We have detected that cookies are not enabled on your browser. Please enable cookies to ensure the proper experience.
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7
Results 151 to 167 of 167
  1. #151
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,875
    It's been suggested countless times earlier, but I think the solution is to make solo-armor with different set bonuses specifically geared towards soloing and raid armor give smaller/no solo bonuses and instead give bonuses that helps your fellowship/raid.

    Generic bonuses:
    Solo: Healskill X heals 30% more on yourself
    Fellow/Raid: Healskill X heals 15% more on any allied target.

    Solo: +15% melee/ranged/tactical damage to skill X.
    Follow/Raid: skill X gives target +5% incoming damage.

    Those examples are rather simple of course, but I would guess the logic can be applied to most cases.

  2. #152
    I don't know about other servers but every raid leader I know would rather take a great player with a 2nd ager than a &&&&&& player with a 1st ager. Golds mean NOTHING if you're a &&&&&& player. Any raid leader knows this and will pick accordingly. If you're good at what you do people will know you and not care what gear you have just as long as you get the job done. Perhaps getting 1st agers are too easy to get but I've run over 50 BFE and have got nothing more than a recipe that I've failed 4 times to crit.

  3. #153
    Quote Originally Posted by Kerin_Eldar View Post
    Agreed.

    So we'll make it so raid gear has 0 stats outside of a raid, because, hey, it's not NEEDED for landscape or other non-raid content so raiders can get along fine with the gear for the rest of us.

    You'll surely agree to that seeing as how you said the 'best' gear isn't actually needed in this part of the game.

    No, I'm sure you won't.
    I think a more fair viewpoint would be to say grouping gear and solo gear, rather than specifically singling out raid gear. I'd be fine with all my stuff being devalued outside of group instances to where it was of roughly equal potency to gear available through solo means (grinding out multiple sets of armour seems a little over the top, to me). I suspect most other 'raiders' share a similar opinion in that they could care less how their character performs on landscape, beyond in completing forced grinds (hytbold tokens, riddermark tokens, limlight barter, etc, etc). contrary to what 'soloers' think, since they only see them when they are on landscape, raiders and group content people get their gear for group content. Even with massive influx of thousands of 1st agers on some servers, who has seen a single 1st age bridle? Who has seen someone unlock the deed for the new armour-set or win a sweet piece of jewelry and say 'awesome, now i'll be able to finish my crafting instances faster.'

    Just because you spend all your time on the landscape, where everyone is forced to be to get things done, doesn't mean that is everyone's priority.
    [center][img]http://i58.tinypic.com/2wrm5ja_th.jpg[/img][/center]
    [center]Let our actions speak for themselves. Jinjaah has been pouring over every post in the Bullroarer forum. Please keep in mind that any experiences with previous LOTRO teams are not reflective of the current team, give us a chance[/center]

  4. #154
    FWIW, looks like the recent change should be a positive sign for the OP and others with similar complaints. Personally, I am glad they changed it.

    While the change might not be as timely as hoped for and, of course, it would have been better to do it this way from the start, it is much better than doing nothing. Because, at the very least, it gives some hope that Turbine is aware of and agrees with the many players who have complained about this situation.

    Although late, this change should still:

    -improve the relative value of 1st agers closer to what we've come to expect
    -improve the incentive to run T2 raids (and we can all still earn 1st agers through T1 with the seal barter option)

    Probably not as big of an improvement as desired by most of those who have complained, but it is something.

  5. #155
    Quote Originally Posted by RKL View Post
    So, we now have a new proposal. Giving top flight armor and jewelry for solo skirmishes. That would help and might entice my Turbine Points to start being spent again. How do the rest of you feel about this proposal?
    I've seen games do something like this. You know all the people who are whiny and unwilling to really work a group together since they just want their raid to grind faster? A lot of them would just solo stuff on their own and would not be interested in grouping. I think one of the advantages of making the best stuff only accessible through serious grouping is that it leads people who want to develop their character to join groups. If people aren't joining groups, not much interaction, might as well play a solo console game. In my opinion soloable stuff like Hytbold is pretty awesome, and it's nice that it's not the best, so you go to look for groups and develop your play style further.

  6. #156
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Vandervahn View Post
    every developer time put into expanding solo routes will be missing at the fellowship end. So it will cripple one thing while not delivering well on the other either.
    in that case they just need to put the programmers responsible for maintaining/improving this beta forum into developing the less supported features of the game since those guys have obviously not been doing anything for...years.
    The only thing worse than a company making bad decisions, is the apologists who cheer it on.

  7. #157
    The game faults on me enough as it is; I dont think I could cope with additional automatic logouts in Middle Earth :P

  8. #158
    FA's were one of the carrots at the end of the stick that kept us all chasing it.
    When you remove all the carrots, we all stop chasing it.
    For something to be fun there must be a number of elements:

    - Learning curve
    - Risk
    - Reward for Risk
    - Option of increased difficulty

    When you decrease the rewards for difficult content to appease those who can't, or don't wish to, participate in the risk, you eliminate a Fun factor from the game.

    This "we should all just be equal" philosophy is extremely flawed. There must be allowed competition, even in a game, seeing as its a game you cannot necessarily "win".

    Lets try this. Let's do an Olympics where everyone gets a gold metal as long as they try hard enough.

    Tell me how a system like that will be successful. Please?
    [highlight][color=black][size=2][B](•_•) Out numbered? Out gunned?
    ( •_•)>⌐■-■
    (⌐■_■) Challenge Accepted[/B][/size][/color][/highlight]

  9. #159
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,129
    Quote Originally Posted by Exion_Blade View Post
    FA's were one of the carrots at the end of the stick that kept us all chasing it.
    When you remove all the carrots, we all stop chasing it.
    For something to be fun there must be a number of elements:

    - Learning curve
    - Risk
    - Reward for Risk
    - Option of increased difficulty

    When you decrease the rewards for difficult content to appease those who can't, or don't wish to, participate in the risk, you eliminate a Fun factor from the game.

    This "we should all just be equal" philosophy is extremely flawed. There must be allowed competition, even in a game, seeing as its a game you cannot necessarily "win".

    Lets try this. Let's do an Olympics where everyone gets a gold metal as long as they try hard enough.

    Tell me how a system like that will be successful. Please?
    Thanks for putting your conditioning capitlistic views they teached you at school here, but its flawed:

    A game is fun, not because it has risk but because a game provides ENTRETAINMENT, in most games players are equals and are treated as equals as long as rules apply.

    The "fun factor" you speak of is depending in many things not just risk, but also accomplishment, teamwork, etc.

    We all should be equal is NOT flawed, and its consistent with human nature, even though there are people that are better than others in something as a society you HAVE to think as equals when making rules, distributing profit, food, etretainment, etc.

    and for the stup... guy that said merit is part of the "capitalist mentaility" you couldn't be more wrong, communism is based on needs and merit, while capitalism is based on extreme individualism and consumism.

  10. #160
    Quote Originally Posted by Al. View Post
    Thanks for putting your conditioning capitlistic views they teached you at school here, but its flawed:

    A game is fun, not because it has risk but because a game provides ENTRETAINMENT, in most games players are equals and are treated as equals as long as rules apply.

    The "fun factor" you speak of is depending in many things not just risk, but also accomplishment, teamwork, etc.

    We all should be equal is NOT flawed, and its consistent with human nature, even though there are people that are better than others in something as a society you HAVE to think as equals when making rules, distributing profit, food, etretainment, etc.

    and for the stup... guy that said merit is part of the "capitalist mentaility" you couldn't be more wrong, communism is based on needs and merit, while capitalism is based on extreme individualism and consumism.
    There are people who like to compete against others. That is their fun. Be it in a team or individually. That too is human nature.
    When you take out the spirit of competition, you take out the fun factor for a large group of people. Granted it's not "everyone", but its a significant portion of customers whom will likely look elsewhere for their competitive "fix".

    Spoiler: it's already happened.


    Where you think capitalism and communism fit into this i cannot even tell... o_O
    [highlight][color=black][size=2][B](•_•) Out numbered? Out gunned?
    ( •_•)>⌐■-■
    (⌐■_■) Challenge Accepted[/B][/size][/color][/highlight]

  11. #161
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,129
    Quote Originally Posted by Exion_Blade View Post
    There are people who like to compete against others. That is their fun. Be it in a team or individually. That too is human nature.
    When you take out the spirit of competition, you take out the fun factor for a large group of people. Granted it's not "everyone", but its a significant portion of customers whom will likely look elsewhere for their competitive "fix".

    Spoiler: it's already happened.


    Where you think capitalism and communism fit into this i cannot even tell... o_O
    Ok you bring now competition, which is like you said human nature, but not necesarily has to involve risk factor, people like to compete true but they also like to do it with a good chance of winning, depending on their effort, skill and luck and free of harm

    Its good it happened because it shows how Lotro will keep been online for many years because:
    • Everyone can get what they want if they spend (time and effort)
    • Everyone is treated on the basic rules of competition
    • Everyone is mostly equal
    I made communism quote for another player don't worry

  12. #162
    Quote Originally Posted by Al. View Post
    Thanks for putting your conditioning capitlistic views they teached you at school here, but its flawed:

    A game is fun, not because it has risk but because a game provides ENTRETAINMENT, in most games players are equals and are treated as equals as long as rules apply.

    The "fun factor" you speak of is depending in many things not just risk, but also accomplishment, teamwork, etc.

    We all should be equal is NOT flawed, and its consistent with human nature, even though there are people that are better than others in something as a society you HAVE to think as equals when making rules, distributing profit, food, etretainment, etc.

    and for the stup... guy that said merit is part of the "capitalist mentaility" you couldn't be more wrong, communism is based on needs and merit, while capitalism is based on extreme individualism and consumism.
    Those are the points we will never agree about.. this is more or less personal opinion and cannot be solved like a technical problem. Communism and capitalism might take it a bit too far.. and as we all know none of those systems is perfect.. the right mixture is important.. just like raiders and casuals have to accept eachother. :P
    [b][color=orange]Nuviell - MINI 85[/color][/b] //momentan in Rift unterwegs, Shard: Brutmutter
    [b][color=orange]Faenyl - LM 85 || Cay - WRD 85 || Laori - RKP 85 || Soyra - Burg 75[/color][/b]

  13. #163
    Quote Originally Posted by Al. View Post
    Everyone is mostly equal
    When we start, yes. That i wouldn't mind. But to force us to be equal regardless of the effort we put in? No thank you.

    I wont do the job of a CEO just to get minimum wage pay.
    [highlight][color=black][size=2][B](•_•) Out numbered? Out gunned?
    ( •_•)>⌐■-■
    (⌐■_■) Challenge Accepted[/B][/size][/color][/highlight]

  14. #164
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,129
    Did you read what I posted fully?

    your effort and time has a better chance of getting you what you want, but there are different ways of getting it. Also you want to be a greedy CEO sure but it won't happen in the game.

    To faenyl:
    I don't understand raider mentality either but I know we have a mixed solution already and its in-game, casuals will always be more than raiders just like mechanics will be more than greedy CEO's.
    Last edited by Al.; Apr 10 2013 at 11:11 PM.

  15. #165
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,587
    Quote Originally Posted by Pluck View Post
    Im not sure how the game would fare if it alienated the raiding base.
    Given in all MMOs that I know of and certainly those I play, raiders are a small minority, the game would be just fine if they all left: in fact, in some ways it would be better off.

  16. #166
    Forcing equality was one of the things gw2 did.. and it's one of the reasons why a lot of people stopped playing it again after the first hype.
    [b][color=orange]Nuviell - MINI 85[/color][/b] //momentan in Rift unterwegs, Shard: Brutmutter
    [b][color=orange]Faenyl - LM 85 || Cay - WRD 85 || Laori - RKP 85 || Soyra - Burg 75[/color][/b]

  17. #167
    So it seems the only real problem with giving everyone this universal means of getting First Ages is that they might "finish" their character too soon and then leave as they have nothing else to do.

    Speaking for myself, that would never happen. There's plenty else to do in the game to keep me coming back.
    Like the Moors for instance. Or my ongoing quest to get the Moria metadeed goat, and finish the epic books. Or even just getting some Virtues up.

    But then, getting First Ages has never been a big deal to me. Most of the time when I get a first age symbol, I just sell it and stick with my second age. The difference is just so minimal.
    [charsig=http://lotrosigs.level3.turbine.com/0320200000046ddaa/01008/signature.png]undefined[/charsig]

 

 
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.

Reload