how many people played UO or EQ, but we can never know how many went 'This is bollocks' and either never picked it up, or never played it past the free 30 days.

 

Those that didn't like harsh death penalties or player corpse looting and so forth eventually won a massive victory rather early on in UO, when they had to make Trammel; a no PK, no player-corpse-looting mirror of the game world.

 

Even back then, there wasn't some renaissance of gamers that had to walk uphill to school in ten feet of snow wearing only cardboard on their feet whilst praising the fact that they got to go to school at all. Those games had 100-200kish players at the best of times back when, and I would be willing to guarantee that at NO POINT did most of those playing them love everything about them. But we cannot and shall never truly know how many that played them and, at the time, stuck it out because they had no other real options either.

 

Unless we look at what happened when WoW entered the scene.

 

I think WoW did so well as it did, and became the phenomenon it did, not because it was great...but because it wasn't tooth-shatteringly hard to do everything in. It is quite entirely possible that WoW succeeded so explosively because things like UO and EQ generated a lot of interest, but were too arcane, too hard and too vicious to retain much of the interest they generated. And when something easier and comparatively more forgiving hit the scene that was also graphically superior and had such a lovely musical score? KERBOOM.

 

Ker. Fricken. Boom.

 

There's no shortage of those that'll brag about how hardcore they want others to believe they are, but the proof is in the pudding - the 'hardcore' that love brutal death penalties and punitive achievement curves, forced grouping for even the most basic of activities and so on don't exist in sufficient quantity for games to cater to them.

 

They're not a big enough market, fiscally or numerically, to matter much. They're just not, and all the games that don't cater to them prove it.

 

People like to feel challenged more than to actually BE challenged. People like to feel like they're overcoming adversity rather than actually have to struggle and work. In pretendy-funtime games, I'd suspect that this is only magnified.

 

I've known some people that hate their jobs, don't like their lives in general and wind up drastically over-valuing their MMO experiences, because in oh...Azeroth, they can work hard and feel rewarded for it. There are people that desperately want to achieve things in life that have those desires lay fallow, and MMO's are maybe wonderful, maybe horrible outlets for that too.

 

Behind some of the most viciously demanding 'This game is too easy' style rant there's very likely to be somebody that craves the validation they feel they get in the game that they're probably missing IRL. This is, at least, what my experiences with other MMO players leads me to suspect would prove to be true if it were tested at on a valid scale.

 

MMO's often lend a sense of determinism we don't, hardly any of us, get to enjoy IRL. In the game, you get to be powerful or free to jump on a fantastical mount and ride (or fly) off into the sunset. You get to be some amazing and special wozzit, and that holds a lot of appeal to people.

 

Doing things with friends also holds a lot of appeal to people. Some of the best raiding guilds I've ever been in on any game weren't the hyper-militant super gung-ho wanna-be-Marine-Corp types.

 

They were the goofy, informal 'bag of mixed nuts' guilds that were just doin' what they were doin', not competing with other guilds for anything, not racing for world firsts. The best of them were not just good at getting large-scale group content done, but didn't make being part of their guild like being part of some clique back in High School, replete with a zillion little dramas and at least three divas (gender not relevant) trying to be the little cult of personality starlets and out-popular eachother.

 

They didn't bog everything down with smarmy micro-managerial rules trying to mitigate everything that could possible happen, and they weren't led by people that were no more qualified to lead a guild than Jeffery Dahmer might've been to babysit children.

 

I don't, in that light, think its necessarily the large group content itself that drives people away, or fails to entice them.

 

I think its the social requirements. You HAVE to join a guild and be part of a regular social scene in many cases, if you want to raid. You HAVE to. And if you have a choice between Guild A that's a bunch of highschool-drama-loving jerks, Guild B that's made up of nice but utterly inconsistent and largely inept people that eschew voice chat 'in case someone winds up feeling intimidated' and Guild C that requires you to show up three nights a week, make at least ten posts on the forum every month and submit to their raid performance reviews (your rank will be posted under your forum name, and you will be required to participate in raids hosted for your rank) AND requires you to submit a 'leave of absence request' to the guild master if you're going to be gone for more than 72 hours lest you be removed from the guild?

 

All of those examples are things I've -recently- encountered in SWTOR alone, by the way. By recently, I mean the past two weeks. Another was a heavy RP/Ops guild that basically demanded all characters be the property of the guild master due to in character sovereignty. If the guild master demanded all your character's money, you had to give the GM all your credits, or you'd be actioned, brought before the tribunal and 'executed' for 'disobeying the emperor'. I.E: kicked out of the guild and excommunicated.

 

There seems to exist this popular notion that guilds are these generic, capable and reasonable groups of people that will often be convenient to your schedule, your needs and your social compatabilities.

 

If this notion exists in even the vaguest of form, it is violently wrong.

 

And I think people are why things like PVP and raiding are dying out despite being made to cater to easier and easier overall levels of skill and coordination. The skill and coordination requirements were never the actual problems.

 

The social involvements required to get to the raid at all, however...probably are.

Edited July 12, 2014 by Uruare

[LordArtemis]

That was a good read. Thanks. (too long to quote)

[Lotharofxev]

the 'hardcore' that love brutal death penalties and punitive achievement curves, forced grouping for even the most basic of activities and so on don't exist in sufficient quantity for games to cater to them.

 

Would you believe that those involved with EQ Next (Not Landmark) have said that a significant number of people in Alpha have asked for exactly THAT? Granted it's a Brad McQuaid enterprise so no big shock there.

 

EQ was "hard" and forced you to raid because drops were very, very limited insofar as "end-game". (The not so big secret was test server which reset quite a bit). Talk about cut-throat. /whistles.

[annabethchase]

Would you believe that those involved with EQ Next (Not Landmark) have said that a significant number of people in Alpha have asked for exactly THAT? Granted it's a Brad McQuaid enterprise so no big shock there.

 

EQ was "hard" and forced you to raid because drops were very, very limited insofar as "end-game". (The not so big secret was test server which reset quite a bit). Talk about cut-throat. /whistles.

 

Yes, I would believe that the type of players playing an Alpha version of software is nearly entirely comprised of "hardcore" players. That is not a representative sample of the MMO community at large.

[Lotharofxev]

You might be right. However, it IS a sampling of the people playing EQ Next. I mean in WoW Beta I never thought to myself, 'Man, I really miss the "Death Penalty" from EQ'.

 

And don't kid yourself - said penalty may very well be included. There's a lot of folks who miss the days when mistakes cost people time. I'm not one - but they're out there.

[ivanhedgehog]

Very Well said

 

Raiding and PVP are not the end all be all for MMOs

Bur they do deserve some attention and content

 

One arguement I always find interesting from modern Raiders and PVPers.

 

A player will ask for a alternative way to get Raid/Ops level gear that doesnt require them to do Raid/Ops content over and over (and you see same for SW:TOR PVP because of insane gearing achieved through PVP here)

 

With out fail one of (or group of) Raiders/Ops players will counter with

 

"If you hand out the best gear in game elsewhere, why would anyone do Raids/Ops?"

 

I wont lie, when ever I read that I'm struck with though "So what your saying is you don't do Raid/Ops because you enjoy it. You do it strictly for the gear drops, which honestly does seem rather counter productive if people forced to play content they do not enjoy just to get gear."

 

Personally I would like to think players would continue to do content they enjoy long after the rewards off the table.

 

But that's kinda the problem with modern day players honestly.

They think they NEED to be rewarded constantly for doing something.

Enjoyment and entertainment doesn't seem to be enough reward anymore.

 

the problem comes in that you need the rewards to continue improving. to be able to do the next content(at least any playable content.) look at what is needed to top out a character. the itemization means you need MMG's and EEEs/isatopes to get the stats that will be required later(when they get around to making new ops). 2/8/8 is rather over the top for 1 item. look where you get them..... now take away that need, why would anyone grind that every week if you werent forced? I like df/dp but honestly, I am sick and tired of seeing them. but people grind them over and over because they have to.

[Kalfear]

the problem comes in that you need the rewards to continue improving. to be able to do the next content(at least any playable content.) look at what is needed to top out a character. the itemization means you need MMG's and EEEs/isatopes to get the stats that will be required later(when they get around to making new ops). 2/8/8 is rather over the top for 1 item. look where you get them..... now take away that need, why would anyone grind that every week if you werent forced? I like df/dp but honestly, I am sick and tired of seeing them. but people grind them over and over because they have to.

 

kinda my point

 

if you dont like the content

There should be other ways to achieve content

 

Me, I hate Raids/Ops for most part

Its always the same thing

 

Raid boss a,b,c thinks they are the greatest players to ever enter the game

they talk down to raid filler d,e,f,g,h

All sorts of drama occurs

everyone throws a fit and quits

they all goto new raid outfits

and with in 4 months the cycle repeats itself

 

Been seeing this same cycle since raiding was introduced to MMORPGs

Only once did I get caught up in it (and that was enough for me)

 

And yes everyone will now say how great their raid group is and blah blah blah (fast forward a few months and they usually in different guilds or had to redo their presets completely because of drama).

 

So I stay away from raiding/ops

I did it in SW:TOR for awhile with a good group of folks but sure enough all sorts of unneeded drama started happening with the tanks and dpsers (I was healer and just rolled eyes at the stupidity of it all) and called it quits. Had seen all the hardmodes at time and wasnt overly enjoying them anyways.

 

Raiding to me has always showcased itself as undeserved inflated egos looking for a fight (with other players) and a whole bunch of undeserved conceit.

 

Much like Hardcore PVPers actully

Both groups tend to think of themselves as the best players out there and honestly Ive yet to see it be true even once.

 

So yeah, forced content does nothing for me anymore.

 

Doesnt mean I dont want a challenge.

Hell Id be THRILLED if the normal mobs toughness was raised to settings seen in Heroic 2 encounters just because of the challenge.

 

But dont need to do the ego stroking of Ops and PVP for the gear

 

Want the gear

But want it in fun and enjoying ways

 

Said yourself

 

I am sick and tired of seeing them. but people grind them over and over because they have t

 

Game would be much better served with out forcing people to do items they dont enjoy

 

Case in point: You sick and tire of the ops repetition and perceived grind for gear

 

Me, I do dailies every day with 4 different characters and love it

I run Tactical and Hard Mode flashpoints everyday (well if the HMs pop that is, but I try) and love it

Im not bored or sick of my play style

 

They could easily come up with a difficult flashpoint quest (like must do 30 tactics in a week (no carry over) or 15 HMs in a week (no carry over) and offer up Ops level gear as a weekly reward (or even special coms that go towards buying Ops level gear).

 

Id completely do it and enjoy myself while doing it

 

No reason at all players need to be forced into content they do not enjoy

[ivanhedgehog]

city of heroes had a difficulty system that allowed you to talk to an NPC and set your own difficulty. I could set my missions to spawn for 1 to 8 characters worth of enemies. at -1 to +4 levels of myself. so the uber min maxers could run at +8 x4 and have the time of their lives..or anything in that range. made for a lot less drama and stress.