Could Any Game Be As EPIC As Old FFXI..

I have an opinion, and I've voiced it many times vs. an argument similar to Onorgul's. I didn't really get anywhere because people find enjoyment in different things, and nothing I say would influence it otherwise. I was able to accept that though, I had no intention of insulting their differences.

@Squishytaru

/sigh

I refer you back, again, to one of the first things Onorgul said.

"The game was atrocious but we tolerated it because of whatever reason."

Where, exactly, is "I think this, correct me if I'm wrong" remotely implied?

There was never an instance pre-abyssea that I thought the game was atrocious.

So, no Squishy. You shut up.

If nothing else, all this bickering back and forth is like watching multiple LSs argue in between Fafhogg windows.
It's like this topic rejuvenated 2004 era FFXI

"You hardcore whackjobs who think that accomplishing nothing for 40 hours a week is fun"

Key word here is whackjobs. Since this word was used in place of, say. players, it's clear he has some degree animosity towards this populace. The game, at this time, revolved mostly around hardcore content, which he clearly dislikes, deriving from unpleasant experiences I'd wager. In turn, anyone who would enjoy said content, he would frown upon, to some degree or another. This is all a quick deduction made by analyzing the entirety of his posts, but he can feel free to correct me.

I would think though, based on that, that he does think me atrocious.

Not really. Atrocious as an adjective applied to a human being implies a gross violation of basic human mores, like murdering a bunch of children. I just think you're tedious. And avoidant. And hypocritical.

And now you have an actual reason to be annoyed: I have insulted you directly. When I comment on a large group in general, being insulted as strongly as you have is a sign of over-identification. And narcissism.

But it isn't about the insults I have made or implied, anyhow. You disagree with my opinion but are incapable of expressing a coherent objection. As such, you have opted to instead attack me (the very definition of argumentum ad hominem). And you've attacked me on the basis that I'm insulting by insulting me. Which is why you're a hypocrite.

Just tell me why I'm wrong. If the worst you can say about me is that I'm unpleasant, I've got news: I really don't care. I'm far more concerned with achieving consensus of ideas than pandering to bruisable egos.

No mention of Hitler yet I"m disappointed.

yawn

stop replying, I got bored about a page ago

I did mention child murder. Is that near enough for Godwin?

You know what, I'm just going to bow down on this and watch the hilarity ensue.

You gotta look past their rationalization first to see where it's really coming from. Nobody, absolutely nobody, wants something that they feel is unobtainable. Having something that you think everybody can get is only slightly worse then wanting something that you'll never get.

Between those two is a place that is, by definition, very small. That is the place those people exist in. Everything they want is within reachable due to the time / resources available to them but out of reach of many others due to the lack of time / resources available to them.

Take the original relics as a prime example. To get a relic required an immense amount of time and access to a lot of people that you could use. For most players a relic was simply unobtainable with available time / resources. But for those few that HAD the time / resources, they absolutely loved that the could get a powerful item to show off and feel proud about.

That creates a big problem though, you have a set of content that only a marginal few can possibly obtain / use yet you have the servers and development staff's time being paid for by the majority players who can not participate in having that content. It means that having a life, job, social circle and being unwilling to pump hours upon hours into the game became a penalty and a obstruction to content participation. Kings and other such events where the same situation, only a select few get to participate in the content while most are locked out. Abyssea was about removing those restraints and providing an avenue to obtain gear / equipment at whatever speed you can get it at. For those with the above mentioned time / resources, they could knock out Emp's and +2 gear is days, for those with less time it might take a few weeks, for those with even less it could take a few months, but in all case's it was achievable in a realistic amount of time.

That is what that small minority hates about FFXI, they can't take pride in having an all-powerful shiny that lets them add a title to their job description. "I'm not just a <blah> but a Relic/Uber <blah>".

Damn...

@ Saevel:

I think that we should have two different types of items, one that you can get easily/moderately tough, and those that takes dedication to get. Mythics are those that takes a very long time to get, but they are the best weapons (mostly) in the game.

It is nice that SE is making mythics (mostly) soloable now, but it still takes dedication to get it...

That's pretty much what I figured, Saevel.

It's a shame FFXI didn't get programmed with trophy items that one can show off. Excluding a few FanFest things like the Nomad Moogle Rod, the few trophy items in the game are furnishings that you have to go out of your way for anyone to see. It would have worked much better to, say, make the Ark Angel weapons (the old ones with the Costume enchantment) have a 1% drop rate from the original battles from day one. A few folks would have gotten them back in 2003, mostly JPs, but by the time we hit Wings of the Goddess it'd be possible for anyone with the time (and whatever is necessary for entry) to work to get it.

Relic weapons are in that kind of niche right now, though I really think there should be some way to indicate their iLevel. Give them a subtle effect (like the water aura on Murasamemaru that you could miss if you aren't looking closely) whenever they're at the current top enhancement level. Or, heck, it's a completely unused part of the graphics engine: attach a cloth tassel when fully enhanced (e.g., to the hilt of Excalibur or near the head of Gungnir).

Unless the two are identical then it won't matter. It becomes an item for "gimps" and gets a stigma attached to it. SE already tried this idea with the WoE coin weapons.

The player base of FFXI has a very sick mentality for melee's, it's either 100% the best or don't bother coming. Mostly cause FFXI lacks a PvP outlet and so players feel the only way to "compete" with others is through gear acquisition. "I am better then player X because I have super hard-to-get ultra elite item Y". The gear themselves becomes a badge of sorts, a status symbol.

Eh, I think that "You must have the very best" mentality only really got commonplace during the Voidwatch era. The high accessibility of level 90 Empyrean weapons and the fact that literally nothing was competitive with them (due in large part to several excessively powerful attached weaponskills) really threw balance out of whack. These days, while it is certainly nice to have an iLevel Relic weapon, which I only cite because it's the easiest of the big three options, it's not nearly as requisite with other items at or near iLevel 119. Although trophy owners cried bitter tears about it, it really was a mea culpa on SE's part when they made it so that Relic/Mythic/Empyrean weapons were only marginally better than other options.

I know there were a few lunatics back in the 75 era who had that mentality, especially as regards the legions of bandwagon Samurai trying to limp along with something other than Hagun, but I rarely encountered any stink playing with a variety of weapons on my Monk. I even invested in a pair of Hades Sainti at one point for their added stats, even though it was nominally a DPS loss (I tanked a low-man Salvage group). Mind you, attitudes on forums were different. If you dared to post about playing Warrior without Ridill or at least Joyeuse, you could expect to be eviscerated on the forum, but I didn't run into that in-game. Vocal minority and all that.

I phrased my opinion, which is different from yours, without ever using the word masochist or idiot or w/e label I can put on on someone else with different taste. If you don't like 75 endgame/NM camping just tell others you don't like it, suggesting anyone with different opinion by calling others masochist or idiot would just have more ppl pop and present opinions against you.








If this ins't insult someone, idk what is. Oh I can go out and say "whoever love the US are idiot" then tell you I didn't insult anyone truly......hey, just don't love your country then you won't fit in this category! It's not an insult!

I'm not the only one who enjoyed 75 era FFXI pt and endgame/NM camping and stuff. But the reason is more related to the community immersion and not about gameplay, and I know everyone would have different experience from doing it depending on who you play with/camp against. The process of getting my joytoy at 75 out of 20 other pt camping it, and how they all cheer in /shout after my NM dead was the most memorable video game experience in my life right up on No.1 on my list.....and trust me, I've played so damn many game titles that it's not easy to get on No.1 on the list at all....maybe until 1 day I can get world first kill in a PVE MMO or first place in world tournament.

Oh and not to mention countless LS drama came for that NM and that item, broken friendship, and friendship mended after it broke.....and friendship always ended up stronger after it recovered! That is life, a life not "made up" by video game dev but by other players behind the computer playing the same game. That no epic boss, no awesome game design can replace.

I agree that 75 era XI isn't a wonderful world full of rainbow, it's brutal and unforgiving in a way, but I'd be lying if I tell everyone 75 era had absolutely zero good experience. For me the brutal side and good experience co-exist, but I wouldn't ignore the good experience just because there were bad experience. For that reason, I automatically fit in Onorgul's idiot category.

If I fit in someone's idiot category because what I've enjoyed at one point of time, then yes I'd say it's insult. Insult is different from opinion.

You're over-identifying. And I'm not convinced you're a part of the group I'm referring to.

The line you're quoting there is me talking about the way the game encouraged players to be awful and exploitative. Botting to get claims, MPK'ing other parties, creating exploitative loot systems ruled by greed and nepotism... are these things you consider good and laudable? You specifically just talked about people cheering when you killed Charybdis. That isn't the behavior I'm referring to. It's not even remotely like it. So why are you identifying yourself with it?

Though, for the record, practically every time I killed Charybdis, the fight itself was great fun because I've always killed it with too few people (and often under-leveled: my first kill was as a 60-something Bard to get the Joyeuse for my Maat fight), but there was always a competing Red Mage or Paladin around who harassed me in tells for claiming the NM which a.) I'd been camping before they arrived and b.) popped yellow and sat around while my backup arrived and they were AFK.

I never said that the old game was devoid of fun. I've commented on it repeatedly. But if you're going to praise short-sighted game systems that promote the worst kind of petulant behavior, you'd best be prepared for criticism. The question is: are you applauding that stuff?

I think you're getting way too deep into the extremes of extreme. My criticism of poorly-designed aspects of the old game, especially those aspects that have been explicitly fixed due to player feedback, is not a blanket condemnation of the game as a whole. I'd be happy to tell you all the things I liked and miss from the old days if it would soothe your ego, but I'm not going to pretend that the game was improved by making me regret some of the time I spent on pointless drama and unpleasant timesinks. As I mentioned earlier, unless you are incapable of enjoying something without being simultaneously given pain, there really should be no debate between us.

But if you really do think that the only way to enjoy the old aspects of the game is by being repeatedly tea-bagged by the developers, I'm not going to budge on this: you're an idiot.

It's not good nor bad, it's a system that tossed player to an environment with resource competition, as I said previously. It's not that the game "encourage" players to be awful and exploitative, it's part of the human nature that ppl are sometimes awful and exploitative.

Say if you live in a world where everyone gets 10 pieces of food, but you only need 5 to live, you'd see this world full of rainbow and happiness, like a world in Disney's story, with nothing special going on. Now if everyone only has 1 pieces of food but you need 5 to live, you'd see ppl robbing each other for food, team up so they can kill the weak, then back-stabbing your team mate for more food. Then maybe when you're about to starve to death on the street, someone give you another piece of food to live so you realized human nature isn't that bad......

As I stated before, that's life, and the complexity of human interaction. The 75 era game design doesn't "encourage" the awful aspect, it only allow the awful aspect to happen. But whether you choose to be awful or not still depend on ppl.

If there's a game that only allow player to be good, personally I don't find it as interesting. If the game gave you 2 options, be good(and get good reputation while doing so) or be bad(can get free item, but hated by everyone in the community), I find it more interesting to see how ppl would choose. It may be the fact that majority of the players would want to play a game only full of rainbow and happiness, but that doesn't mean everyone has same taste and opinion. I'm not against game companies make games for the majority, that doesn't mean I think it's a more interesting game design.

Until single player RPG has a way to simulate human AI flawlessly and create a more believable world, choosing to be good or bad in an MMO will forever be more interesting than choosing to be good/bad in single player games like Elder Scroll or Bioware RPGs. So no, I don't think it's a bad game design. I think 2 click macro in this game is bad design, UI and control is bad design, can't trade items with ppl if my inv full is bad design, 30 min job change is bad design, PUP DNC being useless is bad design and the list goes on........I can name 1000 other bad game design that's clearly just bad. But allowing player to be awful and taking advantage of others isn't bad design, just different direction.