Originally posted by RebelScum99

Originally posted by CrunkJuice2

Originally posted by bishbosh

Originally posted by xposeidon

Yeah it's not that awesome, that's why most people that were in last beta are eager to play again. Thanks for enlightening us.

just like swtor

 

wasnt the beta of swtor where everyone trashed it and thats where the wow in space thing came from?

cuz ive heard alot more people say the beta of gw2 is good then i have bad

 

The beta of SWTOR was overwhelmingly positive for the majority of those who played it, present company included.  The "WoW in space" complaints had begun long before anyone got into beta, as they were the result of Bioware's claims that they weren't going to depart from the WoW formula.  

Other notable "positive" betas:  Warhammer and Age of Conan.  I'm not saying that GW2 is going to end up like any of those three games, btw.  I'm just commenting that positive reviews from betas are pretty commonplace, even for games that don't do well live.

 

 I would not agree that the cases are at all the same.  There were many detractors for SWTOR and due to those people I had a very good idea of how the game would play and I was quite sure it would not be that successful and even said so in the SWTOR forums before release.

 I eventually played because I wanted to see how their dialog stuff would play out in an MMO and everything I surmised from the various beta feedback turned out correct.  It was an ok game for a few weeks then got interminably boring.

WAR had alot of hype and WAR really was very fun up to about level 25.  But there were still a number of things that were known to be issues.  Its not like anyone said there was no performance problems at the keeps.  We just hoped they would get fixed.  And most people knew the questing was not really that great in the game.  People also stated they thought the PQs might get repetitive.   The thing that caught me and many people off guard for WAR was that the RvR campaign became such and horribly designed mess after about level 30.

The problem I have seen with GW2 is there seem to be a large number of people flat out lying about the game.  I rarely see genuine negative feedback.  I just see the same misonformation spouted out.  There are some negative things people could say about GW2 but all these so-called critics don't actually know enough about the game to say what they are.

Um where do people get this stuff?  If I look closely I will fool myself into seeing something that is patently false?

Erm I actually played the game avoid arrows without using the dodge mechanic.  Melee has no need of any targets at all.  Check your facts before you try to rip something up.  And certainly make sure you get stuff right before you try to tell people that they have it wrong.

I mean seriously why are people coming out of the woodwork and saying things that are demonstrably false?  Even if some of the "guided" projectiles can be avoided.   The only thing I have seen that always hit are beams like certain channeled lightning effects.

Anyway this is getting really sad. 

Originally posted by CrunkJuice2

Originally posted by WellzyC

Agree completely, I view mele as "high risk, high reward",  not as something that is borken and needs to be fixed. Since all classes can range, I dont see the problem here.

 

it could also come down to the players that are playing also.melee could be fine,but people could just be playing them wrong

eather way,i heard you can cast and move in this game.so that pretty much fixes my issues ive had with ranged and casters in other mmos so i guess if melee is still worse then ranged and casters by release then maybe ill roll up a caster class

 

Yep melee are terrible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY4vinsdrqU&feature=related

Originally posted by heartless

Originally posted by fiontar

Originally posted by Pivotelite

 

I'll be more specific with a non-bug/exploit video, i'll just go to the first one in related and point things out.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGaq-IeVGao&feature=related#t=305s

 

Right when you begin watching he attacks the dragon banner, there's a serious lack of frames on all these attacks, making them look spastic and twitchy to me, maybe powerful to you, but it's a lack of quality presenting the power, that's not a good way of doing it.

 

When he attacks off the hill he goes flying lands on the ground, does not absorb it at all, floats a full 180 and runs back towards the guy and begins more of that twitchy combat.

 

Then when he gets knocked down, there's almost no frames again and it's not powerful to me, I just see lazyness.

 

Then when he runs backwards up the hill...well, yeah that should even be obvious to you, no weight behind it at all.

 

Then he goes back to the spear thrower and attacks it with no one in view making the poor animations much more apparent, if you don't see the twitchy, almost demented animations here, I don't know what to say.

 

 

 

 

Still not seeing it, sorry. Are you sure you have a PC capable of showing youtube video at 30 fps?

Maybe you could share a video from an MMO that you think shows better combat and running animations, so we can see what you are comparing it to?

I would like to see this as well. Not saying that GW2 has the most amazing animations but they are some of the best I have seen in this genre.

I played a norn guardian during beta.  There is either something wrong with the video capture or with the youtube playing of it. 

My norn animation did not have the odd skips on sword like that.

They need to make either another column or another graph to show how many attacks are at a particular range.

If you look at Guardian staff you might think it has good range but it doesn't.  If you look at Mesmer sword you might think its a ranged weapon but its anything but it just happens to have the Phantasm Swordsman in the offhand at 1200 feet and that skill doesn't even place to swaordmen on the mob the illussion has to run at the thing.

So they need more information, its a good start though.

Originally posted by Vrakor

Originally posted by gestalt11

Its not so much a myth as often overstated.  Just because a longbow could punch through a plate of steel.  Doesn't it often got the chance to do so.  Occasionally it did get that chance.

 

On related note.  The word bullet-proof comes from the practice of an armor maker showing the dent in the armor from having shot the peice of armor (often a breastplate) with a gun.

Basically they proved it could take a bullet.  This was in the early phase of guns.  The phase that the iconic picture of a conquestidor wearing a breastplate came from.  By the 1700s guns were powerful enough that nothing was bullet-proof anymore.

 

And now, in modern times, we are back to bullet-proof chest armor.  A word that is actually about 500 years old.  And had a serious and real application (such that no one would buy a breastplate that had not been "proved").

 

Yet with arrrows and charges even if an could punch through a breastplate.  It still had to hit in the right way, be fired from a certain distance.  And even more importantly it had to hit.  When your target is someone on a horse, with a shield, who is moving at 30+ mph and is going to kill you in about 10 seconds.  Actually hitting them much less hitting them exactly the correct way is not always something you want to bet your life on.  Most especially if they are far enough away that you have to do an arcing shot to hit them.

 

Whereas a gun shoots almost direct.  And certainly a rifle.  A volley of arrows is nowhere near the same as a volley of rifles or even muskets.  Even if they hadthe same penetration power they would still not be analogous.

 

The ability for longbows to hurt knights is not really a myth.  Agincourt proved its possible.  But in general I think most historians would tell you it took a fairly significant confluence of events to have longbows truly dominate a battlefield. 

 

Even guns did not obviate armor.  Not until 100s of years after their inventions.  Longbows did not obviate armor.  And now in the modern age; even high-powered rifles are not obviating armor.

 

Simple blanket rules are rarely much use in warfare, of course especially in warfare people cling to them for comfort because you need something to think you have some kind of control over something so deadly.

pretty much agree with everything you have said earlier and now ....  the plate chest armor i recall was still in use by elite cavalry units in late 1800's while its effectivness against the rifles could be questioned.

really should have pointed out more pressingly that rather than kill a certain branch of warfare the events destroyed the general consensus and views of Mounted Knights as the above all units they were before Crecy and Agincourt

 

I am not a military expert by any means, but by the 1800's most cavalry I know of basically ran with a sabre and some sort of firearm (pistol or rifle). 

By this time cavalry was still considered extremely important but more for is mobility and maneuvers.  Using armor would seriously impair that.  Also having steel armor wouldn't help against cavalries biggest problem; cannons.

I wouldn't be surprised if in some cases where the conflict was mostly against infantry some units did use some plates.  But by and large the later 1800s wearing steel would almost be more dangerous than not.  Cavalry of the time were extremely conscious of the weight they took for their packs too.

This would of course heavily depend on the theatre as well.  I suspect such elite units would be in certain areas of europe whereas on the American Frontier they would look at you like you had mushrooms growing out of your ears if you suggested such a thing since they had such large distances to cover and in conflicts like the Civil War flanking the cannon using speed was one of their important uses.

Originally posted by Distopia

Originally posted by Wolfynsong

I don't have any screenshots, unfortunately, but there are some normal greatswords out there.  I had a claymore-style greatsword on my Guardian, and from Wikipedia's average measurement of 47-55" in length, I'd say it was pretty well in-scale too.

It was just a low-level bronze greatsword, as I recall, nothing fancy or anything.

Most weapons are just skins though aren't they?

No all weapons you get as drops are items with stats etc.  You can use a transmuation stone to make use of any item for its skin.

However I think, but can't confirm, the skins may change for your race.  I.e  I don't think an Asura ever uses the same model as a Norn for a greatsword.  A Norn GS is probably twice the height of an asura.  And I suspect the large cleaver like GS may not exist for humans/charr.  They could but i think its models per race.  Not just  a collection of models with no resitrctions.

Originally posted by Kalfer

Originally posted by Hokie

OMG LOL!!

Was that for real, I mean the voice overs?

Yeah.

 

 

I was a lot more impressed with the in-game npc voice acting, than I am with the personal story (captain thackaray cinematics...). 

 

It sounds natural and real when you hear the random world chatter. Notice how the kids change their voice level - this is the difference between a monotone voice over and a good one. bad actors / voice actors they keep the same voice level throughout their dialogue. they don't shift in pace like you would in real life, but these kids do it. 

 

"burn my fur" laawwls!

In game VO is FAR better than cutscene VO.  I don't think that is the actors though, I think its the dialog and context of it.

I am pretty sure the in-game and cutscene VOs are often done by the same actors.

Originally posted by Vrakor

Originally posted by gestalt11

Originally posted by Kalfer

Originally posted by Wolfynsong

Originally posted by Kalfer

You have to remember that back in the good ole' middle ages their armor was so thick that it often turned into wack-a-mole. going into a complete frenzy while being a battle suit. They added range increased your chances of staying alive. This is also why the spear was always one of the most prefered weapons of warriors across all cultures. It's long reach meant it was safer in a lot of situations.

Yeah, until the advent of the longbow, maces and hammers were about the only weapons powerful enough to damage the metal itself much (though as I understood it, armor strength came from its design, not its thickness of metal).  Reach was important because weapons were largely designed for stabbing into whatever openings presented themselves, like those in the armpits, which were protected by much weaker chain mail.

I've heard that the longbow effectively ended the age of chivalry simply because it made peasants capable of downing a fully-armored knight.

Longbow... That was the englishmen's speciality wasn't it? They were famed for their archers.

 

It's hard to believe that a longbow would be able to pierce the metal, but maybe the sheer speed of an arrow at such pace, would cause damage underneath the armor? Maces and Hammers were more about destroying the thing inside underneath the metal. internal bleeding and other good stuff. 

 

It seems to me that being cut down with a sword is more elegant and a better way to die than suffering the trauma of those mace/hammer blows. jebus.

Agincourt is famous because of the engilish (well some might say welsh) longbow and how they devastated the heavily armored french cavalry.

 

BUT:

a) the french calavry was mired in the mud and thus easy targets for multiple volleys.

b) crossbows were also able to punch through armor, but a skilled longbowman could fire many more shots.  Thus the conjunction of mud and the fast rate of fire had a withering effect that was not generally seen.

c) the usefullness of the longbow is a little hard to tell as agincourt was in 1415 and guns were right around the corner and a good longbowmen took years and years of practice to achieve.

d) the effect of agincourt was huge because of WHO died as much for HOW they died.

 

In many cases the longbowmen were not nearly as important as one may think, because you can field far more crossbowmen if you have the crossbows because its much easier to train crossbowmen.  In addition the rate of fire was not always such a huge thing becasue generally heavy calavry took the brunt of the first volley on shields and then relied on speed to inflict huge damage and cause large amoutns of disarry. 

And of course many tactics during these times were highly hidebound  many nobles simply could not believe cowardly peasants could hold or do much.  There are a number of cases of various less hidebound commanders(often renaisance mercenaries) making very good use of "peasant" weapon mixed units.  Blends of longbow/crossbow and various polearms (pikes/halberds etc) in combination to serious hurt heavy cavalry.  Often using polearm and greatsword infantry to slow down and obstruct areas and then having bowmen wither them down.

The reason heavy calavry was considered so dominant and peasants were often held in such (undeserved) scorn was because the heavy cavalry charge caused so much disarrary and chaos among non-cavalry.

 

In agincourt the english brought a ton of archers.  And most of those archers were real veterans.  And the mud had a large effect.  So did the terrain ( a woodland on their flank) and good preparation of a line of stakes.  The initial charge was a mess and the professional and well entrenched longbowmen did not even flinch.  Normal a cavalry does many charges but due to the ground that first charge being so chaotic the next charges became very mired and even less intimidating.

 

Its often overlooked that half the "invulernability" of heavy cavalry was based on assumption of the psychology and not because of the armor in total.  You shoot a horse and the rider is in trouble.  Knight's horses were never armored to the extent knights were sometimes only having head armor, but usually only certain areas.

Half the armor itself was the momentum and speed of the charges themselves.

I dont claim to be an expert on medieval history but what i understand was that the effect of longbow against a late medieval  cavalrymen is largely a myth.

The English bodkin arrow while being able to penetrate the earlier armor designs was ineffective against a late medieval plate armor designs and that being the standard at the time that longbowmen had to buy their own arrowheads they were usually made of cheap iron instead of steel, thus further diminishing its effectivness.

The Fall of heavy cavalrymen is therefore largely being credited for the arrival of Gunpowder weapons in masse enabling a simple peasant to take out a knight with expensive armor, have to remember that good armor designs were the high tech of its time and beyond the reach of common man.

Henry V had army consisting largely of longbowmen because he had a lack of funding, they were cheap units that made his force look bigger than it actually was in strenght.

http://www.123dapp.com/123C-3D-Model/Horsemans-Pick-Warhammer/596517 ... and this seems to be the preferred weapon of a Hundred Years War era footman, effective design against a horseman imo.

not really directed for anyone ive quoted just my input ... cheers

Its not so much a myth as often overstated.  Just because a longbow could punch through a plate of steel.  Doesn't it often got the chance to do so.  Occasionally it did get that chance.

On related note.  The word bullet-proof comes from the practice of an armor maker showing the dent in the armor from having shot the peice of armor (often a breastplate) with a gun.

Basically they proved it could take a bullet.  This was in the early phase of guns.  The phase that the iconic picture of a conquestidor wearing a breastplate came from.  By the 1700s guns were powerful enough that nothing was bullet-proof anymore.

And now, in modern times, we are back to bullet-proof chest armor.  A word that is actually about 500 years old.  And had a serious and real application (such that no one would buy a breastplate that had not been "proved").

Yet with arrrows and charges even if an could punch through a breastplate.  It still had to hit in the right way, be fired from a certain distance.  And even more importantly it had to hit.  When your target is someone on a horse, with a shield, who is moving at 30+ mph and is going to kill you in about 10 seconds.  Actually hitting them much less hitting them exactly the correct way is not always something you want to bet your life on.  Most especially if they are far enough away that you have to do an arcing shot to hit them.

Whereas a gun shoots almost direct.  And certainly a rifle.  A volley of arrows is nowhere near the same as a volley of rifles or even muskets.  Even if they hadthe same penetration power they would still not be analogous.

The ability for longbows to hurt knights is not really a myth.  Agincourt proved its possible.  But in general I think most historians would tell you it took a fairly significant confluence of events to have longbows truly dominate a battlefield. 

Even guns did not obviate armor.  Not until 100s of years after their inventions.  Longbows did not obviate armor.  And now in the modern age; even high-powered rifles are not obviating armor.

Simple blanket rules are rarely much use in warfare, of course especially in warfare people cling to them for comfort because you need something to think you have some kind of control over something so deadly.

Originally posted by Eir_S

The more I hear of the voice acting, the more I like it, though Norn females just sound wrong to me.

But they have huge tracts of land.

Originally posted by Wolfynsong

Originally posted by Master10K

This Guardian looks to be wielding a fairly normal-sized Claymore.

That's the one I was running with on my Guardian across the BWE, I thought it was pretty cool.  I didn't see any of the other 'real-life' sword types myself, though... kind of disappointed about that now!

Originally posted by Amjoco

Here is a warrior with a sword...I'm not sure how great it is! I think if you are using it and you don't chop off your own arm it is classified as a Greatsword. :)

First one is a human.  Second one is a Norn.

Every norn GS I used was a big ass anime cleaver.  Every sword on my Human Mesmer was similar to the first one.  Even one I found in the Norn area.

Basically I won't be making a norn for class that use GS unless I have an overriding reason as I prefer realistic looking GS.  Swords aren't axes people.  Doesn't break my immersion.  But a sword that is actually a sword and lethal for the reasons swords are lethal is more fun and cooler when you know what swords actually do.

You can't cut a man in two peices directly down the middle with an execution's axes, but you can with a katana.  The axes is heavier and larger.  Yet the katana cuts better.

Originally posted by Wolfynsong

Originally posted by Loke666

The claymores were the largest swords that actually were used a lot. The reason they are so long is not really to penetrate armor but because they are made for foot soldiers fighting mounted enemies. While a pike and a spear are slightly more effective there the claymore also works well against infantery making the wielder rather useful in most situations. That is also why the claymores were made earlier than the landsknecht zweihanders which in deed were made as you say.

Hum, I've never heard that before, but it makes a lot of sense that the length would be useful against calvary.

It is also important to understand that European greatsword were not used the same way as a normal sized sword.  Due to the length and the way leverage works you do not tend to take the same "guard" psotion nor do you tend to parry the same way.

Many European style of greatsword use place the handle above your head with the blade angled down in a high parry as the guard position.   Whereas many normal swords use a middle parry with the blade point up and the blade angle somwaht forward as the guard position.

When you use a greatsword you need to be VERY economical about when you do a ful swing.  For the most part until you are quite certain about the swing you want to do very economical postion shift that do not in fact actually swing the sword but rather rotate it.  A good greatsword stylist needs to be very conscious about the size of the motions they are using and normal swords can acutally use much larger motions without throwing themselves into dangerous positions.

Weapons/styles that do throw you into dangerous postions are completely useless only a fool would use them. 

Originally posted by Kalfer

Originally posted by Wolfynsong

Originally posted by Kalfer

You have to remember that back in the good ole' middle ages their armor was so thick that it often turned into wack-a-mole. going into a complete frenzy while being a battle suit. They added range increased your chances of staying alive. This is also why the spear was always one of the most prefered weapons of warriors across all cultures. It's long reach meant it was safer in a lot of situations.

Yeah, until the advent of the longbow, maces and hammers were about the only weapons powerful enough to damage the metal itself much (though as I understood it, armor strength came from its design, not its thickness of metal).  Reach was important because weapons were largely designed for stabbing into whatever openings presented themselves, like those in the armpits, which were protected by much weaker chain mail.

I've heard that the longbow effectively ended the age of chivalry simply because it made peasants capable of downing a fully-armored knight.

Longbow... That was the englishmen's speciality wasn't it? They were famed for their archers.

 

It's hard to believe that a longbow would be able to pierce the metal, but maybe the sheer speed of an arrow at such pace, would cause damage underneath the armor? Maces and Hammers were more about destroying the thing inside underneath the metal. internal bleeding and other good stuff. 

 

It seems to me that being cut down with a sword is more elegant and a better way to die than suffering the trauma of those mace/hammer blows. jebus.

Agincourt is famous because of the engilish (well some might say welsh) longbow and how they devastated the heavily armored french cavalry.

BUT:

a) the french calavry was mired in the mud and thus easy targets for multiple volleys.

b) crossbows were also able to punch through armor, but a skilled longbowman could fire many more shots.  Thus the conjunction of mud and the fast rate of fire had a withering effect that was not generally seen.

c) the usefullness of the longbow is a little hard to tell as agincourt was in 1415 and guns were right around the corner and a good longbowmen took years and years of practice to achieve.

d) the effect of agincourt was huge because of WHO died as much for HOW they died.

In many cases the longbowmen were not nearly as important as one may think, because you can field far more crossbowmen if you have the crossbows because its much easier to train crossbowmen.  In addition the rate of fire was not always such a huge thing becasue generally heavy calavry took the brunt of the first volley on shields and then relied on speed to inflict huge damage and cause large amoutns of disarry. 

And of course many tactics during these times were highly hidebound  many nobles simply could not believe cowardly peasants could hold or do much.  There are a number of cases of various less hidebound commanders(often renaisance mercenaries) making very good use of "peasant" weapon mixed units.  Blends of longbow/crossbow and various polearms (pikes/halberds etc) in combination to serious hurt heavy cavalry.  Often using polearm and greatsword infantry to slow down and obstruct areas and then having bowmen wither them down.

The reason heavy calavry was considered so dominant and peasants were often held in such (undeserved) scorn was because the heavy cavalry charge caused so much disarrary and chaos among non-cavalry.

In agincourt the english brought a ton of archers.  And most of those archers were real veterans.  And the mud had a large effect.  So did the terrain ( a woodland on their flank) and good preparation of a line of stakes.  The initial charge was a mess and the professional and well entrenched longbowmen did not even flinch.  Normal a cavalry does many charges but due to the ground that first charge being so chaotic the next charges became very mired and even less intimidating.

Its often overlooked that half the "invulernability" of heavy cavalry was based on assumption of the psychology and not because of the armor in total.  You shoot a horse and the rider is in trouble.  Knight's horses were never armored to the extent knights were sometimes only having head armor, but usually only certain areas.

Half the armor itself was the momentum and speed of the charges themselves.

From what I could tell it was very race dependent.

Norns tended to get silly unrealistic cleavers.  Humans and Charr tended to get greatsword that had a blade something on the order of a realistic claymore or zweihander.  One of the Mesmer GS my human got has a semi curved hilt you might see on some zweihanders.  Fairly large hilt/crosspiece or not and a blade that would be maybe 2-4 inches wide and 4-5 feet long maybe some gettng to 6 feet hard to say.

But my Norn guardian got a big ass cleaver that had a blade that was a foot+ wide all along the blade.  Really silly.  Not TERA silly (god I utterly hate and loathe the lancer class) but still silly.  Some people like that though.

Not sure if these skins cross races or its just what you get for your race in the starter areas or what.

Originally posted by Alders

Originally posted by CrunkJuice2

Originally posted by Alders

Originally posted by CrunkJuice2

'Originally posted by Shatter30

Doesnt matter, GW2 will be out soon so to heck with TOR and their horrible devs"

 

meh,gw2 just looks like deja vu of swtor all over again

 

community comes in,hypes the game to living hell.devs cant live up to the hype the players give the game.and it tanks 6 months later

 

and i wouldnt count on gw2 coming out soon.since theres no release date,so for all we know.it could end up being another duke nukem forever

 

Difference being the devs hyped up SWTOR because they knew the game was bad 6 months prior to release and the players hype GW2 because it's an actually well built game.

 

i guess it depends on your definition of bad

alot of people didnt give swtor the chance to become a good mmo.ive played enough mmos in my lifetime to know that mmos usually arent the greatest at release,but get better overtime

im guessing more people think they thought came to the game and expected some great mmo out the box.but forgot thats not how mmos work and left before the game even had the chance to get better

 

 

Oh i completely agree with you but the problem being that TOR really has no foundation for solid growth.  Call it a hunch or what have you but i still have this suspicion that they realized this around 6-8 months prior to release and by then it was too late to change anything. 

This was exacerbated by the fact that their internal testers failed to look at how players interact with each other.  They were so focused on the story that they forgot what makes an MMO an MMO.

I was part of the friends and family program and trying to have constructive conversations with these people was like banging my head against the wall.  Far too many people involved in that process saw the game for what i could be instead of what it was and still remains to be; lost potential.

 

Bad companies are often like cults they self-select for their point of view.

Originally posted by CrunkJuice2

Originally posted by Demmi77

nah, the community wanted something else other than starwarscraft, they got starwarscraft alpha from 8 years ago. I don't know what is worse, another wow clone, or a wow clone that failed at cloning wow (which is what tor is).

i was purely hoping for good open world pvp, space combat and some decent economy since i am not a raider/dungeon type. I ultimate left when pvp died.

 

i guess this is where i say,the people who have actually played more then 1 mmo in there life relize that mmos take time to get better and implement content.you would be disapointed and leave anyway if you came to swtor and expected it to have boatloads of content out the box

thats not how mmos work.and sadly,i think alot of people expected there to be a ton of content out the box,but yeah.pvp is a big thing with me,and the pvp sucks in swtor but considering i dont get the chance to raid thats really the only other option to do at 50

 

Actually I am pretty sure that both GW2 and TSW are far more enjoyable right of the box than SWTOR.  I am also certain that GW2 has alot more features and far far better PvP.

Considering there will only be a 6-8 month difference in release, that is fairly damning.  And when you consider that TSW is made by Failcom with far less money in the budget that is downright frightening for what it says about BW being able to make an MMO.

Originally posted by GreenHell

I liked your post OP there are a few things I would add that may or may not be about ToR but they apply for all MMOs

Think twice about using a popular IP that you will never have full control over.

 

1.  Have a plan for what direction you would like to see the game take in the next year or two. Do not change the basic fundamantals of your game so that you can cash in on whatever may be hot at that time.

2.  Do not just listen to the people who play your game 50+ hours a week. In fact those are the people I would listen to the least. They burn through content way to fast and are never happy.

3.  Treat your game like it is a business, not you or your staffs personal playground. No one is happy when your people give other players an advantage. 

4.  Launch your games smaller and more complete. We don't need promises of all these glorious things you will have at launch just to find that 90% of them are not there or do not work. Add things as you go. Make sure the content that you add is functioning and polished.

5.  Do not lie to your customers. Do not treat us like we are just cash cows to be milked until we are dry.

 

 

Part in read is completely wrong.  As a developer should listen to everyone who isn't a complete douchebag.  But as a developer you should be competent enough to extract out the useful information from the bad.

You don't listen to your users and have them design the software product for you.  That is always a bad idea no matter how good the users are 50 hours or 50 million hours it doesn't matter.

But you always always always listen to your users.  Even when they are saying stupid and contradictory things it often means something.  Its like little kids just because they are crying doen't mean they are hurt or even that anything is wrong.  It often means they just need a nap.  But its doesn't mean nothing.  You don't start ignoring your kids because what they say and do is not immediately obvious or even following what they say.

Its the publishers and IP owners mostly.  Lucas Arts used to be a good company that made good games.  They now lease out their IP and crush any soul or creativity the games they are associated with might have.

Mostly they are now run by douchebag monkies in suits who want simple formulae for making money.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29rgHMKeBYk

none

Originally posted by MercAngel

sorry but the info is eather old or fake as there is nothing on the forums right not about this and also some of the stuff they say got fix was not broke in the last beta

 

1st one pets can no long be swaped out to instantly come back to live

noe clue wat this means but if i was down as a ranger i had no option to swap my pet also if i swaped out a downed pet the cool down to swap again takes longer then it does to revie the pet.

 

2nd ranger profession skill 2 not works

i played as a ranger in the BEW and the stress test i tried all the weapons a ranger can use and all the skills worked

They are talking about how swapping a pet rezzes the pet.  Not you.  Trying to rez pets was pretty pointless due to this.