|
Im categoricaly against full respec as it would majorly influence gameplay and world.
Im categoricaly for loot OPTIONS cause it wont influence anything and anybody except the ninja looters.
|
Posted byyastrux#7010on Jan 31, 2013, 5:12:36 PM
|
|
I love this game. I love this forums. Let us all be civil to one another and not turn this forums into the d3 forums. \0/
|
Posted byLogixs#2584on Jan 31, 2013, 5:13:29 PM
|
"
war4peace wrote:
"
Moist wrote:
A simplistic approach which may (or may not) prove disastrous for the game's future. Generally, speaking, this "fuck off" approach never worked in the long term, in any development I've seen, be it a game, an application, a hardware product, etc. It all depends on what game creators expect or have targeted down the roadmap. It's either:
- deny most requested changes and risk keeping the community small
OR
- implement most requested changes and grow, risking to fork away the game from their own vision.
I have played a game which had about 1000 players, out of which 100 or so were online usually. The game was great but had a few horrible downfalls which basically prevented the community from growing. After I pointed out quite a few of those issues, I was basically called a crybaby. Fair enough, I simply stopped playing (after investing a mere 20 bucks) and moved on. Last I heard, there were about 650 players left. Thing is, the (5 or so) developers who built the game said they had enough income to stay true to their vision, it was a conscious choice.
From how I see it, the veteran community pushes back on change requests because they have invested in the game as-is and feel "betrayed", as in "why should newbies have it easier than how I had it"?
"
Ne0mega wrote:
FFA - Free For All. The first to grab the loot wins internet. ;)
Still I have no opinion because I play solo. When I would decide to join a group, I will carefully choose my team mates to prevent loot issues from happening. But thanks for explaining :)
The risk here isn't keeping the community small, the risk is watering down the game for mass consumption and pleasing no one. GGG have stated repeatedly that the game is designed for the hardcore ARPG fan, and that they will resist watering it down just to make it more accessible.
A smaller, long term, dedicated and invested playerbase would not be a bad outcome for this game at all. Even better would be if the game is a smash hit without ever having compromised its vision to get there.
I'm confident that GGG will not sacrifice the integrity of the design choices simply to make the game easier to play for casuals. And will be successful for having done (or not done) that.
"Wait, what did I just drink?" - Socrates
|
Posted bymrmath#1493on Jan 31, 2013, 5:16:37 PM
|
"
yastrux wrote:
Im categoricaly against full respec as it would majorly influence gameplay and world.
Im categoricaly for loot OPTIONS cause it wont influence anything and anybody except the ninja looters.
"ninja" looting is and hopefully always will be a part of this game.
"Wait, what did I just drink?" - Socrates
|
Posted bymrmath#1493on Jan 31, 2013, 5:17:59 PM
|
"
mrmath wrote:
"
yastrux wrote:
Im categoricaly against full respec as it would majorly influence gameplay and world.
Im categoricaly for loot OPTIONS cause it wont influence anything and anybody except the ninja looters.
"ninja" looting is and hopefully always will be a part of this game.
i got no problem with that. problem i got is when you want to ninja loot us who dont want to ninja loot.
if there were options, you ninjas go on one way and i and other likeminded will go other way.
you want to deny me that posibility ? why ?
|
Posted byyastrux#7010on Jan 31, 2013, 5:24:14 PM
|
"
yastrux wrote:
"
mrmath wrote:
"
yastrux wrote:
Im categoricaly against full respec as it would majorly influence gameplay and world.
Im categoricaly for loot OPTIONS cause it wont influence anything and anybody except the ninja looters.
"ninja" looting is and hopefully always will be a part of this game.
i got no problem with that. problem i got is when you want to ninja loot us who dont want to ninja loot.
if there were options, you ninjas go on one way and i and other likeminded will go other way.
you want to deny me that posibility ? why ?
Because then the fracturing of the playerbase is legitimized and then the requests for further innocuous seeming tweaks with huge ramifications come pouring in.
"Wait, what did I just drink?" - Socrates
|
Posted bymrmath#1493on Jan 31, 2013, 5:37:25 PM
|
"
mrmath wrote:
Because then the fracturing of the playerbase is legitimized and then the requests for further innocuous seeming tweaks with huge ramifications come pouring in.
So you want the game to remains just as it is in this moment, without any tweaks whatsoever ? Because there could be huge ramifications otherwise. And fracturing the player base because some like to play with 10 s timers and some without any timer in an allready majorly instanced game is not a big deal to me.
Id also like for an creator of the group option to cap how many players can join him. Would that also be a problem ?
|
Posted byyastrux#7010on Jan 31, 2013, 5:44:03 PM
|
"
you want to deny me that posibility ? why ?
Because its the rules of the game? The game is denying you that right. Not everyone is going to like the game. I dont like Hockey. Im Canadian... GASP! I find other things to do, like POE. :D
GGG - Why you no?
|
Posted byJoannaDark#6252on Jan 31, 2013, 5:45:40 PM
|
"
yastrux wrote:
"
mrmath wrote:
Because then the fracturing of the playerbase is legitimized and then the requests for further innocuous seeming tweaks with huge ramifications come pouring in.
So you want the game to remains just as it is in this moment, without any tweaks whatsoever ? Because there could be huge ramifications otherwise. And fracturing the player base because some like to play with 10 s timers and some without any timer in an allready majorly instanced game is not a big deal to me.
Id also like for an creator of the group option to cap how many players can join him. Would that also be a problem ?
I don't understand what is stopping you from making your own party, dictating rules, and enforcing them.
Having an option to restrict the number of people in the party doesn't alter the loot system, or the gameplay in any appreciable way, and might be a nice option to see in the future. Having timer options does significantly alter the gameplay.
"Wait, what did I just drink?" - Socrates
|
Posted bymrmath#1493on Jan 31, 2013, 5:48:51 PM
|
|
I've been around a bit, and these days I'm more tolerant of the silly people out there who seem to be barely able to string a sentence together. Whilst not restricted to, F2P model does attract the 'teenage boy' kind of character. GGG have made an awesome game, and I am sure that there will end up being an awesome community within it. I can only hope the 'elders' of the CB will help create vibrant clans to help bring that to fruition.
|
Posted byOzymandiias#4787on Jan 31, 2013, 6:00:51 PM
|
