We have detected that cookies are not enabled on your browser. Please enable cookies to ensure the proper experience.
Page 9 of 29 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 225 of 721
  1. #201
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    In the Ninky Nonk
    Posts
    4,398
    I quite enjoyed going up in a helicopter and seeing the skyline of New York when I visited. Same when I flew to North East Finland a couple of years ago and saw the Northern Lights. Someone should have told me those experiences counted for nothing because I did not grow wings and fly myself

    edit - spelling....
    Last edited by BangoTwinkletoes; Nov 11 2013 at 05:01 PM.
    <A sig goes here>

  2. #202
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,501
    Quote Originally Posted by kidnova78 View Post
    How does the existence of a helicopter or an elevator impact your exhilaration from having accomplished the climb? Using your logic, you should in fact get even more satisfaction because the easier option was offered to you and you chose the more difficult path.
    I think you'd find that most people who have ever scaled Everest probably would have felt different about the experience if there were an escalator to the top.

    Not everyone is willing to put blinders on and play mind games with themselves to convince themselves to keep doing things the hard way when there are easier ways constantly being made available. Instead, I think a lot of people feel that what was once a challenge has been cheapened and no longer find it worth doing. Yes, you can pretend that it hasn't been cheapened by telling yourself that you'll just not avail yourself of the easier paths. And within this game, I'm still constantly doing that. But guess what. . . it's freakin' annoying. And I don't play the game to be annoyed.

    I like to play games where everyone earns what they get. Most people used to feel that way. That's not telling other people how to play the game. That's just saying that people should play the game in order to earn the game's rewards. It's amazing to me that people twist basic concept so much that they are then able to somehow construe it as an attack on their choice or even rights(!). But up until recently, stating that people should play the game to earn things in the game was the absolute, sand-poundingly obvious norm. And letting real world money influence what people have in a game was considered anathema. That is, until it became really profitable to compromise on those principles, and the various rationalizations (which don't hold up but are accepted by those unmotivated to look at them critically) began to take hold. . .

    To say nothing of the fact that the "it doesn't affect me" where Store offerings are concerned is obviously false on its face. The existence of the Store enters into the calculus for every design decision now being made at Turbine.

    • Do you think Scrolls of Empowerment are exactly as readily available as they would have been were they not sold in the Store? (this question works for just about every in-game item that is also sold in the Store)
    • Do you think Virtue cap --having been left at 10 for three years before the Store-- would have been increased three times within a year and at every major update since if they didn't sell Virtues in the store?
    • Do you think the planned second phase of the Legendary Item Revamp that was announced with great fanfare (and cheering) would have been abruptly canceled if they hadn't monetized every aspect of the existing LI system?

    I could go on (those are but a few). As those are just principles and obvious conflicts of interest (between what fun/compelling game design calls for and what maximizing traffic to the Store calls for) that are present in pretty much every decision Turbine makes under this business model. Which is why I find the new business model such a shame even though it was both inevitable and necessary from a financial point of view.

    The problem though is that people are so desperate to continue playing this game (because they love it, or are just addicted to it) that they lie to themselves, and convince themselves that the Store has no affect on them if they ignore it. But it does, it indisputably does. But because they're so motivated to believe the rationalizations, we'll only get more abuses of even the self-imposed lines Turbine once said they would not cross. So we just hear over and over again the same obviously incorrect platitudes that "it doesn't affect me because I won't use it". . . and so on.

    One can only imagine how the existence of "insta-50s" might alter Turbine's calculus in unintended ways. One wonders, if it sells well, if they'll continue to revamp sub-50 regions. Etc. And those unforeseen influences will affect you whether you ever buy an insta-50 or not.

    Can anyone prove that, to pick something at random, Star-Lit Crystals would have been easier to earn if they weren't sold in the Store? No. Of course not. But the shame of the business model is that the conflict of interest and perverse incentives now obviously and necessarily exist even if Turbine resists them. So people actually cognizant of such things now play the game wondering: "Is this annoying me because good game design called for me to be annoyed/frustrated at this point, or because they just want me to go to the Store and buy my way around this?"

    --H
    Last edited by Hurin; Nov 11 2013 at 04:30 PM.

  3. #203
    Quote Originally Posted by Hurin View Post
    I think you'd find that most people who have ever scaled Everest probably would have felt different about the experience if there were an escalator to the top.

    Not everyone is willing to put blinders on and play mind games with themselves to convince themselves to keep doing things the hard way when there are easier ways constantly being made available. Instead, I think a lot of people feel that what was once a challenge has been cheapened and no longer find it worth doing. Yes, you can pretend that it hasn't been cheapened by telling yourself that you'll just not avail yourself of the easier paths. And within this game, I'm still constantly doing that. But guess what. . . it's freakin' annoying. And I don't play the game to be annoyed.

    I like to play games where everyone earns what they get. Most people used to feel that way. That's not telling other people how to play the game. That's just saying that people should play the game in order to earn the game's rewards. It's amazing to me that people twist basic concept so much that they are then able to somehow construe it as an attack on their choice or even rights(!). But up until recently, stating that people should play the game to earn things in the game was the absolute, sand-poundingly obvious norm. And letting real world money influence what people have in a game was considered anathema. That is, until it became really profitable to compromise on those principles, and the various rationalizations (which don't hold up but are accepted by those unmotivated to look at them critically) began to take hold. . .

    To say nothing of the fact that the "it doesn't affect me" where Store offerings are concerned is obviously false on its face. The existence of the Store enters into the calculus for every design decision now being made at Turbine.

    • Do you think Scrolls of Empowerment are exactly as readily available as they would have been were they not sold in the Store? (this question works for just about every in-game item that is also sold in the Store)
    • Do you think Virtue cap --having been left at 10 for three years before the Store-- would have been increased three times within a year and at every major update since if they didn't sell Virtues in the store?
    • Do you think the planned second phase of the Legendary Item Revamp that was announced with great fanfare (and cheering) would have been abruptly canceled if they hadn't monetized every aspect of the existing LI system?

    I could go on (those are but a few). As those are just principles and obvious conflicts of interest (between what fun/compelling game design calls for and what maximizing traffic to the Store calls for) that are present in pretty much every decision Turbine makes under this business model. Which is why I find the new business model such a shame even though it was both inevitable and necessary from a financial point of view.

    The problem though is that people are so desperate to continue playing this game (because they love it, or are just addicted to it) that they lie to themselves, and convince themselves that the Store has no affect on them if they ignore it. But it does, it indisputably does. But because they're so motivated to believe the rationalizations, we'll only get more abuses of even the self-imposed lines Turbine once said they would not cross. So we just hear over and over again the same obviously incorrect platitudes that "it doesn't affect me because I won't use it". . . and so on.

    One can only imagine how the existence of "insta-50s" might alter Turbine's calculus in unintended ways. One wonders, if it sells well, if they'll continue to revamp sub-50 regions. Etc. And those unforeseen influences will affect you whether you ever buy an insta-50 or not.

    Can anyone prove that, to pick something at random, Star-Lit Crystals would have been easier to earn if they weren't sold in the Store? No. Of course not. But the shame of the business model is that the conflict of interest and perverse incentives now obviously and necessarily exist even if Turbine resists them. So people actually cognizant of such things now play the game wondering: "Is this annoying me because good game design called for me to be annoyed/frustrated at this point, or because they just want me to go to the Store and buy my way around this?"

    --H
    Look, I agree that this business model carries with it a certain amount of conflict of interest for the devs. As a casual player who will never come close to having a maxed out LI most of the things you mention don't bother me, however I can see your point much more clearly in regards to those items. In regards to this very specific item I simply don't agree with your logic. I think Turbine has made it clear by the way it's priced that it is intended for a very small audience with more money than time. If they had put it into the store for 500 TP then I would share your concerns about low-level content, but tbh I don't expect a whole lot of development in those areas going forward regardless.
    [URL=http://s1270.photobucket.com/user/kidnova78/media/sig.jpg.html][IMG]http://i1270.photobucket.com/albums/jj609/kidnova78/sig.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

  4. #204
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,501
    Quote Originally Posted by kidnova78 View Post
    Look, I agree that this business model carries with it a certain amount of conflict of interest for the devs. As a casual player who will never come close to having a maxed out LI most of the things you mention don't bother me, however I can see your point much more clearly in regards to those items. In regards to this very specific item I simply don't agree with your logic. I think Turbine has made it clear by the way it's priced that it is intended for a very small audience with more money than time. If they had put it into the store for 500 TP then I would share your concerns about low-level content, but tbh I don't expect a whole lot of development in those areas going forward regardless.
    Fair enough.

    Let's just hope that there aren't other unforeseen and unfortunate side-effects from this latest violation of the "earn what you get" principle.

    It would be a shame if improvements to the beginning of the game (whether pace, content, or other) were eschewed because it would cut into the number of folks buying "insta-50s". . . but I think you're correct that at this point the price makes that unlikely to be a factor. That is, if the price on Bullroarer is representative of what it will cost on the live servers. If indeed, it ever does go live. But I'd suspect that the (unfortunate) reaction to it here is making it much more likely to go live.
    Last edited by Hurin; Nov 11 2013 at 04:52 PM. Reason: terrible grammar.

  5. #205
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,223
    Quote Originally Posted by Hurin View Post
    ........
    Maybe I should really pick up your Everest example. I'll tell you my assumptions about the way you climbed:
    You split it up over 6 years, had all former top levels in between, enjoined group content and played at every former top level, waited for the next expansion, played a little content here and there, maybe did an alt, returned to your main, did some group play, returned to solo........, maybe did some freep PvMP

    This path is closed now. There is no bunch of players sitting around at each of the former toplevels, happily waiting for other players to join them in doing the content there. You're expecting people to do the same run, but without basecamps. This is a long lonely road to 95.

    An MMO means that a lot of players play together without having to arrange it in one way or the other.
    Apart from the late rise in leveling the lower levels have been quite empty this spring and summer (I checked it because of all those easy leveling complaints) and will be empty for the next 6 months.
    This is single player from 0 to 95, requiring to buy all content (expansions) along the way until finally being able to enjoy the full multiplayer package that was promised at the beginning - after months of leveling (and yes I know there are 24/7/365 players with loads of TP that can do it faster).

    This is not diminishing the success of your long road to 85, simply because it is not the same road and can never again be. You can be proud of what you did, but this road is closed to others.

    The fellowship did not require others to go back to the shire to have the same achievement as Frodo and Sam did. They did not even require them to be brave and well-trained fighters. They just expected commitment to the cause, and everything else, including friendship and courage, evolved along the way - even for those that joined late.

  6. #206
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,501
    Quote Originally Posted by thinx View Post
    Maybe I should really pick up your Everest example. I'll tell you my assumptions about the way you climbed:
    You split it up over 6 years, had all former top levels in between, enjoined group content and played at every former top level, waited for the next expansion, played a little content here and there, maybe did an alt, returned to your main, did some group play, returned to solo........, maybe did some freep PvMP

    This path is closed now. There is no bunch of players sitting around at each of the former toplevels, happily waiting for other players to join them in doing the content there. You're expecting people to do the same run, but without basecamps. This is a long lonely road to 95.
    Haven't they already addressed this issue though (the "lonely road" to join our friends at end-game) by fundamentally altering end-game? Since even level 10 players can be "scaled" to the correct level for the new endgame content, and they've stopped (at least for now) creating old-fashioned raids, I'm not so sure that this additional mechanic is intended to address the issues you assume that it is.

    This is not diminishing the success of your long road to 85, simply because it is not the same road and can never again be. You can be proud of what you did, but this road is closed to others.
    I know many will want to think this is a distinction without a difference, but it's not so much about personal pride than it is pride in a game. More and more, as things like this come along, I'm feeling like a fool for playing. . . for this and other reasons only touched upon. Yet I still (for the most part) do enjoy it when I'm able to put those "blinders" on for brief spells.

    The fellowship did not require others to go back to the shire to have the same achievement as Frodo and Sam did. They did not even require them to be brave and well-trained fighters. They just expected commitment to the cause, and everything else, including friendship and courage, evolved along the way - even for those that joined late.
    While I don't find this last analogy particularly apt (I'll spare you why), I appreciate your thoughtful post. It has caused me to consider (though not quite reconsider) some aspects of my concerns about this.

    --H

  7. #207
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    872
    Sorry Hurin I can't agree with one of your central points here.

    People in RL and in games still do things for the challenge.
    People still run marathons, they could get a bus.
    People still walk the Pennines and Three Peaks here in the UK, easier to drive or get a train.
    People still walk the Chinese Wall end to end.
    There was a recent TV series concerning walking to the Pole Shackleton-style, you can fly there if you ask the right people.

    OK, I could pick loads more, they are not direct analogies but I think it shows that these folks don't feel their achievement is in any way cheapened by the fact there's an easier way, I reckon the reverse, these folks gained satisfaction at an achievement earned by not doing things the easy way.

  8. #208
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,501
    Quote Originally Posted by Damojo View Post
    Sorry Hurin I can't agree with one of your central points here.

    People in RL and in games still do things for the challenge.
    People still run marathons, they could get a bus.
    People still walk the Pennines and Three Peaks here in the UK, easier to drive or get a train.
    People still walk the Chinese Wall end to end.
    There was a recent TV series concerning walking to the Pole Shackleton-style, you can fly there if you ask the right people.

    OK, I could pick loads more, they are not direct analogies but I think it shows that these folks don't feel their achievement is in any way cheapened by the fact there's an easier way, I reckon the reverse, these folks gained satisfaction at an achievement earned by not doing things the easy way.
    These analogies don't quite address what I was saying. For example:

    People still run marathons, they could get a bus.
    You're comparing an everyday need (needing to get some place) to a sport/challenge/game (running a marathon). We're discussing differences/changes within a sport/challenge/game.

    So, the more apt analogy is: Would those who love to compete (mostly against themselves since we all know there's only a handful of people capable of winning the marathon) in a given marathon still want to do so after it becomes known that you can just give the marathon organizers $5 to skip to the 2/3 mark? Would people still want to compete in it after the organizers begin to accept $20 to allow segways? Sure, some people still would. . . probably using the same "It doesn't affect me if I don't do it" mentality exhibited here. But I would wager the vast majority of marathon runners would consider the marathon itself tainted by these concessions to those who want them to allow segways, or wholesale skipping of much of the run. And those people will either go find a marathon with more integrity, or, failing that, give up on marathons altogether.

    But I hope you can see where your analogy consisting of marathons vs riding the bus isn't apt. We're not talking about finding challenge in going to work every day. We're talking about integrity and finding/preserving that integrity/challenge in a game.

    Edit: To make it even more clear why your analogies are missing the mark: A marathon runner can resent it when a marathon begins allowing people to take the bus to the finish line while not actually resenting the fact that buses themselves exist.

    --H
    Last edited by Hurin; Nov 11 2013 at 06:24 PM.

  9. #209
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    491
    Quote Originally Posted by Hurin View Post
    But I would wager the vast majority of marathon runners would consider the marathon itself tainted by these concessions
    I would wager that the vast majority of marathon runners do it as a matter of personal challenge, and don't give a damn about what other people do. They're doing it for the sake of doing it. How long it takes them, if they can beat their previous time, ect... they're doing as a matter of personal challenge.

    So if someone ran only the last half of the marathon, most people wouldn't care, because they were never competing with anyone in the first place. Just like in a MMO we're not competing with the other people playing it.

    Now if you were one of the few people who had a honest chance of winning, and someone could pay $50 to jump in half way, but still be eligible to win... Then yes those people would have a reason to be upset. But that's where your analogy falls apart, because this isn't a race we can win.

  10. #210
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,501
    Quote Originally Posted by Solarfox View Post
    I would wager that the vast majority of marathon runners do it as a matter of personal challenge, and don't give a damn about what other people do. They're doing it for the sake of doing it. How long it takes them, if they can beat their previous time, ect... they're doing as a matter of personal challenge.

    So if someone ran only the last half of the marathon, most people wouldn't care, because they were never competing with anyone in the first place. Just like in a MMO we're not competing with the other people playing it.

    Now if you were one of the few people who had a honest chance of winning, and someone could pay $50 to jump in half way, but still be eligible to win... Then yes those people would have a reason to be upset. But that's where your analogy falls apart, because this isn't a race we can win.
    So, you honestly believe marathon runners would have no issue then with segways being allowed too then, I imagine. I have to imagine, because you only addressed one of the hypothetical violations of the marathon's integrity. Fair enough. I couldn't disagree more. And I think the analogy still works for those willing to be persuaded.

    One wonders then, if the "vast majority" of marathon runners wouldn't "give a damn", why they don't allow people to pay extra to skip ahead, or use segways, horses, or hovercraft in the marathon. It's almost as though people realize intuitively that it would undermine its integrity. Which is silly if nobody cares.

    --H

    P.S. Before someones point it out: They do allow people to run "half marathons". . . but they aren't, of course, considered eligible to enter their time for the full one.
    Last edited by Hurin; Nov 11 2013 at 06:40 PM.

  11. #211
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    872
    Quote Originally Posted by Hurin View Post
    These analogies don't quite address what I was saying. For example:



    You're comparing an everyday need (needing to get some place) to a sport/challenge/game (running a marathon). We're discussing differences/changes within a sport/challenge/game.

    So, the more apt analogy is: Would those who love to compete (mostly against themselves since we all know there's only a handful of people capable of winning the marathon) in a given marathon still want to do so after it becomes known that you can just give the marathon organizers $5 to skip to the 2/3 mark? Would people still want to compete in it after the organizers begin to accept $20 to allow segways? Sure, some people still would. . . probably using the same "It doesn't affect me if I don't do it" mentality exhibited here. But I would wager the vast majority of marathon runners would consider the marathon itself tainted by these concessions to those who want them to allow segways, or wholesale skipping of much of the run. And those people will either go find a marathon with more integrity, or, failing that, give up on marathons altogether.

    But I hope you can see where your analogy consisting of marathons vs riding the bus isn't apt. We're not talking about finding challenge in going to work every day. We're talking about integrity and finding/preserving that integrity/challenge in a game.

    Edit: To make it even more clear why your analogies are missing the mark: A marathon runner can resent it when a marathon begins allowing people to take the bus to the finish line while not actually resenting the fact that buses themselves exist.

    --H
    I did say they weren't direct analogies, but so be it. You feel that if people were allowed to pay a few bucks to start at the 18 mile mark people would feel their 26 miles were devalued, I disagree. As this will never happen, we'll never know. And I'm not going to argue the permanently nebulous.

    If those analogies didn't express my point, try this.

    A few years ago I did a charity drive from the UK to The Gambia in West Africa. Now, getting to the Gambia is easy, you just fly there. You could probably take a train 90% of the way. But the point is "getting to the Gambia" wasn't the point, otherwise I'd have flown, it would have been cheaper, faster and less uncomfortable. The point was the manner of the journey, not the destination.

    Most people I met there had flown. Some had driven partway, ditched their vehicles and taken the train. Some had spent big bucks on an off-road vehicle which had no trouble making the trip. None of these things mattered to us, we had taken our very tired Chevy day-van purchased for £99 all the way. Our achievement wasn't cheapened, it was amplified.

    I think of MMOs like high-board diving, not a track&field event. The point is not to hit the water, gravity does that. What matters is what the diver does between the board and the water. If someone wants to "compete" by paying to jump in off the side of the pool, so what?

  12. #212
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,501
    Quote Originally Posted by Damojo View Post
    As this will never happen, we'll never know.
    Why it will never happen is exactly the point.

    A few years ago I did a charity drive from the UK to The Gambia in West Africa. Now, getting to the Gambia is easy, you just fly there. You could probably take a train 90% of the way. But the point is "getting to the Gambia" wasn't the point, otherwise I'd have flown, it would have been cheaper, faster and less uncomfortable. The point was the manner of the journey, not the destination.

    Most people I met there had flown. Some had driven partway, ditched their vehicles and taken the train. Some had spent big bucks on an off-road vehicle which had no trouble making the trip. None of these things mattered to us, we had taken our very tired Chevy day-van purchased for £99 all the way. Our achievement wasn't cheapened, it was amplified.
    But, again, not analogous. Sports/games are not real life. And they're not charities. People go to great lengths to set up games with rules and restrictions on what we do within a given game. This is done to keep the "playing field level". . . to equalize things so that only what you do within that game's internally consistent ruleset affects the game. Though it sounds silly, designing a game is serious business. That's why doping is outlawed. That's why you can't use a helicopter and still say you scaled a mountain. That's why you can't just hand the umpire $20 and stroll to first base. That's why you can't cork your bat. That's why you can't use a segway in a marathon.

    You keep giving examples of people creating challenges for themselves by not taking the easy road in real life. But, games are not real life. That's why we (used to) play them. If I wanted to play in a world where everyone just does whatever they want and money makes all the difference, I wouldn't actually play games, because the real world is already like that.

    --H

  13. #213
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    unknown
    Posts
    1,475
    Why would anyone want to skip the best parts of the game?

    Helms Deep skirmishes?
    Boring warbands?
    Grinding Hytbold for weeks?

    If you're expecting a whole new world you wont find one I'm afraid (at least with this expansion you wont)

  14. #214
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,788
    I didn't read the whole thread, sorry if I'm just repeating things others have said


    Quote Originally Posted by kidnova78 View Post
    So you're saying that your sense of achievement is diminished because someone else wasn't required to go through the same content. I guess that's why I'm having such a hard time understanding this argument because I derive my enjoyment from MY experiences in game, not somebody else's. If I were to run a marathon my sense of accomplishment would be driven by MY achievement. If somebody else jumped in at the 25th mile point and beat me I would know that they cheated, but it wouldn't take away from what I had accomplished.
    (I bolded the part I'm replying to)

    It would take away from what I had accomplished if I didn't know that they had cheated though.


    If there is no way of telling the difference between someone who bought their levels, and someone who has worked very very hard to get there, then I'm not sure I like this item. Sorry, that's just how I feel.

    Suggestion: Lots of people like pretty things, so why not add a little star or something on the top left of the character portrait on everyone who hasn't bought their levels, or add it to those who has? That way you can show that you did the hard work, just like the way you can show the titles that you worked really hard for

    Actually, I'm on both sides when it comes to buying levels. I think for me, how I feel about this depends on who the buyer is. If it's a spoiled person who wants to be high leveled NOW!!! so people will look up to him/her, then I'm against it, but if the buyer has spent years doing the earlier content over and over and over again, who am I to demand that they do it again? Someone who hates playing games but is a huge fan of LotR and wants to experience Middle-earth might have an awesome time with their gamer friends if they can get a bit higher up so they won't get killed when they explore

    And someone who only likes endgame raids and such and to do them over and over again, but find it boring to do quests and read lots of story, shouldn't they get to play the part of the game that they find fun, and not the part they find boring? But on the other hand, isn't it those people who need to learn patience and that sometimes you have to work for things you really really want? Then again, should you have to work really really hard if you already spend all day working IRL and wants to spend an hour or two after dinner, doing something you enjoy the most? Hm... Complicated.

    I think I might be all for it if you could tell who has earned their levels the hard way
    ;) “There are hundreds of paths up the mountain, all leading to the same place, so it doesn’t matter which path you take. The only person wasting time is the one who runs around the mountain, telling everyone that his or her path is wrong.” ~ Hindu Proverb

  15. #215
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    The Prancing Pony, usually I'm drunk in a corner
    Posts
    3,359
    I actually started a lore-master and mini a few days back, and I've got them both around level 20... (Mini is 25, LM is 15). I have other things in life I need to focus on, so after taking it into deep consideration, I'm going to buy this for at least one of them(Probably the lore-master). At first, I was completely against this, now, I realize that 2 level 85s and a lvl 77(If you care to know, Cappy, RK, and Warden) were all helping me advance my learning on other classes. So, I'm going to go for it, and see how it turns out!
    Did everyone get a bugged signature? My BB code doesn't work anymore
    ____________________________

    Glorgnorbor, A Rock And A Hard Place, Stop by our Friday music shows! 4PM EST at the Bree West Gate on Dwarrowdelf!
    If a Malledhrim Soldier dies alone in the forest because of canceled quest, will it make a sound? ~Leixy

  16. #216
    It's kinda funny in a way, I've seen a few post in here from people who have said elsewhere progression is an E-sport. If that's true would this item be the E-sport equivalent of juicing?

  17. #217
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    872
    Quote Originally Posted by Hurin View Post

    You keep giving examples of people creating challenges for themselves by not taking the easy road in real life. But, games are not real life. That's why we (used to) play them. If I wanted to play in a world where everyone just does whatever they want and money makes all the difference, I wouldn't actually play games, because the real world is already like that.

    --H
    We're the same people, real life, game, sport, the players are real people. You can continue to dismiss the several examples (from various posters) of people gaining satisfaction from doing things the hard way, while others pay their way, as invalid, as if when it comes to online gaming this human trait ceases to exist, that's OK. But stonewalling doesn't make you right.

    No it doesn't bother me that some people may choose to buy level 50. It doesn't "cheapen" my "achievement" of getting to level 50 multiple times the old-fashioned way. Because, to me, this game isn't about scoring level 50, or 60, or level cap. It's about the journey to said level. Even if the game consisted solely of a race against the clock to level 50, I still wouldn't care. Because "winning" by buying level 50 would be an empty victory. And wouldn't reflect on those doing it level by level at all.

    Now, is "playing Lotro" a good enough analogy for playing Lotro?

  18. #218
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    64
    they finally admit there is no interest in people playing this game anymore, this game is dying

    and instead of granting everyone a free ride to the newest content, you have to pay to skip gameplay wich is so downing that
    the devs themself offer a way to avoid it ...

    its a downfall for every lotro developer and the end of this game

    make the game so bad and stupid that you actually can get paid by people to not be harassed with content anymore,

  19. #219
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,501
    Quote Originally Posted by Damojo View Post
    We're the same people, real life, game, sport, the players are real people. You can continue to dismiss the several examples (from various posters) of people gaining satisfaction from doing things the hard way, while others pay their way, as invalid, as if when it comes to online gaming this human trait ceases to exist, that's OK. But stonewalling doesn't make you right.
    It's not stonewalling. It's pointing out a fundamental aspect of what makes a game a game, or a sport, which your analogy wholly ignores (which is why it is inapt). Games, sports, even some hobbies, impose structures and rules on us to make it less like real life. What used to attract people to games is that it was a diversion from everyday life. And one of those attractions was that playing fields would be equal, everyone had to play by the same rules, and what you achieved within a game, you actually earned.

    A pauper could hope to do just as well in a game of tennis as the king. If he had the skill and talent. I could hope to beat Barry Bonds at chess. Or, since we always need to throw in one that isn't directly competitive. . . I can hope to beat my own time at the next marathon. That's what makes games special. Until recently, it was considered their sine qua non. Which is why this game was originally designed with a strict "you warn what you get" ethos even though it was never a game where we competed against each other directly. That is, it was designed that way until mounds of money made that decision no longer business-friendly.

    No it doesn't bother me that some people may choose to buy level 50. It doesn't "cheapen" my "achievement" of getting to level 50 multiple times the old-fashioned way. Because, to me, this game isn't about scoring level 50, or 60, or level cap. It's about the journey to said level. Even if the game consisted solely of a race against the clock to level 50, I still wouldn't care. Because "winning" by buying level 50 would be an empty victory. And wouldn't reflect on those doing it level by level at all.

    Now, is "playing Lotro" a good enough analogy for playing Lotro?
    We simply disagree. You're willing to put on those blinders the next time you level an alt (if you do) and I'm not. I have no interest in scaling an Everest that has an escalator to the top. To me, and to many others, that goal has become tainted. That arduous (yet at times thrilling) climb will only be more annoying now with the presence of the escalator, constantly beckoning. Edit: To say nothing of the helicopter circling at all times offering rides to the top for $50. And it rankles all the more because the mountaineering authority used to honor the sanctity of the summit and the journey to it. But now, they're just interested in selling it all out. Now that's an analogy!
    Last edited by Hurin; Nov 12 2013 at 11:50 AM.

  20. #220
    Quote Originally Posted by zagreb000 View Post
    Hehe... But the way they seem to be pricing this.. (imo completely unfair)...With the expansions in between.... The price to get to 75 or 85 would be around 20-30 thousand TP...
    Yeah, I guess so. Would be nice if Turbine helped returning to the game same way Blizzard is planning to do with their next expansion, ie. give you one free high level character. I bet we would see lot of returning people if purchase of HD came with the ability to create one lvl 85 character of your chosen class, but I guess that's too much to ask. :/

  21. #221
    Quote Originally Posted by Dying View Post
    they finally admit there is no interest in people playing this game anymore, this game is dying

    and instead of granting everyone a free ride to the newest content, you have to pay to skip gameplay wich is so downing that
    the devs themself offer a way to avoid it ...

    its a downfall for every lotro developer and the end of this game

    make the game so bad and stupid that you actually can get paid by people to not be harassed with content anymore,
    And we have another QQ account spotted

  22. #222
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Varda
    Posts
    302
    Quote Originally Posted by Dying View Post
    they finally admit there is no interest in people playing this game anymore, this game is dying

    and instead of granting everyone a free ride to the newest content, you have to pay to skip gameplay wich is so downing that
    the devs themself offer a way to avoid it ...

    its a downfall for every lotro developer and the end of this game

    make the game so bad and stupid that you actually can get paid by people to not be harassed with content anymore,

    Who admitted wat?

    Source?

  23. #223
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    579
    Quote Originally Posted by Jotra1 View Post
    Yeah, I guess so. Would be nice if Turbine helped returning to the game same way Blizzard is planning to do with their next expansion, ie. give you one free high level character. I bet we would see lot of returning people if purchase of HD came with the ability to create one lvl 85 character of your chosen class, but I guess that's too much to ask. :/
    We had this in WOW already. If you had a toon over level 58? you could start a death knight at level 55? While I tried the new class and hated it some enjoyed it. The only difference here is that in Lotro it is bought. Even as a sub for the last few years even I don't have the TP to buy it which means real money. Or I could grind out about endless deeds on many toons to accomplish it. At least in WOW all you needed was a toon above 58. But since we will never see any hero classes this model will not work.

    All that said I don't have a real problem with it. It is a simple money grab for new players. Get them to pay for level 50 and moria on day 1. A good way to boost sales figures. Anyone that thinks I'm wrong do the math. say 50$ for level 50 and what ever moria costs vs. 30$ for a 3 month sub to reach 50 with all the content and the cost of Moria. Even the current treasure hunt now has monetary stipulations tied to it to make the grind less. My problem now is that the game is made super grindy and that progression can now be bought to lessen that grind ala mithril coins and now via TP and real money. This leaves those who pay the 10$ a month still scratching their heads as to what is exactly the point of being a VIP, especially if you have several toons at cap. To me 500 TP and the right to use old content isn't cutting it. Since rested xp is now a shadow of it's former self it makes it even more pointless.

    I can't believe that I'm agreeing with some of the folks here defending it but I feel it doesn't really ruin the game. It was ruined long before this with the endless grinds lessened by Mithril Coins and TP. What else can they monetize? The Epic Battles kit traits? Characters trait trees? The LI system? Where does the slippery slope end?

  24. #224
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    491
    Quote Originally Posted by Hurin View Post
    And I think the analogy still works for those willing to be persuaded.
    It like most else you say only works if you're talking about a competitive venture. Which we're not, so it simply doesn't work. My sense of accomplishment is not dependent on how someone else reaches the same goal, unless we are competing against each other. But considering how you have crouched every post you make in terms of competition or moral and ethical superiority... Clearly you think that what others do effects your accomplishments some how. So that's on you, and frankly I don't care if you feel you've been cheated out of something or not.

    But as far as the game having integrity, have to wonder if you even really know what that term means.

    Because neither definition fits in this case, unless you truly believe this is a matter of ethics...

    In that case, well the game lost it's integrity a long time ago. Because the first time they made getting from 1st to 50th easier, then it was no longer the same thing as what someone else did, and so everything you are claiming has already happened. I've cheated my way to 50 because I didn't have to put as much effort into it as someone who started on day 1. So guess what, you already lost. The game has lost it's integrity long before it went F2P.

    No one is cheating, because the rules have changed. So by no reasonable definition of the word can you claim that people have cheated.

    But clearly the only proper way to play the game, is the way you have decided it should be played. So as long as the rules are decided by you, then yes this is a bad thing. But since you aren't the one who gets to decide the rules, then things like this are a matter of opinion, no matter how many flawed and pointless analogies you use.

    Then again, as long as you insist that everyone else agree to your opinion, there's simply no reason to even discuss this further. Not that there was a reason before, it's not like your disapproval actually means anything more then my approval does.
    Last edited by Solarfox; Nov 12 2013 at 01:55 PM.

  25. #225
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,501
    Quote Originally Posted by Solarfox View Post
    It like most else you say only works if you're talking about a competitive venture. Which we're not, so it simply doesn't work. My sense of accomplishment is not dependent on how someone else reaches the same goal, unless we are competing against each other. But considering how you have crouched every post you make in terms of competition or moral and ethical superiority... Clearly you think that what others do effects your accomplishments some how. So that's on you, and frankly I don't care if you feel you've been cheated out of something or not.
    I don't feel cheated. But if you change the game, you change the way I see the game. Despite others being willing to put on blinders and pretend the game isn't changed.

    As for your claims that my point of view somehow depends on "morals" and "ethics". . . they don't. As has been amply demonstrated.

    But as far as the game having integrity, have to wonder if you even really know what that term means.

    Because neither definition fits in this case, unless you truly believe this is a matter of ethics...

    In that case, well the game lost it's integrity a long time ago. Because the first time they made getting from 1st to 50th easier, then it was no longer the same thing as what someone else did, and so everything you are claiming has already happened. I've cheated my way to 50 because I didn't have to put as much effort into it as someone who started on day 1. So guess what, you already lost. The game has lost it's integrity long before it went F2P.
    This is essentially avoiding the point by asserting that there are no degrees in play. Only absolutes.

    No one is cheating, because the rules have changed. So by no reasonable definition of the word can you claim that people have cheated.
    I thought we had moved past this. As you are saying nothing new, I merely refer you back to prior posts addressing this argument.

    But clearly the only proper way to play the game, is the way you have decided it should be played.
    Got it. If someone says that you shouldn't be able to start using your hands in soccer merely because you handed the referee $50 to let you play the game "your way". . . it's not the money and your desire to make the game easier for you that undermining the integrity of that game of soccer. . . the problem is all those other people infringing on your right to play the game your way. I mean, how dare they want to continue to play "soccer" and not your idiosyncratic version of it! The cheek!

    And before you say "But that's a competitive sport". . . I'm sure your teammates, those not competing against you, would take issue with it as well.

    So as long as the rules are decided by you, then yes this is a bad thing. But since you aren't the one who gets to decide the rules, then things like this are a matter of opinion, no matter how many flawed and pointless analogies you use.
    You are of course right that I'm not the one who decides what is allowed in this game. That is Turbine. I wonder, though, since we agree this is all a matter of opinion (based, of course, on some indisputable facts that some insist on disputing nonetheless), why you seem to think that some opinions here are somehow verboten when in fact you'd expect Turbine to come to such decisions after considering all competing opinions.

    Then again, as long as you insist that everyone else agree to your opinion, there's simply no reason to even discuss this further.
    Forgive me, but I missed the part where I have declared: "Everyone must agree with me!" I merely state the conditions that are necessary for me to consider a game to have integrity. And what undermines that integrity both obviously and subtly.

    In a nutshell, I merely point out that a game has more integrity when those who play it earn what they obtain within that game world. Nothing more.

    Whether you play mind games with yourself to ignore that the game no longer requires you to earn what you obtain in the game is up to you. But the fact remains that a game has more integrity when you --and everyone else-- earns what they get. I'm sorry that such an obvious observation offends you. But it remains, nevertheless, true.

    Now, if you don't value the game's integrity to the point of not caring at all, then I don't doubt that you'll take issue even with that obvious truth. And, well. . . I can't help you there. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

    --H

 

 
Page 9 of 29 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 ... 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