We have detected that cookies are not enabled on your browser. Please enable cookies to ensure the proper experience.
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 56
  1. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by LadyDena View Post
    God help us when everything is blindly reduced to some numbers in the bottomline. This type of shortsightedness is why the game is in the state it is today.

    Ever heard of the Fermi National Laboratory? Particle physics, cost a gazillion to build and then to fund, doesn't provide the country with a single tax dollar, but creates the atmosphere of researching at the frontier of science and inspires new people to reach out to learn. So what's the point?

    In a congressional hearing about the lab's fundings a politician snarkily asked : "but does your particle accelerator contribute to the defense of the country?" To which, Robert Wilson, then the director of the Lab answered with : "No sir, but it makes the country worth defending."

    Having balanced classes doesn't directly make lotro a more profitable product, but it makes lotro worth playing.
    Having a decent housing system doesn't directly make lotro a more profitable product, but it makes lotro worth playing.
    Having festivals doesn't directly make lotro a more profitable product, but it makes lotro worth playing.
    Just like having decent raid contents, a functioning forum, balanced loot tables, easy ways to find groups, neato cosmetics, etc. etc.

    Some people would have us believe that it works the other way around, but the tail does not wag the dog. The question is and should always be : "What has Turbine done lately to keep us staying here?" instead of the opposite.
    Quoted for truth. Turbine/WB seems to be letting their bean counters whittle away at the very soul of the game in a mad pursuit for profit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kerin_Eldar View Post
    I would agree, the problem comes when raiders demand exclusivity to content and argue they're indispensable to the game and should be treated better than everyone else.
    Oh, stop it. No one has been making demands like that.

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    CA, Frisco
    Posts
    832
    Quote Originally Posted by Tinuvela View Post
    From raider, to soloer, from the role player to strictly crafter, from grinder, to explorer from casual player to the exclusive LOTRO player every single person who brings venue, variety and fun to the game is important to the game's survival. Putting one preference up against another would only bring disputes and disagreements. We, different playstyles, co-exist in this game and co-exist we must because the minute one claims one group is more important to the game than the other, we begin losing our respect for our fellow players and think our demands are more important than the rest.

    Thats why I believe every player is important to this game.
    Before this erupts to soloer/raider fanatic debate. If players agree that there is exclusivity on every playstyle then there is a line not to be breach. If players KNOW that there is a variety of playstyles out there then yeah. For example, if i was a raider and i wanted a crafted item. I should not ask the devs to add crafted item drops on raid mobs I kill. Because it beats the purpose of being a crafter. It is just simple logic. We co-exist this way, they (crafters) supply goods and services we (raiders) raid. There is no stopping one playstyle to adapt raiding or to crafting. Others should stop expecting every playstyle to gets the same rewards. Real-life economics does not work that way, same should apply in a virtual world unless of course you live in a communist country.

    I think Turbine gave soloers/grinders the ability to get gold items same as raiders. Just some of the raiders just don't like the face roll content they delivered. That is all, it is not because we despise other playstyle. The primary complaint was it is pretty much a short-lived, easy-to-beat instances that makes raiders like myself asking what's next.

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    921
    Quote Originally Posted by Whatevaplz View Post
    Before this erupts to soloer/raider fanatic debate. If players agree that there is exclusivity on every playstyle then there is a line not to be breach. If players KNOW that there is a variety of playstyles out there then yeah. For example, if i was a raider and i wanted a crafted item. I should not ask the devs to add crafted item drops on raid mobs I kill. Because it beats the purpose of being a crafter. It is just simple logic. We co-exist this way, they (crafters) supply goods and services we (raiders) raid. There is no stopping one playstyle to adapt raiding or to crafting. Others should stop expecting every playstyle to gets the same rewards. Real-life economics does not work that way, same should apply in a virtual world unless of course you live in a communist country.

    I think Turbine gave soloers/grinders the ability to get gold items same as raiders. Just some of the raiders just don't like the face roll content they delivered. That is all, it is not because we despise other playstyle. The primary complaint was it is pretty much a short-lived, easy-to-beat instances that makes raiders like myself asking what's next.
    I don't expect everyone to get the same rewards, i expect everyone to reach the same power level, no matter the playstyle.

    And it seems alot of raiders have a problem with that idea, if you look at the discussions that erupted after the First agers were put on the skirmish camp, or that the normal Erebor armour does not have better stats (or not better enough starts in the case of the t2 set) than the hytbold one.
    The hytbold and ererbor sets would have had to be available at the same time for it to make sense but that's a different story.

    That there should be great content for all playstyles i can fully agree with though.
    Last edited by Thorwyn99; May 03 2013 at 06:02 AM. Reason: Assumptions taken out.

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    England
    Posts
    855
    Quote Originally Posted by Dordain View Post
    Oh, stop it. No one has been making demands like that.
    Actually, some people have been. Its part of what makes the whole 'rivalry' so amusing - Frothing maniacs on both sides.

  5. #30
    In my experience with raiding, it's more the opposite.

    Raiders basically only stick with other raiders. Even within a guild, usually there will be a clique that always raids together. I've actually been in several guilds that broke up over it, because you had some people excluded and got upset and went to form other guilds. Or they felt the rest of the guild wasn't good enough in raids.

    The dedicated raider also scorns pick up groups. They'll group with them if they have no choice, but usually they always complain if you aren't perfect.

    Beyond that, the habit of raiders always pushing their characters to be tougher and tougher, either through better (raid only) gear, or through optimizing characters, raises the bar for everyone in the game. Because even PvE starts to get designed to be more in baseline with those raiders than the average person in quest gear.


    Honestly, I think MMORPGs would be better served if games only catered to one style of gaming. PvE only, PvP only, Raiding only. A 3 legged table is a very fine balancing act, usually it's lopsided in one direction, and the directions it's not leaning in are always going to be dissatisfied.

  6. #31
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    336
    Quote Originally Posted by Thorwyn99 View Post
    I don't expect everyone to get the same rewards, i expect everyone to reach the same power level, no matter the playstyle.

    And it seems alot of raiders have a problem with that idea, if you look at the discussions that erupted after the First agers were put on the skirmish camp, or that the normal Erebor armour does not have better stats (or not better enough starts in the case of the t2 set) than the hytbold one.
    The hytbold and ererbor sets would have had to be available at the same time for it to make sense but that's a different story.

    That there should be great content for all playstyles i can fully agree with though.
    In a game that's designed properly, all play styles do not equal the same power level. Solo content has easier monsters to beat (at least by stat sheets) than raid content. Why do they need top of the line gear? Why do RPers need to be decked out in full gold and teal items? Why do crafters need full epics? It's not that raiders need to feel special for being the only ones with gear, its just that other play styles don't have a need for the gear so why waste development and design time giving everyone the same gear?
    Valondon - Level 100 Hunter
    Adlegar - Level 90-something Burglar
    Ilodid - Level Something Champion
    ---
    I hunt on Arkenstone

  7. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by LadyDena View Post
    Ever heard of the Fermi National Laboratory? Particle physics, cost a gazillion to build and then to fund, doesn't provide the country with a single tax dollar, but creates the atmosphere of researching at the frontier of science and inspires new people to reach out to learn.
    Very true. However, how long do you think the FNL would be in existance if it was a private for-profit company?

    Most for-profit businesses do not have the luxury of being as pure and noble as the FNL.

    Having balanced classes doesn't directly make lotro a more profitable product, but it makes lotro worth playing.
    Having a decent housing system doesn't directly make lotro a more profitable product, but it makes lotro worth playing.
    Having festivals doesn't directly make lotro a more profitable product, but it makes lotro worth playing.
    Just like having decent raid contents, a functioning forum, balanced loot tables, easy ways to find groups, neato cosmetics, etc. etc.
    If LOTRO is worth playing but is not a profitable product, LOTRO will cease to exist.

    Unless of course you have a rich uncle who is willing to bankroll the whole operation. In which case, get him on the phone ASAP.

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    CA, Frisco
    Posts
    832
    Quote Originally Posted by Thorwyn99 View Post
    I don't expect everyone to get the same rewards, i expect everyone to reach the same power level, no matter the playstyle.

    And it seems alot of raiders have a problem with that idea, if you look at the discussions that erupted after the First agers were put on the skirmish camp, or that the normal Erebor armour does not have better stats (or not better enough starts in the case of the t2 set) than the hytbold one.
    The hytbold and ererbor sets would have had to be available at the same time for it to make sense but that's a different story.

    That there should be great content for all playstyles i can fully agree with though.
    The way I interpreted it is that playstyle seems to be a paradox, an excuse or a boundary of some sort to fulfill granted what you desire without the effort to fill them. So you want everyone to get the same power level, same set of gear; no matter the playstyle. What makes them unique then? If all venues granted was given the same output then there are no distinction between them. They can gaze the sunrise to sunset then log off everyone knows a lot of players enjoy the graphics in game. Sightseeing is a playstyle by itself it should grant the same rewards output as any other playstyle. Granted no one stopping a raider or soloer to run around the map and go sightseeing... that don't stop them as well for taking resources from crafters a long the way. Nor soloers or crafters to join raid groups or pvmp groups.

    The way I look at it there are no real boundaries for players, they either do a certain task to get the rewards they need or don't do them. Look at it this way when Hytbold instances was release there were no raids and most raiders had to "enjoy" a solo content because they CHOSE to. Some waited and those that waited for the instances never reap the rewards of riddermark tokens, reputation gated rings and missed out of some horselords recipes. The same idea applies to soloers who don't raid as well. Isn't that simple? Same idea for those crafters, if you don't cook you don't get bacon. Everyone loves bacon.

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    248
    Quote Originally Posted by Nymphonic View Post
    From what I've read, it seems to me that pretty much every agrees that raiders do play an important role.

    I think a lot of the issue is the extremist raiders and solo'ers going at each other's throats here in the forums.
    I agree, but while a lot of people do recognise this, I've seen a lot of people just looking purely at the financial side and ignoring other things. That's the main reason why I made the post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ailedra View Post
    Ok, let's assume this is a true statement.

    If this truly is Turbine's primary profit stream, as a business, why shouldn't this segment of the game be their development focus?

    Take it a step further: say every raider quit the game tomorrow. While we may undoubtedly find the game a poorer place for it, if the primary profit stream keeps producing, why should Turbine care?
    I'm not really saying that Turbine should do anything particularly, or not do anything. If all the raiders left and the game basically became single player, I don't think Turbine would lose that much money. I just think its quite sad that an MMO is going that way. In my opinion, the point in playing an MMO is for the interaction with other players. Whether that is through groups content, PvP, questing, or through the in-game economy. Slowly but surely, the need for interaction with other players is being reduced. Turbine may still be making plenty of money but I think its sad.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fearless.one View Post
    Well I really can't agree with the OP here one bit. I have been here 1.5 years and have many alts and play in 8 world and to date I never done a raid. I have spent well over 500$ on the game in my time here.

    No I don't think the Raiders are more or less important then anyone one else. It seems every group want to take credit for doing more for the game. Really I think it the whole community of players that makes or break this game.

    The real player is the LOTRO designers that have the most influence on this game and whether the community as a whole is happy and spending there money and so far there not doing there job or you would not see posts like this one.

    Right now this game needs more of everyone that plays and spends money or not, it don't matter it just needs more players as a whole and all types.

    right now the lack of a player base in all types of players is down and worlds are getting empty everywhere. I think u can find unhappy players in every play style.

    Much of what LOTRO has been doing over the last year is tearing the game apart. That is way everyone is throwing blame around or boosting that they think there play style is most needed for the game.

    Truth the only Play style that is really need is New folks that sign up and stay playing and Older players to stop leaving in droves. Free to play, VIP and Premium Players that come here and stay to fill out every Play style.

    SO I don't think it anyone style needed but the one LOTRO plays and they need to do something to boost the moral of the whole game community.

    All I see now days here in the forum is one unhappy player after another mad about one thing are another. I have to include myself here as I just spent 2 days here in the forum blowing up about stuff in the game that made me leave for 3 months too.

    But when I got my post done I stated looking thru the forum here and seen one post after another the sounded like doom and gloom or just being mad about something.

    That is the problem.

    Every one needs to starting to happy with the game again and the only plays that can make that happen is LOTRO. Not the raiders the alt-aholics or the VIPs or the Free to plays
    I understand what you mean. I wasn't trying to say that one set of players is entirely more important that any others. That doesn't make sense anyway as there is so much overlap. That was kind of the point of my post. The people who raid are also heavily involved in the other aspects of the game. As I said above, I think what makes an MMO an MMO is the interaction with other players. In my experience, it was the raiding group of players who played a bigger role in this interaction, not just while raiding, but in all aspects.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dunford View Post
    Absolutely raiders are an important segment of the LotRO community. As are roleplayers, solo players, small fellowship players and PvMP players. As others have pointed out, the question is not if they are important to the health of the game, but to what extent, and is content being provided commensurate with their contributions?

    And therein lies the difficulty. Raiders from my observation tend to go through content faster than any other segment of the population. Solo players tend to be comfortable taking their own pace through the game. Roleplayers can spend hours interacting without going through game content at all. Raiders however, are inclined to hurry through landscape and solo quest content so they can get high enough in level to run the end game raids and replay said content in order to gain the items they want. Thus they end up getting bored faster than most of the other players. Which means they want/need additional content before other segments of the population. Which then skews the 'balance' of development time commensurate with their contribution to the game. All this is generalization of course and just based on my own perception, but it seems to me to be at the core of the issue.
    I agree here. On my server it was always the raiding players who got to the level cap faster, completed new quests, instances, crafting, etc. faster. To be honest, its probably largely because they play more often. There's never any way for developers to create content faster than players can complete it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lestache View Post
    Almost every thread I see that discusses combat mechanics and how to optimize DPS/healing/tanking rotations, the primary contributors are raiders. Heck, the person that wrote Combat Analysis is a raider (or was - I don't think he really plays anymore).

    This isn't to say that people who don't raid aren't interested in such things, nor even that they can't make valuable contributions to such threads - I'm just saying that the main contributors that I see are, by and large, raiders.

    If the raiding population does disappear, the community may very well lose many of the best sources of knowledge in the game, and I can see that being one of those intangibles, the loss of which would make the game poorer.

    (PvMPers seem to be a good source of combat knowledge as well, and they're the other group that is feeling neglected and may start to disappear from the game as well.)

    All that said, if raiders do leave the game because they're not getting the content they want, and it leads to (or is caused by) raiding content not being developed at all, the loss of such an intangible may not even be noticed, because for most non-raid content in the game all one really needs to know is how to turn on auto-attack, and perhaps hit a random skill every now and again for fun.
    Yeah that's another thing I had forgotten about. I used to edit stuff on lotro-wiki as well. There was only a few people who regularly updated it/added new content, and several of them were "raiders".

    Quote Originally Posted by LadyDena View Post
    God help us when everything is blindly reduced to some numbers in the bottomline. This type of shortsightedness is why the game is in the state it is today.

    Ever heard of the Fermi National Laboratory? Particle physics, cost a gazillion to build and then to fund, doesn't provide the country with a single tax dollar, but creates the atmosphere of researching at the frontier of science and inspires new people to reach out to learn. So what's the point?

    In a congressional hearing about the lab's fundings a politician snarkily asked : "but does your particle accelerator contribute to the defense of the country?" To which, Robert Wilson, then the director of the Lab answered with : "No sir, but it makes the country worth defending."

    Having balanced classes doesn't directly make lotro a more profitable product, but it makes lotro worth playing.
    Having a decent housing system doesn't directly make lotro a more profitable product, but it makes lotro worth playing.
    Having festivals doesn't directly make lotro a more profitable product, but it makes lotro worth playing.
    Just like having decent raid contents, a functioning forum, balanced loot tables, easy ways to find groups, neato cosmetics, etc. etc.

    Some people would have us believe that it works the other way around, but the tail does not wag the dog. The question is and should always be : "What has Turbine done lately to keep us staying here?" instead of the opposite.
    Yeah that's sort of the main point of my post. While some sections of the playerbase may not bring in the most money directly, it doesn't mean they are not important in other ways.

    Quote Originally Posted by trancejeremy View Post
    In my experience with raiding, it's more the opposite.

    Raiders basically only stick with other raiders. Even within a guild, usually there will be a clique that always raids together. I've actually been in several guilds that broke up over it, because you had some people excluded and got upset and went to form other guilds. Or they felt the rest of the guild wasn't good enough in raids.

    The dedicated raider also scorns pick up groups. They'll group with them if they have no choice, but usually they always complain if you aren't perfect.

    Beyond that, the habit of raiders always pushing their characters to be tougher and tougher, either through better (raid only) gear, or through optimizing characters, raises the bar for everyone in the game. Because even PvE starts to get designed to be more in baseline with those raiders than the average person in quest gear.


    Honestly, I think MMORPGs would be better served if games only catered to one style of gaming. PvE only, PvP only, Raiding only. A 3 legged table is a very fine balancing act, usually it's lopsided in one direction, and the directions it's not leaning in are always going to be dissatisfied.
    In my experience, most "raiders" weren't like that, but that was just my experience on my server. Its always going to be hard to balance the game evenly for all playstyles, but the risk seems to be ignoring some playstyles completely because they don't bring in as much money.
    .
    Amphoras 65 Champion - Pupils of the Istari - Vaderr 65 Minstrel

  10. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by BrittainTheCommie View Post
    These Raiders are the ones that call into question the game development, mechanics, challenge, and landscape difficult.

    With these Raiders slowly trickling out of the game, there is less contention from the player base and less of an acknowledgment of Turbine's game decisions.
    I can't agree with that at all...a look through these forums will give you a pretty even mix of concerns from both groups.

    And your second statement is...very naive. There's no more homogeneity of opinion among the self-identified "non-raiders" than there is among any other group of people.

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    590
    Quote Originally Posted by Ailedra View Post
    So, it's your belief that a company should provide a better product (this is assuming that all customers could agree what a "better" product is....I'm here to tell you, there's no way any consumer community, much less a gaming community, could ever reach that consensus), rather than a more profitable product?

    Everybody's very quick to cite a business ethic of "make a higher quality product"....but many people forget that the reason that's a business ethic to begin with is that it leads to higher profits in a competetive market. There's a break-point where quality becomes unprofitable...too much money being spent to chase too discerning a consumer....and the company (if it's smart) re-defines "quality" as "good enough to keep the doors open and stay ahead of the competition".

    As an example: no car manufacturer is going to invest the money to produce a car that lasts an average person's lifetime. That'd undoubtedly be a superior-quality product to any other car on the market, but the cost required to achieve that quality doesn't justify the profits that would be realized. As a result, we all buy new cars every so often.


    We used to have cars that were high quality and lasted your lifetime. Then some beancounter stepped in and said you could get absolutely greedy rich if you just used lower quality stuff and the cars would break down and die more often. And now we have these high expensive can't take a bump without being totaled pos's that we drive today. And my point is we let them get away with lowering the quality for "profits sake" when they just stuffed money into their pockets. it wasn't right so don't let everyone get away with lowering quality to make MORE PROFITS. Profit are ok if you are putting out quality, but when you aren't do you really think they should profit?

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Brandywine
    Posts
    1,757
    Raiders and casuals are both important. I can see both sides of the fence here, because I've been both. Prior to having kids, I was a raider. Maybe not as hardcore as some, but I raided several nights per week and always had, arguably, the best gear in game - usually on several characters. I would clock 40 hrs/wk easily playing this game (with a full-time job to boot!). The way I had fun in game was by grouping and working on difficult content through seamless cooperation. Easy content and/or soloing all the time was NOT fun for me. I enjoyed leading "training runs" through the Moria 6-mans for people new to level cap or new to grouping.

    Fast forward to our first child and I hardly have more than 8 hours of play time for the whole week. So now that I'm very casual, I appreciate that I can just hit the auction hall for a nice piece of gear or an empowerment scroll or something that a nice raider put the time in to get and post. Also as a casual, I can make hope tokens, scrolls, and food to sell to the raiders.

    I think it would be devastating to the game and community to lose the raiders.
    [CENTER][SIZE=1]MINSTREL and member of the vocal minority[/SIZE][/CENTER]

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    3,713
    As a soloer *and* a raider, I agree.

    In my capacity as a solo player, I am making the game better for myself.

    When I'm grouping, I'm making the experience enjoyable for 2, 5, 11, 23 other players.

    Of course, it's possible to have a positive effect on multiple people through merely being social (RP, active in kin chat) but any activity that fosters community is going to help people feel more at home in-game. There's no way I'd still be playing LOTRO 6 years later if I hadn't found friends. And given my introverted nature (which I'm guessing is a pretty common trait among gamers), if I hadn't been encouraged to group, I most likely never would have.

    That said, if people running this game as if it were single player are spending enough money on quest packs and festival quest resets, I wish Turbine would just stop making multiplayer instances altogether. It's like they give people just enough of a tease to think that they still care about group content.


    [edit: it can't be a coincidence that the only time the forum logs me out is when I spend more than 2 minutes typing a post--I enjoy thwarting their silencing technique with Ctrl-C]
    [color=red]Work like no one is watching, dance like you don't need the money...[/color]

  14. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by LadyDena View Post
    God help us when everything is blindly reduced to some numbers in the bottomline. This type of shortsightedness is why the game is in the state it is today.

    Ever heard of the Fermi National Laboratory? Particle physics, cost a gazillion to build and then to fund, doesn't provide the country with a single tax dollar, but creates the atmosphere of researching at the frontier of science and inspires new people to reach out to learn. So what's the point?

    In a congressional hearing about the lab's fundings a politician snarkily asked : "but does your particle accelerator contribute to the defense of the country?" To which, Robert Wilson, then the director of the Lab answered with : "No sir, but it makes the country worth defending."
    Can we agree that there's a vast difference between a government-funded research project and a for-profit company responsible to its shareholders and clients?

    Everybody wants a "quality product"...that is, a product that they themselves want, enjoy, and meets their personal quality standards. Whether that product is still worth the company producing it is another question.

    Here's an example. I work for a hosted solutions (software) company. The quality of our products is generally measured in availability: how often are our solutions up and available for our clients? We usually deliver (depending on the specific solution) between a 99.5% and 99.9% availability. More is always nice, but anybody who works in the industry can tell you that stuff happens; there's no such thing as truly 100% availability.

    Now, there are several ways we could improve the quality of our products, to strive for "more nines" (increase to a regular 99.99%, or 99.999%) in availability. We could quadruple the number of testers we employ, so that we can test a more comprehensive regression and UAT suite with each release within roughly the same timeframe. We could invest in a backup (heck, even a tertiary) mainframe, to be just sitting there, waiting for the first or second to fall down and go boom.

    We've looked at those options, and more, actually. We know what those options would cost. Those costs are, quite simply, prohibitive: we would have to pull resources (read: lay off a bunch of people) from other areas (causing those areas to fall below critical quality levels), provide fewer overall options and products, raise our prices to a point where we no longer provide value to our clients, or just plain give our shareholders the finger as we bleed money into bankruptcy.

    So, we're leaving potential quality improvements on the table, and instead focusing on quality that's good enough to maintain profitability. Are we "short-sightedly overfocused on the bottom line", or behaving like a responsible company?

    Now, by focusing on raiding as opposed to non-raiding revenue streams, is Turbine still producing quality that's good enough to maintain profitability? That's certainly arguable; many in this thread would probably say "no", and if that's the case, well, we'll soon find out. Turbine/WB sure seems to think they're on the right track, and I'll say again, it's nearly certain that they've had people do that research already.

    It's very easy to say, as an ideal, that a "better quality product" is always desirable. Eventually, though,that ideal has to intersect reality...and when it does, it's no longer so easy to make everything so starkly black-and-white and say "you can't just focus on the bottom line"...that bottom line is what keeps people employed and keeps valuable goods on the market.
    Last edited by Ailedra; May 03 2013 at 11:48 AM.

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,496
    Quote Originally Posted by trancejeremy View Post
    In my experience with raiding, it's more the opposite.

    Raiders basically only stick with other raiders. Even within a guild, usually there will be a clique that always raids together. I've actually been in several guilds that broke up over it, because you had some people excluded and got upset and went to form other guilds. Or they felt the rest of the guild wasn't good enough in raids.

    The dedicated raider also scorns pick up groups. They'll group with them if they have no choice, but usually they always complain if you aren't perfect.

    Beyond that, the habit of raiders always pushing their characters to be tougher and tougher, either through better (raid only) gear, or through optimizing characters, raises the bar for everyone in the game. Because even PvE starts to get designed to be more in baseline with those raiders than the average person in quest gear.


    Honestly, I think MMORPGs would be better served if games only catered to one style of gaming. PvE only, PvP only, Raiding only. A 3 legged table is a very fine balancing act, usually it's lopsided in one direction, and the directions it's not leaning in are always going to be dissatisfied.
    Old, tired stereotypes.

    There are as many personalities and preferences among raiders as there are among soloers. Some are casual, some hardcore, some prefer to stick to an established group of friends, others love to teach new raiders or to meet a variety of people. Some people like the social aspect, others the competitive aspect. Not everyone pugs out of desperation; for some it's a personal preference. There are some who view raid loot as a status symbol that sets them apart from other players, there are some who make stats a second job and are always reaching for the 'perfect' build, and others who just want the stats they believe will allow them to contribute to their group in the best way possible.

    I used to raid frequently, not so much now because the new ones are boring. But I enjoy a wide variety of what this game has to offer and I think all play styles make a valuable contribution to the LOTRO community.

    But inevitably there are those on any side of an issue who will come in with their 'universal truths' about a certain style that boil down to nothing more than mass generalization based on a few bad apples (which exist in any group of people no matter what the activity).

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,456
    Quote Originally Posted by trancejeremy View Post
    A 3 legged table is a very fine balancing act, usually it's lopsided in one direction, and the directions it's not leaning in are always going to be dissatisfied.
    On the other hand, a three legged table will always be stable. It will not tip back and forth requiring fixes to the "shortest leg".

    But I can see your point. It requires a lot of extra work to keep all three play-styles balanced.
    [I]A small cog in a big machine.
    [/I]
    Life has no "Undo" button, only "I'm sorry". Thinking before doing is a good thing.

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    7,583
    Quote Originally Posted by trancejeremy View Post
    The dedicated raider also scorns pick up groups. They'll group with them if they have no choice, but usually they always complain if you aren't perfect.
    Please don't assume that all dedicated raiders are as you describe them. I go out of my way to join PUG groups, as well as lead my own group giving preferential slots to new people (by asking others to sit out) so they can LEARN.

    Quote Originally Posted by trancejeremy View Post
    ... Because even PvE starts to get designed to be more in baseline with those raiders than the average person in quest gear.
    I'll point out that solo PvE is designed around a very low-common denominator baseline. Just because raid-quality gear can trivialize the landscape, does not mean that turbine is pushing the solo content difficulty bar up. Hytbold has given many more players access to end-game quality gear, and thats a good thing!

    For example, this thread talks about how low-the baseline bar seems to be at times.

    http://forums.lotro.com/showthread.p...R-was-balanced
    Crell-L85-Champion - Riddermark ; Swego-L85-Burglar ; Kotvi-L95-Runekeeper
    Delego-L85 Hunter ; Stodden-L51-Captain ; Edhul-L61-Loremaster
    Deglorion - SoA XP Disabler

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    476
    Quote Originally Posted by Amphoras View Post
    So in conclusion, while "raiders" may not provide Turbine with the most money, they do play an important role in what makes the game an MMO rather than just a single player game.
    I totally agree with that.
    The stake being that if the game is not a MMO, you do not have anymore excuses to demand a monthly subscription or the purchase or regular updates.

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Washington DC
    Posts
    1,252
    I'd love to see Turbine create a "foundry" where you could play developer within Turbine's constraints and create some content...I'm looking at Cryptic's Star Trek Online and now Neverwinter and how they use this system to augment their inhouse development.
    Landy, Brandy, & Riddermark [URL="http://forums.lotro.com/showthread.php?412044-Riddermarks-cast-of-characters&highlight="]Riddermark's finest[/URL] and [URL="http://forums.lotro.com/showthread.php?416597-Riddermark-Satire&highlight="]Riddermark satire [/URL]

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Ailedra View Post
    Can we agree that there's a vast difference between a government-funded research project and a for-profit company responsible to its shareholders and clients?
    Clearly the point was missed. The government is responsible to its citizens the same way a for-profit company is responsible to its shareholders. IE. shortsightedness while simply looking at the numbers in the bottomline is a sure way to ruins.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ailedra View Post
    it's nearly certain that they've had people do that research already.
    They probably do, just like there was likely people doing the exact same stuff in SWG and numerous other games that went belly up. Just because there exist people researching that stuff, it doesn't mean they will be right, or wise, or good for the community AS WELL AS turbine.

    People who are more concerned with making excuses for Turbine would support them cutting and trimming and trying to provide the least product and services while getting the most in return, (something that ironically the devs hate when *players* do the same with their instances.)

    It does make one wonder whether some people have the best interest of the player community at heart.

    Oh and there is always that white elephant not far in the distance : Turbine would cease to exist without its players. On the other hand, the lifes of the players will continue on just fine if Turbine cease to exist. Computer games are numerous, MMOs and F2P MMOs are a dime a dozen nowadays. So can Turbine afford to play the game of "how little services we can provide while still being profitable?"

    Raiders are an important part of the player community and we would all be lessened if the hard core groups are no longer around.
    Last edited by LadyDena; May 03 2013 at 06:29 PM.

  21. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by LadyDena View Post
    Clearly the point was missed. The government is responsible to its citizens the same way a for-profit company is responsible to its shareholders.
    Excuse me, but you just uttered patent nonsense, and this is a ridiculous statement. Clearly, you don't understand how for-profit companies truly work in the real world.

    Those companies can't simply raise their prices (taxes) and require their consumers pay those new prices by force of law. Those companies can't jail their citizens (customers) for failing to buy. Those companies can't simply vote to increase their deficit to continue their operations, with no realistic hope of paying it back. Governments aren't constrained to show profits, or risk losing their shareholders (taxpayers) to a competitor. When those shareholders (or clients) do choose to move to a competitor, they don't require a majority of their peers to agree with the decision, nor do they need to wait 4 years (depending on the government) to do it...they can simply decide, and do it. For-profit companies don't maintain armed forces (some with weapons of mass destruction) to enforce their will. Companies can't rally their customers to force of arms (indeed, legally require their customers to register for a potential call-to-arms) to defend the company the way a nation-state can.

    Governments are monopolies. There's quite simply no realistic comparison. You cannot compare government policy to corporate policy, not outside of an idealist college classroom....doing so is rank naivety.



    You've yet to answer my question, I notice, in your selective quotation. I painted a real-world, private-sector picture of a quality management decision, and asked whether you thought we were being responsible. No response?
    Last edited by Ailedra; May 03 2013 at 11:00 PM.

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,947
    Quote Originally Posted by BrittainTheCommie View Post
    These Raiders are the ones that call into question the game development, mechanics, challenge, and landscape difficult.

    With these Raiders slowly trickling out of the game, there is less contention from the player base and less of an acknowledgment of Turbine's game decisions.
    Disagree. There have been players of all types involved in beta-testing since prior to SoA launch. I can't speak to which group Turbine pays more attention to, but there have been gameplay issues spotted by solo and RP players which I would never have found while beta-testing; my focus has primarily been on group content and the viability of the Guardian class within that content.

    I've also seen solo players challenge the difficulty of landscape quests and mob challenge, just like I've seen raiders attempt to circumvent all challenge in raids by learning strats during beta testing.

    I mean, sure, I've submitted bugs for NPC issues, land seams, or resource nodes floating in the air, but those hardly require a raider to find.
    solien
    armor-plated since SoA alpha 3
    arkenstone: hall of fire & into the west

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Washington DC
    Posts
    1,252
    Quote Originally Posted by Amphoras View Post
    Before I start, this is purely my opinion, based on my experience in the game.

    I've noticed several threads about different player groups, who brings Turbine the money, whether a raid is coming with Helps Deep, Kickstarter projects to raise money, etc.

    Based on my experience in the game, I believe that "raiders" as a group tend to have more effect on the community, and making the game an MMO instead of just a solo game than other many groups. In my experience, it was people who raided that were usually the leaders and officers of the main kins on the server. Even in lots of the smaller ones it was the same. It was these people who would get groups together for smaller instances. It was these people who would give advice in the global channels. In PvMP, these people would lead the groups on both freep and creep side. A lot of the items on the AH that involved lots of farming (items or crafting materials) would be sold by these people. These people had generally been playing for a long time. Overall on my server, it was "raiders" who formed the backbone of the community.

    The length of time these people had been playing for is one of the reasons I think that Turbine doesn’t see raids as cost effective any more. A lot of these people are lifetimers, a large amount of the rest are VIP. I believe that this is not Turbine’s main profit stream. Since free to play, a lot more people have started playing the game. Due to the free nature of the game, a lot of these people don’t play very often, or for short periods of time. Lots of them are also more inclined to buy short term boosts from the store, and other store content. These people are Turbine’s main source of income. They want content that they can complete on their own, and in the short periods of time they can play for. They are also willing to pay to make their time easier.

    So in conclusion, while "raiders" may not provide Turbine with the most money, they do play an important role in what makes the game an MMO rather than just a single player game.
    Ok, you said it's just your opinion but you just made so many blanket statements about a given population, I don't know what exactly is your point. At some point it's almost like saying breathing is important to life, therefore breathing is more important that eating. First, try defining what you mean by "raiding". I don't understand why you are segregating and placing "raiders" apart from all the other population trends found in gaming patterns. I don't think you mean ill will but your message isn't coming across quite as clear as you might think, at least to me. Turbine has lots of stakeholders, "raiders" are just one of many in the game. While Turbine may make a game that appeals to the widest range of audiences (stakeholders), it doesn't guarantee each of those stakeholders will get the same degree of satisfaction. So in conclusion, if you make blanket statements about a gaming population, back up these claims with more than anecdotal evidence.
    Landy, Brandy, & Riddermark [URL="http://forums.lotro.com/showthread.php?412044-Riddermarks-cast-of-characters&highlight="]Riddermark's finest[/URL] and [URL="http://forums.lotro.com/showthread.php?416597-Riddermark-Satire&highlight="]Riddermark satire [/URL]

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Ailedra View Post
    Excuse me, but you just uttered patent nonsense, and this is a ridiculous statement. Clearly, you don't understand how for-profit companies truly work in the real world.
    Clearly you still don't understand the point I was trying to make. The government can't exist without the support of its people, just like Turbine can't exist without its customers. Nonsense? Look up Hosni Mubarak or Muammar al-Gaddafi or Louis XVI or any of your 'real world' historical figures. Yep, Turbine needs its customers far more than its customers need it.

    Governments are monopolies
    Such a blanket statement is simply not true. If the goverment is a monopoly, there would be no FedEx to compete with its postal services. Just like many other forms of public utilities, telecommunications and railroads etc. You are wrong, it is accurate to instead say SOME governments are coercive monopolies, but in recent decades there have seen a strong privatization throughout the industrialized world. If you want to talk 'real world' you should first get your facts right.

  25. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by LadyDena View Post
    Clearly you still don't understand the point I was trying to make. The government can't exist without the support of its people, just like Turbine can't exist without its customers. Nonsense? Look up Hosni Mubarak or Muammar al-Gaddafi or Louis XVI or any of your 'real world' historical figures. Yep, Turbine needs its customers far more than its customers need it.
    If you're going to seriously compare armed, popular revolt with a consumer buying decision...well, you're right, there's simply no arguing with a comparison that outrageous. I suppose I "don't understand your point". Right now, many sections of my government exist without my willing support. Before you stuff a strawman in my mouth, I understand that's how popular governments have to work....but it's not how private business work.

    Try this on (I know you hate actually answering any questions posed to you, given the number you've dodged already...still waiting on your response to my real-world scenario, but I'm going to try anyway):

    Today, right now, unilaterally and entirely on my own, I can choose to no longer be a paying customer of Turbine's. I can ensure, with a minimum of actual effort, and with no impact on my family, employment, freedom, or personal safety, that Turbine will no longer receive a dime of my money, directly impacting their revenue.

    Please tell me what kind of parallel options I have with regard to the United States government.


    That said, I do agree that Turbine needs its customers far more than they need Turbine....if you thought about that statement, that would support them making the kind of bottom-line-focused decision you said was a mistake.

    Hell, I'll go a step further...Turbine, in fact, needs its customers so badly that they have to to make decisions that have the heaviest impact on their bottom line, regardless of what individual players may feel fits their definition of "quality". Their need is so great that the choice between 50 completely satisfied paying customers, and 150 somewhat-dissatisfied (but still paying) customers is clear.

    Again, this presupposes that they've done the research that shows their actions will result in that larger number of variably-dissatisfied continuing to pay. If they haven't, or if their research is wrong, they'll go under. I get how that may not jive with your idealistic interpretation of product quality....I'm not in love with the concept from an intellectual/emotional perspective either, but it's a real possibility.

    Quote Originally Posted by LadyDena View Post
    Such a blanket statement is simply not true. If the goverment is a monopoly, there would be no FedEx to compete with its postal services. Just like many other forms of public utilities, telecommunications and railroads etc. You are wrong, it is accurate to instead say SOME governments are coercive monopolies, but in recent decades there have seen a strong privatization throughout the industrialized world. If you want to talk 'real world' you should first get your facts right.
    You're discussing ancillary services provided by the government...that's not what I said when I made the statement you quoted out-of-context. I was talking about the government itself, with regard to the tax revenue generated from their citizens/customers.

    Again....regardless of who I vote for, whether that person wins, whether whoever does win makes decisions I agree with or not, I am a guaranteed source of revenue for my government. I am not a guaranteed source of revenue for Turbine.

    Your comparison to the Fermi lab discussion is interesting, but irrelevant. Governments simply don't have to make the same kind of consumer retention decisions that private businesses do. Anybody who disagreed with that speaker's statements regarding the Fermi lab was still required to give that government their business.

    Maybe you should reconsider your own view of the facts before snidely suggesting anybody else get theirs straight.
    Last edited by Ailedra; May 08 2013 at 08:29 PM.

 

 
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

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