All Posts by Anofalye

Is your catgirl taller or smaller than Mynx?

Originally posted by caemsg

imo marriage is all about property combining the assets of 2 people for the betterment of a family or what not in most MMOs i have played most players have all they need and in most cases offspring are never put in to the game mechanics therefore marriage is an outmoded concept for MMOs

its not creepy but if the role players want it that much i say give it to them

Hehe, this is the "English" perception of a marriage, it is a business model!

A marriage can be that, but it is a LOT more than that.  Every day of your life will be changed, forever, and you don't know what you just start.

It is, as the french often describe it...an "adventure".  A journey.  Just learning to know the other person in itself is a LOT (and definitely the most interesting part), then you have to face both problems, raise kids possibly, the diseases may strike with various level of severity...and there are compromises on compromises affected by other compromises.

I am not a wise person, but for me, it seems very important that even after the wedding, both loves never take each other for granted, this is the main reason why I would request always to have 2 bedrooms...and hopefully use the 2nd almost never, but eh, at the start especially and when it isn't going well, this other bedroom would serve it purpose.  Most marriages which end poorly, 1 took the other for granted for any reason.  You don't catch a bird, you have to deserve it presence, everyday, marriage or not­.  Now, it doesn't has to be hard to "deserve" the other, as the other should also want to "deserve" you...but if needed, there is at all moment, a 2nd bedroom.  :)

The wedding is not a final agreement, it is the first compromise!  In a long list of wonderfull compromises.  :)

That is also why I can't take wedding seriously in a MMO.  If I get married 1 day, then all my MMOs character would be married to my sweety half, no matter if she plays or not...however if she plays 2 characters... :P  *grin evilly*  And what about the fact I always play female characters (which would tend to look like her from that point, I am that silly)?  *bonk*  gah, that would be getting quite complex, especially that I play many characters most of the time...  :P

I don't "need" to jump myself.  But I experience some very limiting movements in some MMOs...and I feel it wasn't enought.

I have to feel my character is not just an average Joe.  Does he/she has to jump?  No.  But if he/she only runs, this is a grim starts.

I have been used to jumping and full vertical movements.  It gives you a sense of super-powered, without actually giving much to the player yet.  Flying/Jumping has very limited used in combats (help with kiting, but that is not an absolutely no-solution situation for mobs), but it may even lower my damage output while I do it...yet, it give me a sensation.

If my character can barely walk/run, the game isn't dead, but it will be judged all the more harshly on the remaining features.  I think City of covered movements and powers pretty well (jumpin higher, flying faster, as you slot it and as you level up), almost everyone take 1 travel power by 14, some players take 2 travel powers and a very few will even take a third.

If a cool mob spawn beside the wedding place, don't assume that I won't ruin the event just for the hope of getting the loot. :P

In RL I guess I would marry the right gal, I guess...just didn't meet her yet. :P

A few reasons:

1- The marketing of the game "wants it", see, loves it, hate it, but please don't be indifferent.  I am working against the clock to maintain my "hate level", it is fading and going away.

2- Warhammer fans and DAoC fans are very different and expect very different things.  GBT fans on 1 side, where the experience is always around very few players...and Real Time RvR maniacs.  Hard to please both side, and the devs pick their DAoC fans, completely.

3- The total lack of willingness to please other game style...you must WAR!  Oh well.

Anyway, if you will excuse me, I am done for the month me think.  I find it tedious to even check it out now.  There is nothing to hope for, no reasons to bother.

Originally posted by wrongfeifong

Its really all come down to the culture.

Single player MMORPGs are always been from Korean, North america and Europe. (china /taiwan / hong kong too)

The reason is the people belong to their culture enjoy more interm of alonliness more, self-efficient.

While MMORPG that focus on teamwork/ group oriented are more Japanese.

There mmo are more focus on community and communication. Japanese enjoy rely on others more and have higher tendency doing co-operated works.

Its in the psychology classes, if you don't believe me, check out your local university cross-culture psychology.

 

Korean MMO aren't Japanese MMO, don't mix them. Japan release quite few titles every years as well, its easy to get them mix if you don't know japanese or korean.

 

Such a generalisation.

Europe = soloers.  Well, let's me tell you something, the Frenchs are a LOT more group-oriented and "community" driven, for the better and the worst, then even the Japanese.

Your soloist stand consider the anglo-saxon world, which value individuality as been a critical part of a good community, you cannot have a healthy whole if the parts are diseased.  Or something like that.  The Frenchs have a "sacrifice the individual for the best of the community" mentality.

I have nothing to say against solo.  I may complain that I am better rewarded if I am solo than group, but I would still group and solo in such a game.  You cannot make me drown in an overdose of soloing-content.  I have nothing against it, in any form.

However, I crave for grouping, and for grouping I will always try to sway everything.  PvE content for 8 players or less (whatever the size of your 1 group,  8 is stretching it a lot already), nothing else.  This is what I want, what I crave for.  This been said, solo, is part of that definition of what I crave for, at the most basic, it is a group of 1.  Not my ideal setting, but definitely something I can support and accept.  I rather see everything be solo-able than see 1 thing which can't be done with 1 group in my game, and that isn't negociable.  Raid/RvR/PvP abuses in the past lead to a no compromises setting here.  If you accept 1 tiny abuse, it will lead to a bigger.  No thanks.  I want grouping.

Originally posted by Hoplites

Just because someone despises PVE raiding guilds doesn't mean they are anti social nor a loner looking for solo content.  Have you considered the possibility people may prefer to be in a PVP guild instead and would like to progress in the game with a PVP guild?

The fact you admit there will be difference in the gear will lead to friction between PVPers and PVErs.

 

 

 

Or that they would love to be in PvE grouping content, kinda as CoX is doing?  :)

PvE groupers are the main playerbase IMO, and they are the most neglected players, always forced into either raiding, rvr, PvP, tradeskills...or then been in a totally lonesome solo game.  Very few grouping options which are true to groupers out there.

Originally posted by vesavius

 

Originally posted by Anofalye

 

 

I used to play Pac Man.  But I don't see how any amount of changes/improvement would make me want to play any version now.

 

I downloaded Defender and Joust the other day and am loving them!

Classic gameplay ftw ;)

I still play Joust as well (when drunk mostly).  :P

Originally posted by Wharg0ul

In an MMO, if I want to feel superior, I have to work my ass off to be the best I can be at my toon's profession, work on getting the best gear, etc. I much prefer this feeling of accomplishment.

Work?  I never work in any game.  Never.

"Farming/Grind/Camping" is something peoples say I do, but I never understand them nor care.  I do what I enjoy, period.  If they want to call me a camper, sure...whatever.  After peoples understand what I do better?  It mean better "camping"?  Good thing.

However, I would NOT PvP/RvR/Raid.  This is a (*?"!/%&%/* gameplay and I rather punch a dev in RL than play that.   I would of course stop playing a game before I hurt a lowly dev not worthy of my punch.  I mean, I just break a toe while playing computer, wouldn't want to broke a finger on a dev!  :P

1- The amount of progression.  Must be all available to my gameplays (grouping and soloing...could endure some tradeskilling but not much).

2- Multiplayers component.

3- World, yet centered on the players rather than on the world itself (instancing is an important feature which shouldn't be overused, yet an abuse is better than a absence).

If the game lack a proper progression, you just lose my interest, totally.  I am an achiever.  If that progression isn't in my gameplays, you also lose my interest, totally, but I will bitch and moan, because you have all you need to make me happy playing your game and you ruins it like a *&%/*!  If the game isn't "multiplayers" enought, my motivation may dwindle faster, I will be less resilient to anything aggravating, yet the multiplayers component wouldn't compensate a serious flaw, it would just delay it impacts and give time for the devs to adjust the game.  The world part can mostly be put back into point 1 & 2, but accept this 3rd point as something linked with my evil side, my ego...yet it must not be crippling to any player; no matter what.  Praise a few geeks, but don't hurt the casuals or other geeks.

Few games can compare to Civilizations games and propose as much/more progression.  MMORPGs are such games.

Not just devs, most peoples are out of touch with "today's gamers".

Devs, last time I check, don't have 3 arms, eating hamsters and green skin, nor are they living on Mars...so Devs qualify as "most peoples".

MMORPG.com is definitely out of touch with today's gamers as well, lost in a megalomaniac epic PvP gankfest.  But I still like this website, as everyone, including today's gamers, would post here.  (Today gamers would not have a posts count in the many K or even more...and wouldn't even bother talking in a thread like here)

As to myself, I try to open my mind and tolerate as many different peoples as I could, never knowing if they are "today's gamers" or not.  I can't tolerate raiders or PvPers/gankers, but they definitely don't represent today's gamers.  No idea if I would fit happily with today's gamers, althought I sure hope so.  Even if I would most likely be abusing their game in a way or another, it could be a positive abuse if the devs are bright (positive for the game, the majority and for me as a player, as these are not necessarily exclusive). :)

  The Asgards. 

I could pinpoint logical arguments here as to why peoples who form an alliance with the ancients themselves have my support here.

You really think the humans wins by themselves, do you?  The best way to win a war, according to Romulans is to not been seeing/detected.  I do think that using friends and alliances is an even better way (especially if you cloak them), showing support only when necessary, remaining behind the scene as much as possible.  All while pretending to be quite straightforward and favorising a human which is straightforward.

I am pretty sure it will be completed and ranging from "niche" to "widely successfull".

My main concern/fear about this WoD is CCP themselves, who they are.  I mean, they are cool and all.  But, will they make the effort to make the game interesting to a broader audience?  Or will they just force us to play "their game", just as in EvE, you are "forced to PvP".

It is easy to make a direct conflict game about PvP.  Vampires-wise, just go Anarchs or Sabbat.  But if you are carefull about both, the large PvE market, and the Camallira...you wouldn't allow open PvP to determined much.  See, maybe 1 archon and 1 Justicar title are available only throught PvP (most been linked to PvE stuff), depending on the setting and all, but most should be PvE oriented.  I understand it will be tempting to have an influence war where you could destroy other assets, but at the same time, I hope they will go beyond that and focus on the progression, rather than on the regression.  Who cares if there are too many peoples with any influence too high in an area?  Adds more dots to the influence and more options!  If there is a war between many 4th generations, there is pretty much no PvP consideration in any form there, a player just can't stand it ground in front of such a guy assets if he didn't secure the necessary support from other strong PvE pulls...

Now, they have many ways to do stuff, most are wrongs and shaft PvE.  They didn't care with PvE in EvE, I certainly would prefer that they give PvE at least a minimal consideration so someone could be 100% satisfied with it, without ever going to play outside of it.

Storytelling is obviously going to be left out for technical reasons...I hope they would at least maintain the PvE­ some WoD fans come to enjoy.

I wouldn't put all "socialisations" together.

Forced grouping, no matter how dirty and nasty, isn't that bad.

Forced raiding, now this is criminal.

Forced PvP, this is even worser than forced raiding.

See, forced grouping despite the worst possible setting, you still do that on your terms, no obligations.  You are still free, it is still a game.  You will find groups which will be happy to overcome a challenge with you, pick up groups are wonderfull.  Forced raiding, you have to stop playing the game and start working, this is just wrong as you don't enjoy it anymore.  Forced PvP...err no thanks.

Originally posted by TheGreyMan

you can play for an hour with a group.....do a couple quest...grind....

Not really.   Building a group take sometimes, you can't just pop in and out without any other considerations.  I rather tell my friends I have only 1 hour and to get someone else, than to group them, and then ditch them 1 hour later, I would feel miserable.

There is no written rules, but 2 hours is a minimum time requirement if you join a group, and 3 hours is a minimum time availability if I plan to actually make a group.  Of course, you can leave a group before these times for various reasons...but that would be pretty much a bottomline rule I try to follow.  If I play a key-desired class and a group is desesperate, I would often state the truth to the whole group, even if the group leader/recruiter know it..."Eh folks, chanter is rdy for action...saddly me have only 47 minutes left before I gotta jet, so replace me anytime you can!"  This is...respect for your fellow groupers.

If you are married, and that your sweety half refuse to have sex for a week, do you go harassing him/her about what is the point of been married?

Or do you make a happy-dance of love before you exit, leaving him/her alone as gently as could while trying to steal a smile?

See, having 2 bedrooms is IMO a very good idea, that way even been allowed to sleep with your sweety half is something you have to deserve, not something granted by default.  Love and friendship cannot be commanded.  You don't catch a birdy.  (It can be "easy" to deserve it...)

I wish I have a simple answer.

$20 a month for an excessively nice MMO, 1 which I don't find something to suggest/feedback/complains at all.

$15 a month is stretching it, but in the case of City of games, I am willing to pay that much from time to time, I am unwilling to pay that much for ANY other existing MMO.  (Stargate, BioWare, CoS MAY make it to my willingness zone)

Sony has a $10 hardline limit.  Breaking that limit for Sony is not impossible, rules and laws are meant to be broken say the old addage, but good luck breaking it, as I am judge, jury and executionner.  Sony also has to face a no CC hardline policy, and that rule can't be broken.

Again, a $15 has to outdo City of games on 90% of the specific areas, and most importantly on what I enjoy myself.  $20 a month...well...good luck.  Not even sure it is possible, we mean that my yap is close by choice (except for brown nosing), and that I am totally happy with the game...I wouldn't pay $15 for a game that isn't even on par with City of games.  And atm, from my perspective, no MMO is even remotedly close to be on par.

IMO...

When you have many peoples of the same class, they should give each other a "silly bonus".  This bonus is something they usually are poor at doing.  2 healers, maybe they give each other a bonus to DPS.  2 DPS class?  Maybe they give each other a regen or tanking bonus.  And so on.

The idea is to make it nice and worthwhile to still group many peoples of the same class, even if it is better to have different classes.  This bonuses shouldn't be too nice, but nice enough so peoples still have fun and find themselves usefull.

That's been said, I have no idea what Aion is planning to do if many peoples of the same class group together, do they get silly bonuses so they still are somewhat nice?  Or will they split road?

Originally posted by EasyE

C'mon....tell me this isn't badassery at its finest...

 

wh40k.lexicanum.com/mediawiki/images/0/03/Witch_Hunters_cover_art.JPG

 

Witch Hunters are the alpha males...

The definition of the witch hunters they are using in WAR correlate to the definition of a MUCH more comon "class" which they "left out".

Mythic doesn't want to be sued by the Vatican, nor would I wish them to be.  I suspect that Games Workshop must have gotten a CLEAR warning in the past, but now, I am speculating.  Yet, this is often how the Vatican works, they have long term goals.  Witch hunters?  They don't care.

The Empire is a religious faction, and the inspiration is directly from the Holy Roman Empire.  In this case here, they pick 1 of the most popular "class" and switch the name of another nearly "unexistant class", yet, both names fit.

As a "Blood for the Blood God fan", I know my enemies.  Witch Hunters?  It fit for 1 class which they avoid.  And the definition they give to that witch hunter class = the class they left out.