YashaX

About

Username
YashaX
Location
Baldurs Gate
Joined
Visits
2,501
Last Active
Roles
Member
Points
1,240
Rank
Rare
Posts
2,002
Badges
32
  • Frustrated $1k backers start to rebel...

    Who are these people paying $1000 or more for a game years from release (if it is even released!)? I feel like I am from a different planet or something when I read about this stuff.
  • Website/Store fiasco continues- Dev tells fans that criticizing them does not help...

    MMO kickstarters 101: Create a vision to lure in potential players. Give a timeline that is near enough to get people to give you free money, even though you know it is unachievable. Create a cash shop well before the game launches to sell virtual goods and p2w advantages to early backers. 

    When deadlines are broken just make some excuses; believe it or not people will continue to eat it up, keep paying, keep denying that anything is wrong, and keep clinging to the vision, the dream you sold them. 

    Its a great business model that has been proven to keep devs rolling in free cash for many years, and there is even the possibility that an mmo will eventually be released, although we are still waiting to see someone actually get to that stage.
  • Court Throws Out Digital Homicide's Lawsuit Against Jim Sterling

    I think it is terrible that the court judged that each party has to bear its own costs/fees. DH should have to pay a penalty or at least pay for JS's court fees given how absolutely ridiculous their position was.
  • "There will not be a PvE server."

    Wraithone said:
    Just about every one of these "sand box" games that have launched for year and years now, has claimed to have some fool proof system to limit ganking.  Time after time, its turned out that the fools are the Dev's and the players who believed them.

    Gankers can be more creative in finding flaws and loop holes than anyone can possibly imagine. They will spend insane amounts of time and focus to find ways to ruin others play experience.  Its a hobby to them.

    I wish those involved the best of luck. Past history says they will need it.
    It will be different this time.
  • Shroud of the Avatar strikes again!!

    Torval said:
    YashaX said:
    Torval said:
    So they're reselling indie artists' assets in their game, supporting the artist, providing more options for players, and saving on labor costs so I don't see this is as a bad thing at all. Why do you people hate indie artists?
    The asset was acquired for free: that is not supporting indie artists. If they had an iota of integrity they would have contacted the artist and asked them to make some assets for their game- either paying them for it upfront or giving them a percentage of sales from the asset store.

    What they did (as far as I can tell from the OP) was to exploit the artist by reselling something the artist had provided for free in goodwill.
    Please spare me your moral outrage and projections about "good will". It's an asset store. That is the purpose for its existence. If the artists wanted to get paid, they would charge. For whatever reasons they didn't. If they're banking on donations they should rethink their business model.

    It works like this in the real world; if you can get something for free or cheap and resell it, within licenses laws and regulations, then clever you for making a buck.

    One big reason artists could have for offering free assets is that having them used in production is great advertising and something to be put on your resume/cv/linkedin/business partner page. Another could be for the same reasons software companies offer free versions of their programs and services. It's advertising at the very least and an open door for sales.

    The entire purpose of those assets being offered there is to use in games. How each studio or dev team chooses to sell their software is up to them within the bounds of licensing agreements.


    It is perceived like this among sane people: using free Unity assets in your game is cheap; reselling them is a scam.

    Millions of dollars in crowdfunding and they are using and reselling free assets in their game? A cheap scam. They and anyone who defends this kind of exploitation should be ashamed. Just as bad if not worse than a unity asset flip game.
  • So, Where Are YOU on Net Neutrality?

  • Patreon for poor people that cant afford CoE? Elyrian Assistance Program announced...

    Cool, another positive for your other thread!
    Slapshot1188WellspringJustDrakeDakeruwingood
  • So, Where Are YOU on Net Neutrality?

    Cleffy said:
    Actually it would be freer for the ISPs to remain title 1 companies. Although the ISPs seem to have a lot of power, they are limited in their ability to abuse it by other means. There is no stopping an abuse of power by the US government without a revolt. By the FCC taking less authority over the net they are letting the private sector and citizen retain more power.  Equality does not equal freedom.
    That said, there is a quite a bit of fear mongering on the subject that is quite odd if you don't understand the infrastructure of the internet. It would be freakishly slow for an ISP to examine every single packet that comes through their network and deny access depending on who it is going to. What makes the internet run optimally is the simple structure of routing a packet in a timely manner. How they throttle a service like peer to peer sharing is by throttling a specific port universally across their network. This port was typically shared with game networks so they were also throttled. This check could be executed in a single line of code. Checking where a packet is coming from and who it is going to is a much more complicated check.
    Doing such a check would also violate licensing contracts with regional ISP providers like Cogent and Level 3. It may also violate FTC rules.


    Don't you dare lump "private sector" and "citizen" into one bucket my friend. They are NOT the same. I'm not clear on what equality vs freedom even has to do with the conversation either. Care to expound?
    I notice that some Americans sadly don't seem to realize that in a democracy at least, the government represents the citizens of a country, while a listed company is obligated to work in the best interest of the company/shareholders, not of citizens (unless forced to by some kind of government regulation).
    SedrynTyrosFlyByKnightAsm0deusMrMelGibson
  • Is quest driven that bad ?

    YashaX said:
    So, the way my friends explained it (and this has been echoed on these boards and in many reviews) is that the scaling system removes any sense of progression and flattens the majority of the difficulty.
    I've read this a few times around here and it's simply not true.
    A level 50 is more powerful and a level 1, and CP 500 more than a CP 100. More skills, more CPs.
    It's just not the tremendous power gap from levels and gear you have in EQ/WOW clones.
    Like I said, this is second hand testimony so I have no way of verifying it. But, I had assumed it was true both from the way One Tamriel was advertised, the reviews it got across the internet, the various discussions about it on these boards and from what my friends have told me. 


    If that is not true, how does the scaling work? Do enemies gain more skills when fighting high level characters? Are they actually harder to kill, or do they just have higher health and damage? Is content noticeably easier if you spend time getting good gear whilst leveling, or does content scaling take into account gear as well?

    In ESO, the difficulty of the enemies is not based on their level but on their abilities and (quite realistically) also their size (a mammoth or a troll will have more health than a human for instance). It requires knowledge of the game from the player to counter specific mobs. Mobs packs can also have synergies between their members, making them more dangerous than the sum of them alone.
    That doesn't really answer any questions I asked unfortunately. 

    Do enemies scale to the player? Or is it the players who scale? Do they scale to a zone, or is the whole game set to level 50 and everyone is scaled up to 50 at all times? If I play through a starter zone as a newbie, will anything change if I come back at level 50?


    Also, your explanation of how difficulty is set (enemy skills) implies that as you progress through the game, the enemies get harder and you need to know more and more. This was presumably offset by the fact that players would have more skills to counter the enemy as well as increased health/stamina/magic. 

    How does that work with scaling?

    For example, if I were to take a level 5 newbie through to a former lvl45 zone, does the scaling tech allow the level 5 to complete the content? Assuming equal gear quality, will the content be harder for the level 5 player or the level 45 player? I've heard conflicting reports - some say it is harder for the lvl5 because they don't have the skills. Some say it is easier for the lvl5 because the scaling tech gives them more health etc to make up for lack of skills. Some say there is no difference at all. 
    I think he meant that there are some monsters that are stronger than others, these could appear in any zone. 

    What I find is that when leveling up from 1 to 50 + CP 160, the main form of progression comes through expanding your skill set and passives. During this time you have to keep upgrading your gear or you will actually become weaker than at a low level. 

    Once you reach level 50+160CP you can wear end game gear. Progression from here involves accumulating CP, golding out equipment, finding/crafting equipment to create the build you want, and getting more passive/active skills (there are a lot).

    How this feels in practice: If you took your level 5 toon to the troll just near the starting area in the Morrowind expansion you might be in for a hard fight because you have limited skills and weak gear. Come back at level 45 with good gear, food buffs, potions, and all the extra skills and passives and it should be a cake walk. Come back at CP690 with gold gear and the troll might not even be able to break through your passive health regen (depending on how you have built your character).
    Exactly.
    Same experience in a public dungeon (not a delve, the bigger model).
    First time I enter (it was before level 10ish), the first trash pack wiped the floor with my ass.
    Later, at level 30+, I could manage them, no problem.
    Now I can just faceroll them, they barely beat my natural health regen.
    OK, so with what you're describing, what is the point of One Tamriel scaling?

    You've just described a situation where it is not possible to complete leveling content if you are not a high enough level, thus defeating the purpose of scaling content. Don't get me wrong, if your going to use vertical progression, this is the way I'd like it, but if you are advertising your game as "go anywhere, anytime and be able to complete the content" then the scenario you've just described would count as a failure of the feature to me. 


    With One Tamriel, it felt like a direct response to everyone complaining that ESO didn't feel like an Elder Scrolls game. It allowed players to freely explore everywhere at any time with no restrictions, but came at the cost of removing the feeling of progression. Your explanation as to why you think the feeling of progression is still there is at odds with how scaling has been explained to me everywhere else, so I wanted to explore what you meant. 
    Cameltosis, there is both the possibility to go almost anywhere and a sense of your character growing stronger.

    A new character will have a harder time defeating monsters, as will a badly geared higher level player. As you level up you gain more resources (money, access to gear, skill points, skill proficiency); if you use those resources wisely your character will gradually become stronger despite the scaling.

    What gets lost with the move to One Tamriel is the stupid stuff, for example there are no longer mud crabs in "high level" zones that can kill the hero that defeated Molag Bal. 

    Edit: btw, Luc was describing a public dungeon, they have harder content than overland quests or delves. There is also other pve content that is even harder and requires a very highly tuned character to complete. Providing some particularly challenging areas doesn't invalidate the scaling concept.
    VengeSunsoarJean-Luc_Picardcameltosis
  • So, Where Are YOU on Net Neutrality?

    Kyleran said:
    YashaX said:
    Cleffy said:
    Actually it would be freer for the ISPs to remain title 1 companies. Although the ISPs seem to have a lot of power, they are limited in their ability to abuse it by other means. There is no stopping an abuse of power by the US government without a revolt. By the FCC taking less authority over the net they are letting the private sector and citizen retain more power.  Equality does not equal freedom.
    That said, there is a quite a bit of fear mongering on the subject that is quite odd if you don't understand the infrastructure of the internet. It would be freakishly slow for an ISP to examine every single packet that comes through their network and deny access depending on who it is going to. What makes the internet run optimally is the simple structure of routing a packet in a timely manner. How they throttle a service like peer to peer sharing is by throttling a specific port universally across their network. This port was typically shared with game networks so they were also throttled. This check could be executed in a single line of code. Checking where a packet is coming from and who it is going to is a much more complicated check.
    Doing such a check would also violate licensing contracts with regional ISP providers like Cogent and Level 3. It may also violate FTC rules.


    Don't you dare lump "private sector" and "citizen" into one bucket my friend. They are NOT the same. I'm not clear on what equality vs freedom even has to do with the conversation either. Care to expound?
    I notice that some Americans sadly don't seem to realize that in a democracy at least, the government represents the citizens of a country, while a listed company is obligated to work in the best interest of the company/shareholders, not of citizens (unless forced to by some kind of government regulation).
    You also realize that in many cases the employees of a listed company are citizens and their livelihoods depend on the success of said firm.

    Also many citizens are stockholders of companies including "evil" ISP firms.

    A balance needs to be struck and maintained to provide sufficient benefit to all concerned.

    I don't think ISP or other firms are evil. Firms work to maximize their own gains, which can benefit employees. However, they don't need to think about society as a whole; that is not necessarily bad, and can in fact be very good, as long as the rest of the checks and balances set up in capitalist democracies are functioning correctly.

    What disturbs me is that newsflow out of the US (and posts on this forum) increasingly shows that people don't understand this, and mainly act/think based on partisan lines even on something as clear cut as net neutrality. Seeing people actively support/promote policy that would hurt them is weird.
    Asm0deusMadFrenchie