Originally posted by asmkm22

I use adblock (and yes, I just adblocked the banner you put up), and have no intention of whitelisting you guys right now.  Here's why:

 

Your site design is too busy, even without ads.  Enabling ads with your current layout, is just distracting.  What makes it worse is that the ads you guys tend to show are animation-heavy, so there's all this extra movement jumping around the screen.  In fact, even with the ads disabled, your site still looks like it's 80% advertisements anyway, which is just comical.

Fix your site design so that it's less obnoxious, and I won't mind the ads.  If you want examples of good sites that I have whitelisted, here are a few fairly relevant examples:

 

slashdot.org

arstechnica.com

penny-arcade.com

 

I got a chuckle out of this - because what's the first thing you see on slashdot with adblock disabled?  A pair of flashy WoW ads.  Heck, even one of the ads that displays here at the bottom of forums displays as the header on slashdot.

Arstechnica has a flashy banner ad in their header and an annoying eBay animated huge square over to the right.

Penny-Arcade's sporting the GW2 ad from here in their header and has another animated skybox WoW ad in the right column.

So I can't see complaining about animation heavy ads when the three sites you listed are also displaying animation heavy ads (in two of the three cases, the same ads as here).

If you turn adblock off, it adds four ads to the main page.  It adds five ads to the real time forum page.  It adds four ads to the post page.

Turn it off on PA, it adds 5 ads on the front page.  Ars adds at least 3 (it's hard to tell, because everything looks like an ad on that site).  SD adds 5 ads on the front page.

So yeah, while I can understand not liking the full background image ad - I still had to get a chuckle out of the three sites you offered up as doing it better...

It's kind of strange, in thinking about it - with all the various email services out there, I've never once thought to use my mmorpg.com address to receive messages from outside the site.  I eventually ended up with a spreadsheet to track all the usernames/passwords for the various emails that I had from trying to keep certain things separate...

...I could see where if somebody had used the email address here elsewhere, that they could find themselves in woeful need of some sort of spam filtering.

So uh... on the mainpage befeore you login, there is an ad displayed above the Warplanes beta giveaway - to the right of hte games, guilds, etc block.  After you login, it now displays part of the header info - trending games, your name, messages, etc - that bit.

After you logout on the mainpage, that ad area now displays the login as part of the headerblock that's displayed in that ad area...

...but that appears to be when the page loads as www.mmorpg.com/index.cfm as opposed to just www.mmorpg.com....

...it's dropping the networkbar inside where the ad would display on the index.cfm page.

A cursory compare does not display anything that would result in that difference.  Of course, in the process of looking at that - there's an issue with one of the styles - netowrkbar instead of networkbar.

Still though, it's a curious thing.  It's happening within the hepro div - well, inside the insidediv div inside hepro.  That div's checked as part of the cAb function that slaps up the red banner at the top.  You're basically checking that div height to see if it is 0, and if it is - it's because the ad's not being displayed and thus the red banner appears at the top.

So it's likely an issue with one of the programatically generated iframes that's working differently based off of whether it sees itself as www.mmorpg.com or www.mmorpg.com/index.cfm - with the index.cfm page not handling the code correctly and displaying the networkbar inside the hepro...

...and then it's the case that it's not that it's the networkbar it's replicating, but it's likely replicating the whole page within that insidediv and only that small portion is showing.  Which could tie into some of the complaints about slowness on the site.  It's loading the page at least twice.  Who knows if it's calling itself again within that small broken div, eh?

Just a case that when on www.mmorpg.com, using the src="#" working fine for the function to display the ad and when it's on the www.mmorpg.com/index.cfm page - src="#" is actually pulling the page itself...index.cfm....

It's little things like this...which kind of eat away at overall confidence in a site.  Course, I've seen far worse out there....

Originally posted by Quizzical

I didn't see any mention on the ad policy of the text underline ads like Kontera or IntelliTXT.  I block those because they make a site basically unusable, but if you're not using them anyway, it would be good to say so on the ad policy page.

I don't run any ad-blocking program beyond a few things built into Opera (pop-up blocking, Kontera and IntelliTXT type ads, and the occasional particular ad that manages to be especially obnoxious), so I do see most ads on most sites.  I understand that a lot of web sites need revenue to survive.  If ads really get out of hand, then it's likely that I just stop frequenting the site.

I've long wondered what sites would do about people blocking ads.  I wonder if a lot more sites will start adopting your red bar solution.  And if ad-blocking programs will then try to block your red bar.

Some sites have actually taken to putting part of the content or even the discussions themselves inside ad containers.  So if you're running an adblock app - you're missing part of the content or unable to view or participate in the discussions.  I've stopped frequenting those sites...

An interesting poll might be to see whether folks come here for site content or user content.  Do they come here to see what any of the "official" blogs or columns say... or is it for reading posts from users.  Often things are reported by users in advance of any "official" blog or column appearing.

Personally, when I come to the site - I click the more posts link:  http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/realtime/

I can't remember the last time I was on the front page longer than it takes to click that link.  I had almost forgotten everything that is there on the front page.  If any of them show interest from the community, then I will see them in realtime thread list.  If not, well - then I do not see them.

As I said, there will usually be a user post about some news (usually with links to another site) before there is the article with the news here.  In a sense, the userbase here provides a pretty decent aggregator for content and news that's taking place in the MMORPG world.  It's almost as if the users have taken it upon themselves to create a pseudo Digg/Reddit - as far as being able to see what's going on...what's being talked about, etc, etc, etc.

Still, even looking at it from that angle - without the site being here - they would not be able to do that.  So even if it's a case of not being all that interested in any site content, but rather enjoying the site because of the user content (both their thoughts, links they share, etc)... the site would still need to be here for them to do that or there would have to be a similar site.  Maybe it's out there; but I've been here a wee while (still wondering three years later where almost five years of my posts disappeared to - but still here)... and perhaps I'm just kind of used to some of the folks out there.

Lol, it's the WoW of forums, eh?  You're just so used to it so you keep coming here?

The red banner at the top is far less annoying than the flashing ads - by a longshot.  But without those ads, well...I wouldn't have my ol' familiar forums, eh?  So it's a case of not whitelisting the site for the site content, but a case of doing so in the hopes that the users will have a place to continue to post their thoughts, news, and all the rest - even some of the trolls that you're still chuckling at what they said as you report them.

Originally posted by AdamTM

Originally posted by VirusDancer

Originally posted by lizardbones

 

---

Originally posted by VirusDancer
The simplest test is the "Playing Against Yourself" test.

 

Clone yourself.

Give your second self better gear.  Your second self wins, eh?

Give your second self a better build (more optimized for PvP than PvE).  Your second self wins, eh?

Give your second self a different class in most games.  Your second self wins, eh?

If you're able to find any advantage to give to your second self... you've found that the game may not be as skill based as you thought.  After all, you can't argue otherwise - your second self is as skilled as you are.

---

That's just silly. Everyone knows that each successive generation of clones comes out a little bit dumber than the last. Your clone would need the extra gear or a better build just to keep up.

However, if we assume that ideal cloning exists, all you've done is changed the type of skill that is necessary to play the game well. The necessary skill becomes minimal at the point of execution, but increases in the planning and preparation stages. It's arguable how much skill is actually required in the planning and preparation stages, and it's a discussion point as to what kind of skill is actually used in those stages, but it doesn't eliminate "skill" from the equation.

 

It's pretty straightforward how it eliminates the skill if you consider the clone to be an exact copy.  The skill becomes baseline.  It's even.  There is no discrepancy.  You Version A is as skilled as You Version B.  Anything A is going to do, B would do as well.

I do not limit skill to mere physical skill.  All skill would be elimiinated.  Everything that A does, B can do just as well.  Everything A knows, B knows just as well.  Everything A would do going into the fight, B would do going into the fight.

So then when you give A a better weapon, A did not beat B because of skill - the skill is equal.  A won because of the weapon.  A gear advantage.  The same goes with builds, classes, etc, etc, etc.

With that in place, then you realize there are only two ways to make a claim of having superior skill to another player:

1. Neither side has any other advantage and one is able to defeat the other.
2. One side does not have any other advantage and that side is able to beat the other side with some other advantage.

If you have some non-skill advantage and you beat somebody without it, well...you had an advantage.  How can you claim that it was skill?  And again, I do not limit skill to manual dexterity or the like.  It's a package deal.

Did you ever hear of asymetrical balancing?

I account for differences in classes.  The advantages that I speak of in regard to different classes assumes an imbalance even with the classes being different.  Imbalance is imbalance, regardless of how one is attempting to balance.

Originally posted by lizardbones

 

---

Originally posted by VirusDancer
The simplest test is the "Playing Against Yourself" test.

 

Clone yourself.

Give your second self better gear.  Your second self wins, eh?

Give your second self a better build (more optimized for PvP than PvE).  Your second self wins, eh?

Give your second self a different class in most games.  Your second self wins, eh?

If you're able to find any advantage to give to your second self... you've found that the game may not be as skill based as you thought.  After all, you can't argue otherwise - your second self is as skilled as you are.

---

That's just silly. Everyone knows that each successive generation of clones comes out a little bit dumber than the last. Your clone would need the extra gear or a better build just to keep up.

However, if we assume that ideal cloning exists, all you've done is changed the type of skill that is necessary to play the game well. The necessary skill becomes minimal at the point of execution, but increases in the planning and preparation stages. It's arguable how much skill is actually required in the planning and preparation stages, and it's a discussion point as to what kind of skill is actually used in those stages, but it doesn't eliminate "skill" from the equation.

 

It's pretty straightforward how it eliminates the skill if you consider the clone to be an exact copy.  The skill becomes baseline.  It's even.  There is no discrepancy.  You Version A is as skilled as You Version B.  Anything A is going to do, B would do as well.

I do not limit skill to mere physical skill.  All skill would be elimiinated.  Everything that A does, B can do just as well.  Everything A knows, B knows just as well.  Everything A would do going into the fight, B would do going into the fight.

So then when you give A a better weapon, A did not beat B because of skill - the skill is equal.  A won because of the weapon.  A gear advantage.  The same goes with builds, classes, etc, etc, etc.

With that in place, then you realize there are only two ways to make a claim of having superior skill to another player:

1. Neither side has any other advantage and one is able to defeat the other.
2. One side does not have any other advantage and that side is able to beat the other side with some other advantage.

If you have some non-skill advantage and you beat somebody without it, well...you had an advantage.  How can you claim that it was skill?  And again, I do not limit skill to manual dexterity or the like.  It's a package deal.

Originally posted by MurlockDance

OP builds whether in PvE or PvP suck, as do games that force people to min max to compete with or against each other. Inherent in that min maxing is the whole gear equation. A lot of endgames of course offer that as one of the main methods of play once you have hit max level/skill ability. I am not really that keen on that, especially in PvP.

Why should a person who spent more time acquiring the best gear be able to roflstomp someone who might actually have more skill but the numbers are against him. Most raiders I have met are actually terrible at other forms of PvE and PvP. They only are propped up by superior gear, which is usually so good that it outdoes everything else.

I am not just talking about WoW here, virtually every game with raiding in it is like that (DAoC, EQ1 and 2, AO, etc.).

Gear in many games is kind of ludicrous.  It's difficult not to touch upon WoW with this one though, since it offers such a shining (dark shining that is) example of the situation.  I remember just before Cata, taking a look at my character and his gear.  Took all of his gear off - looked at his stats.  Put on some basic greens - looked at the stats.  Put on some basic blues - looked at the stats.  Put on some basic purps - looked at the stats.  Put on my best purps - looked at the stats.  Rolled a level 1 toon and looked at the stats...

...it was mind boggling.

But yeah, WoW's not alone in the ludicrous gear arena by any means.

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by VirusDancer

How does getting to the root issue of why they hate it derail the thread when that's what the thread is about?  It can't be because they do not want to compete with other players, because they most likely do compete with other players.

I don't.  I don't compete against anyone, at any time, for any reason.  I'm just not intererested.   That's in combat or economics.   Yet if you read this thread, virtually everyone who argues against PvP has done so specifically on the basis of combat.  I don't recall a single message in this thread where someone has hated PvP because of economics.

In fact, I have so little interest in in-game economies, I almost always sell anything I find to the NPCs, unless I come up with something I know is rare, at which time I'll shout "who wants this?" in guild chat.  I can't recall the last time I used an auction house to sell anything.

It's a general discussion that has taken place across many threads.  Some people may feel they have made their point in other threads and have no need to repost in this thread - still, their thoughts on PvP are still out there.

I applaud your direct answer, and I hope that you do not believe that I was calling you out personally in the least - but there is little doubt that one could see where many of the posts against PvP make little sense when viewing them from the general populace.

Even in discussing combat PvP - it still leaves many questions.  In your case, you do not want to compete with other players.  That's not the only reason for folks not wanting to participate though.  Some may want to compete but feel that it's not very competitive in certain games.

Yes, it requires more effort to the discussion that most are willing to give.  I don't play other games though.  I haven't touched a console in almost 9 months, I haven't played a single player PC game in over a year... it's pretty much MMOs and has been for around 15 years.

I suppose the Fall TV schedule hasn't helped...lol...meh.

But given all the various types of PvP out there - are people really drawing the line at PvP in general or are they really just against certain types.  Even with combat PvP, are they against OWPvP - FFAPvP - Arenas - Zones - instanced Battlegrounds - Duels - Factional - Guild - etc, etc, etc.

PvP has been a discussion for well over a decade...

This is a tough one.  I have a feeling that having others whitelist the site is not exactly going to help.  I mean, sure, it will help a little - but there is a general feeling that I have that it goes far beyond that.  I never really paid attention to the actual numbers up there:

But it feels like there are fewer people.  To an extent, I base that off of the almost complete lack of discussion about MoP in comparison to the discussion that took place back with Cata.  The site feels very unfriendly to the WoW playerbase, and there isn't the discussion one might expect to be taking place as if they were here.

To an extent, it goes beyond that.  While each new game/expansion that came out tended to result in an increased amount of posts regarding that, there's been nothing like what we've seen with the GW2 crowd.  In almost any discussion of other games, you can find the GW2 crowd trolling those sections.  It's hard to discuss things without somebody coming in and chirping in that the game sucks and would be much better if it were GW2.

So with the mass of constant GW2 threads - which was expected - and the addition of the GW2 trolling invasion of other games - which was not expected... the already trolled into oblivion WoW players....

...well, there's just that feeling that the traffic here is not what it was.

Well, unless you check out Alexa and see that for at least a 3-month period that the site has been in decline...

Is it because I'm just that jaded... that I couldn't really find the humor in it?  What he said could have made an old country song... the dog died, the wife left with the boss, by the way I lost my job, down to my last smoke, beer's gone flat, and it's started to rain...

...and if he prattled it on, folks would say "Oh man, that's so freaking funny..."

Maybe I need a break...

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Why can't it be that MMO games enjoy progressing? I know I do.  I like seeing my character get stronger and better. 

There's a difference between gear progression and character progression though.

My char earns some XP, improves his stats... my character has gotten stronger and better.

My char finds a shiny sword... my character has not gotten stronger nor better.  He's got a new shiny sword.  It may improve his stats, but without that sword - he's the same ol' character.

That gear provides such a bonus to stats...that it is a form of progression...is mind boggling to some.

Now doubt there are plenty that like that - that's fine.  Not every game needs to be that way though.  Some folks would like actual character progression...

Originally posted by Banquetto

There are many reasons why it is important for MMOs to provide meaningful solo play options. To expect all players to engage in group play all the time ignores realities of timezones, game populations, character demographics (e.g. new players joining when the bulk of existing players are at endgame), different players' availability of uninterrupted playtime, etc.

 

So given these factors, it is absolutely appropriate that MMOs move away from the oldschool forced grouping designs and allow people to engage in fun and worthwhile activities solo.

 

Where the whole thing comes unglued, however, is that it collides with the modern entitled viewpoint that I deserve everything, that nobody else should have anything that I don't have, no matter what. Players with this attitude (and they are sadly numerous these days) whine and bitch and kick up a stink if they can't get everything through their preferred playstyle, and cause endless grief for any developers who try to follow the very reasonable course of providing meaningful solo play, but providing genuine incentives for cooperative and/or competitive group play.

 

Heh, that could be a stock reply to the majority of posts, eh?  It's a shame...meh.  :(

Originally posted by Sylvarii

Why bother with 99% of your thread when you could of just wrote: how can we force the MMO community to like GW2 because i like it.

 

You can't.

It might be a matter of perspective, but I felt the OP was asking more on how to get folks not to complain about it - than about liking it.  The OP found something they like...and there are folks complaining about it - trying to change it.  I saw it as a defensive post rather than a marketing post.

Originally posted by Silok

Originally posted by VirusDancer

Originally posted by Silok

Originally posted by VirusDancer

Originally posted by Silok

Originally posted by Eir_S

And I thought the good members didn't try assuming something that isn't even in the post they read.  Progression isn't a "negative", neither is playing a game for fun.  People should be happy that there are multiple types of MMOs to play now, but as you can see, they aren't.  Unlike fans of most genres (excluding FPS titles), many MMO players seem to think that if you can't enjoy one MMO as much as another, then it fails.

As an aside, it's all relative to the person in question.  I knew people in WoW who had every piece of leet gear possible but didn't do a damn thing in real life but sit there.  It doesn't mean they have some desire to better themselves, it's because it's a video game and it's easy compared to moving their ass.

You see this is exactly the opposite, all major mmo these days are for the solo, fast and easy crownd, leveling became easier than ever, the journey is fast and not very challenging. Anyone can have anything without taking the time to get it. But where are the games for those who like a long and hard journey? There is none execpt the old ones.

Which is where it gets into the "Doubling Plus Factor" - so to speak, and makes it pretty tough on devs.

Say you start off with a standard Fantasy MMORPG.  Somebody wants a Sci-Fi MMORPG.  You're now at two games.  Somebody wants faster leveling and more focus on endgame.  Not everybody does though.  So now you have two Fantasy games and two Sci-Fi games.  Somebody wants more action orientated combat.  Not everybody does though.  But still, now you're at four Fantasy games and four Sci-Fi games.  Somebody wants a Superhero game.  Tada, you've got four Superhero games.  Somebody wants another genre, bam - four of them.  Then you get into features that folks want and others do not want - BAM - for each game, you've got two.  Somebody wants dungeon finder - somebody doesn't - you're at 8 Fantasy, 8 Sci-Fi, and 8 Superhero games.  Somebody wants Post Apocalyptic - bam - wait, Post Apocalyptic means different things... who knows how many games you'll end up with there?  Heh, throw in Sandbox versions of those games and....

...sometimes we have to settle.  Or we just walk away.

I believe it's one of the reasons that so many folks are always looking for the next game - they're looking for the game that does not exist.  It's version #248 of 3257.  It may or may never exist.

You are mixing things here. I dont talk about themes, fantasy or sci-fi has nothing to do about the fact that all major mmo have the same kind of progression. Solo fast and easy.

Fast action combat or slow tab targeting doesnt matter to me, if the game offers me some real character progression, with a lots of thing to do and yeah i want time sink features.

In FFXI i used to do fishing for hours to get money or cook to get my kebab. I was breeding chocobos to get one with a different colors than yellow. I could spent days playing without going get some lvl.

After month of playing my highest job level was 43. I did played more than 4 hours a days. I didnt even scrath the surface.

I cant do this in modern mmo. After somes weeks all the maps are reveal, you are max lvl and you grind gears...or i heard now it's cosmetics o well. Game over i think.

It's not a mixing thing.  I was just looking beyond you.  You're an example though - you're looking for version #26 of 3257.  You want a game with a certain set of features.  There is going to be somebody else that wants something else.  There are going to be people where the theme matters - so again - there would need to be countless games to handle everything that everybody wants.

So we generally have to compromise, we have to settle, or we have to walk away.

Maybe Game X has 60% of what you want - which is more than Game Y or Game Z.  So you play Game X, but you're never really happy with Game X.  Perhaps Game R once did it for you, but that was ten years ago and Game R still looks like a ten year old game.  You want Game U, which is Game R with an updated graphics engine - but that's mostly Game R still.  Odds are though, that Game U is not going to exist.

It's a case not of looking for the best game...but the best game.  Not the perfect game, but the game that comes closest.

Folks tend to get pretty pissy when they hear about a new game, focus on what they think it might include, get hyped about certain features...only to find out that those features are a small part of the game.  It's more painful than not having any games having some of the features you want.

It's like telling somebody - hey, I've got a great piece of cake here - want a piece?  You say sure and as you reach for it, they hit you with a baseball bat.  You exclaim WTF!?!?!?  They say that each piece of cake comes with a free whack of a baseball bat to the head.  Then on top of that, you have to finish the cake (including getting hit with the baseball bat) - for the chance of getting a glass that may or may not have some milk in it.  That's how MMOs feel to me these days.

But oddly enough, I feel worse about single player games...meh, sometimes I wish I had kept my old computers as well as my old games.  Sure, the graphics might look like Hell compared to what we have today - but nobody's going to make those games with today's graphics.  I'd rather have to deal with the crappy graphics for games that I can enjoy hours on end... than to continue risking reaching for that piece of cake only to get hit by a baseball bat.

You know you write all this text to say almost nothing, all you do is to shift the discussion so the real subject here is lost.

First let rewind to the begin, you said in a earlier reply '' People should be happy that there are multiple types of MMOs to play now, but as you can see, they aren't'' and i replyed to you that (in short) all modern mmo offer the same things this is why im not happy.

And you you reply with all this mumbo jumbo who mean nothing about game X and game B, that im looking for version 245 or whatever.. Seriously where do you want to go with this?

I think i was clear enough about my opinion on the real subject of this thread. Now i dont think this discution is going no where.

Um, I did not say "People should be happy that there are multiple types of MMOs to play now, but as you can see, they aren't"

Since you cannot even follow who said what, I honestly am not suprised that you cannot follow what I've bene saying.  Even though it's the simplest thing to grasp... not everybody wants the same thing.  You're obviously not happy with where the majority of the games have gone.  In order for those games to appeal to you, they would need to create an additional copy of the game - tada, doubling.  Two people want different things, then you need two different games.  You add a third person that might want some of what the first does and some of what the second does, you're looking at a third game - tada, doubling plus.

That you could point out where certain games are a certain  and then say you want something else...without being able to comprehend that it would require two games to satisfy both yourself and those that like it the way it is...is mind boggling.

It's very unlikely that there's going to be a perfect game for anybody - people go with what come's the closest.  If there's nothing close enough, then they will take a break from the genre.  While McDonald's might not be a person's first choice for chicken, if it's on the way home and the chicken place is out of the way - they may just make that compromise.  Now if they're looking to get a steak, mashed potatoes, and a beer - they're likely to go somewhere else.

How can you not get that?

Originally posted by Kilrain

Someone outside of the gaming generation would look at us and ask, "Are these guys are being trained to be happy playing games instead of real life?" 

 

No one is being trained to do anything, people simply do things that stimulate the brain, releasing the chemicals that make you feel satisfied (can't remember the name) when someone becomes "addicted" to a style or specific action that satisfies them it's hard and sometimes impossible to become satisfied any other way. We're not being "trained", its just natural. Unfortunately.

You know, you actually make a great case for why folks are trained rather than they are not trained.  I mean, you've basically described a Pavlovian response for the release of Serotonin and Dopamine with the understanding of the tolerance issues involved in the addiction.

So while one can make the case that the underlying process is natural, one cannot make that same case for the overall events that have transpired - it completely ignores the artificial means by which we've reached this point.

The drug dealer and drug addict analogy comes to mind.  Some people in MMOs...well, they had a low tolerance.  So they needed it bigger and they needed it faster.  Then bigger.  Then faster.

The developers know this - they're not stupid.  They've looked around at how things are changing overall.  They're furthering the process instead of fighting against it...it's a way for them to make money.  Hell, it's one of the reasons that F2P makes so much money - working off of that same addiction.

Some people are being trained...in the sense they're being taught that in order to get that good feeling - bigger and faster, they need to follow a certain path...

Originally posted by Silok

Originally posted by VirusDancer

Originally posted by Silok

Originally posted by Eir_S

And I thought the good members didn't try assuming something that isn't even in the post they read.  Progression isn't a "negative", neither is playing a game for fun.  People should be happy that there are multiple types of MMOs to play now, but as you can see, they aren't.  Unlike fans of most genres (excluding FPS titles), many MMO players seem to think that if you can't enjoy one MMO as much as another, then it fails.

As an aside, it's all relative to the person in question.  I knew people in WoW who had every piece of leet gear possible but didn't do a damn thing in real life but sit there.  It doesn't mean they have some desire to better themselves, it's because it's a video game and it's easy compared to moving their ass.

You see this is exactly the opposite, all major mmo these days are for the solo, fast and easy crownd, leveling became easier than ever, the journey is fast and not very challenging. Anyone can have anything without taking the time to get it. But where are the games for those who like a long and hard journey? There is none execpt the old ones.

Which is where it gets into the "Doubling Plus Factor" - so to speak, and makes it pretty tough on devs.

Say you start off with a standard Fantasy MMORPG.  Somebody wants a Sci-Fi MMORPG.  You're now at two games.  Somebody wants faster leveling and more focus on endgame.  Not everybody does though.  So now you have two Fantasy games and two Sci-Fi games.  Somebody wants more action orientated combat.  Not everybody does though.  But still, now you're at four Fantasy games and four Sci-Fi games.  Somebody wants a Superhero game.  Tada, you've got four Superhero games.  Somebody wants another genre, bam - four of them.  Then you get into features that folks want and others do not want - BAM - for each game, you've got two.  Somebody wants dungeon finder - somebody doesn't - you're at 8 Fantasy, 8 Sci-Fi, and 8 Superhero games.  Somebody wants Post Apocalyptic - bam - wait, Post Apocalyptic means different things... who knows how many games you'll end up with there?  Heh, throw in Sandbox versions of those games and....

...sometimes we have to settle.  Or we just walk away.

I believe it's one of the reasons that so many folks are always looking for the next game - they're looking for the game that does not exist.  It's version #248 of 3257.  It may or may never exist.

You are mixing things here. I dont talk about themes, fantasy or sci-fi has nothing to do about the fact that all major mmo have the same kind of progression. Solo fast and easy.

Fast action combat or slow tab targeting doesnt matter to me, if the game offers me some real character progression, with a lots of thing to do and yeah i want time sink features.

In FFXI i used to do fishing for hours to get money or cook to get my kebab. I was breeding chocobos to get one with a different colors than yellow. I could spent days playing without going get some lvl.

After month of playing my highest job level was 43. I did played more than 4 hours a days. I didnt even scrath the surface.

I cant do this in modern mmo. After somes weeks all the maps are reveal, you are max lvl and you grind gears...or i heard now it's cosmetics o well. Game over i think.

It's not a mixing thing.  I was just looking beyond you.  You're an example though - you're looking for version #26 of 3257.  You want a game with a certain set of features.  There is going to be somebody else that wants something else.  There are going to be people where the theme matters - so again - there would need to be countless games to handle everything that everybody wants.

So we generally have to compromise, we have to settle, or we have to walk away.

Maybe Game X has 60% of what you want - which is more than Game Y or Game Z.  So you play Game X, but you're never really happy with Game X.  Perhaps Game R once did it for you, but that was ten years ago and Game R still looks like a ten year old game.  You want Game U, which is Game R with an updated graphics engine - but that's mostly Game R still.  Odds are though, that Game U is not going to exist.

It's a case not of looking for the best game...but the best game.  Not the perfect game, but the game that comes closest.

Folks tend to get pretty pissy when they hear about a new game, focus on what they think it might include, get hyped about certain features...only to find out that those features are a small part of the game.  It's more painful than not having any games having some of the features you want.

It's like telling somebody - hey, I've got a great piece of cake here - want a piece?  You say sure and as you reach for it, they hit you with a baseball bat.  You exclaim WTF!?!?!?  They say that each piece of cake comes with a free whack of a baseball bat to the head.  Then on top of that, you have to finish the cake (including getting hit with the baseball bat) - for the chance of getting a glass that may or may not have some milk in it.  That's how MMOs feel to me these days.

But oddly enough, I feel worse about single player games...meh, sometimes I wish I had kept my old computers as well as my old games.  Sure, the graphics might look like Hell compared to what we have today - but nobody's going to make those games with today's graphics.  I'd rather have to deal with the crappy graphics for games that I can enjoy hours on end... than to continue risking reaching for that piece of cake only to get hit by a baseball bat.

Kind of surprised things like that were not brought up in the recent interview:  http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/875/feature/6753/Darkfall-Unholy-Wars-Reshaping-Darkfalls-Sandbox.html

Though, it was a pretty short interview...meh.

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by VirusDancer

That's kind of why that point is important.  A lot of folks will claim they are against combat PvP for reasons that they completely ignore while participating in other forms of PvP.  Folks need to take a honest look at why they do not like/want it, and then provide those honest reasons.  Where's the issue in that?

Clearly, nobody in this thread is talking about economics, only combat.  Derailing the discussion and trying to talk about something entirely different and only tangentially related isn't going to change the fact that most people hate combat PvP.

How does getting to the root issue of why they hate it derail the thread when that's what the thread is about?  It can't be because they do not want to compete with other players, because they most likely do compete with other players.

So many of the reasons given are things that happen on both the PvP and PvE side of things - and likely even happen more on the PvE side.

It's like asking a person why they don't like a certain type of food.  They give you all sorts of reasons why they supposedly don't like it - but all of those reasons are nullified by the simple fact that they eat other foods with similar qualities.  It's much simpler if they just give a straight answer.  I don't like peanuts.  I'm allergic.  Nice and simple.

When somebody gives an answer that doesn't make any sense - a dev is going to take that as an answer that doesn't make any sense....