Darksworm

About

Username
Darksworm
Joined
Visits
238
Last Active
Roles
Member
Points
269
Rank
Uncommon
Favorite Role
Tank
Posts
509
Badges
18
  • Class Raid Sets Being Discontinued. Will Cosmetic Appearances Replace Them? - World of Warcraft News



    They are just making crap obsolete. Bad game design by first impression



    This is actually a great change. It means they can make other content more difficult and keep it more relevant longer, because the rewards can be kept relevant by other means. Right now, the set pieces are a prison... They can always adjust difficulty in patches if things become a bit too trivial, etc. This is really going to give players more choice and allow them to differentiate themselves from others besides simply transmogging the same pieces of gear. There will still be BiS - that is unavoidable - but this is a great change to bring us back to more "rewarding" feel when high level gear drops, because we won't be passing on them (or throwing them away/DEing them) for set pieces.

    This is a great change. Raid sets were bad when they were introduced to EverQuest as well... "That's really nice, but I'm waiting on my class helm so I think I'll pass on it..." It was full of that, since Velious on up. EQ2 had the same issue, because the set pieces had such amazing focus effects, that it wasn't possible to pass on them for other high level gear - even though the other gear was really good aside from the lack of set bonus/focus effect.

    Great change. Looking forward to this. Will make the game feel more fun and rewarding to play compared to now.

    People like you just have to piss in others Cheerios, as if you have a clue about game design in the first place.
    SBFordlaseritSiegeMachineHatefullBlecodWarLord2424Nepheth
  • All you MMO newbs were warned about F2P. Yet you supported it.

    viddiot said:
    Practice restraint, and avoid games that want to rape your wallet. That is key. 
    The women is the true raper of a man's wallet. 
    It would be grammatically correct to way 'woman' not 'women'. This indicates to me English may not be your first language.

    I ask you to use Google Translate before posting in the future, but I don't think they have a Cro-Magnon to English option yet.
    "correct to way"  === you mean === "correct way"

    Actually the issue isn't grammar, it is however a typo. When not thinking and you type women or woman, they sound the same, so it was likely akin to attempting to type 'there' and instead wrote 'their'. 

    English is silly in its rules of pronunciation. 

    These can all be said exactly the same and spelled completely different:
    Force/phorce
    Fource/Phource (as in source)
    Foarse/Phoarse (as in coarse)
    Forse/phorse (as in norse)
    Fourse/Phourse (as in course)

    Woman and women sound the same but one denotes singular and the other plural. That is silly. 

    And English is my first language. I'm bilingual however. 

    Cryomatrix

    p.s. I was joking with the "woman is the true raper of man's wallets"


    English pronunciation isn't the issue.  The issue is the orthography.  Modern English is still - largely - using pre-Great Vowel Shift, Middle English orthography.  The Vowel Shift changed the placement of most vowels in the English Language (Chain-Shift), so pronunciation stopped corresponding to their spellings.  Additionally, English employs heavy vowel reduction, which is very "variable" in nature.  So, when we speak, we shorten and reduce vowels in unstressed syllables.  The language is stress-timed.  This means that no orthography can truly correspond 1:1 with English pronunciation, due to this reduction and the variable nature of it in the spoken language.

    Additionally, English changed from an Alveolar Trill [fricative] rhotic to a Retroflex Approximant rhotic.  This completely changed the pronunciation of words with tr/dr clusters (not separated at syllable boundaries).  Tree, Dream, Cadre (English pronunciation), Transform, Daedre (English pronunciation), String, etc.

    Most languages would "correct" this with spelling reforms, but this hasn't happened in English.

    The pronunciations themselves are not the problem.  Every language has its own phonemic inventory, and English is vowel heavy with a lot of diphthongs and weird digraphs.  It's completely normal, and easy... for Anglophones...

    A language like Spanish, for example, has a regular orthography...  Only 5 Vowels, a completely different rhotic, is syllable timed, has no vowel reduction, has mostly regular stress placement, and has very few diphthongs.  Consonants are clustered differently, the phonotactic rules are different.

    Many Anglophones quit learning Russian at Здравствуйте (Zdravstvuyte), because the word is a phonotactic nightmare for Anglophones.

    However, within the system of Russian Phonotactics, Stress Placement, Vowel Reduction, Phonology, etc.  It's perfectly normal.

    Woman and Women never sound alike.  The /a/ in Woman is often reduced to schwa (as in of).  The /e/ in women is often reduced to short /i/ (as in "kick").

    Course, Coarse, and Source all have the same vowel - /oʊ/ diphthong.  It may be /ɔ/ for some speakers - particularly those who speak non-rhotic dialects.

    The vowel in Norse is /ɔ/.  People who pronounce it with /oʊ/ are simply mispronouncing the word.

    Your grammar error was a grammar error caused by a typo.  You can't split infinities with anything but a modifier - usually an adverb (though there can be than one of them); and splitting infinities is bad form, anyways (though the new age of terrible internet writers is trying to change that :-P ).

    "Raper" is an American colloquialism that sounds like something a 2 year old would say when he's acquiring vocabulary.  I have never heard an adult use this word, ever.

    /nerd
    GdemamiKyleranCryomatrixPhryConstantineMerusimmodium
  • Class Raid Sets Being Discontinued. Will Cosmetic Appearances Replace Them? - World of Warcraft News


    Darksworm said:





    They are just making crap obsolete. Bad game design by first impression






    This is actually a great change. It means they can make other content more difficult and keep it more relevant longer, because the rewards can be kept relevant by other means. Right now, the set pieces are a prison... They can always adjust difficulty in patches if things become a bit too trivial, etc. This is really going to give players more choice and allow them to differentiate themselves from others besides simply transmogging the same pieces of gear. There will still be BiS - that is unavoidable - but this is a great change to bring us back to more "rewarding" feel when high level gear drops, because we won't be passing on them (or throwing them away/DEing them) for set pieces.



    This is a great change. Raid sets were bad when they were introduced to EverQuest as well... "That's really nice, but I'm waiting on my class helm so I think I'll pass on it..." It was full of that, since Velious on up. EQ2 had the same issue, because the set pieces had such amazing focus effects, that it wasn't possible to pass on them for other high level gear - even though the other gear was really good aside from the lack of set bonus/focus effect.



    Great change. Looking forward to this. Will make the game feel more fun and rewarding to play compared to now.



    People like you just have to piss in others Cheerios, as if you have a clue about game design in the first place.



    Lol, gamers can be so quick to snarkiness mate. Calm down a notch theres no reason we cannot have civil and polite discussions on this website. Thank you very much. As to why I have the early impression this devalues the raiding scene and make it somewhat obsolete is simply the effort versus reward aspect.

    Every change as big as this is bound to have some flaws in the eyes of someone. A big concern of mine is how much the incentive to try and do raids in the endgame become whether it will replace hunt for epic rare loot to empower your char or just common currency and cosmetics. Getting the warglaive of azzinoth wasn't just amazing because it had a low drop rate alone it was also the challenge to get the opportunity that made it legendaryback in burning crusade
    :)



    Raids will still drop much of the best gear.  There are other things they're doing with the itemization, which is not covered by this specific topic.  Read up...

    What you're questioning is illogical, because it simply won't happen.

    What you're talking about is your ego.  No one, but you, cares about your ego.

    What people care about, is having the largest amount of viable content and the least amount of wasted itemization.  This makes the game more fun and more rewarding for players to log in and play, day to day.

    Dungeon drops will be more viable.  World boss drops will be more viable.  Raid drops that occupy the same slot as set pieces will be more viable.

    Yes, it's nice to get a powerful, rare drop from a difficult raid boss...  Nothing will change that.  Those types of rare, prized item drops will still exist.

    What's also nice is not seeing half the items you get from Dungeons, Raids Token Rolls, and Mythic+ rot/DE because you have a set piece in that slot and the set bonus >>>>> any stat increases the "upgrade" will give you - even with fairly massive iLevel differences.

    There is no way for this to have the flaw you're talking about.  The fact that they're doing away with Tier does not mean that there will not be rarer, more powerful drops from the highest raid difficulties.  You're not making much sense, at all.  What you're talking about isn't even related to what I'm referring to.

    I've already said BiS will still exist, and there will still be better drops from different places.

    What doing away with tier does is lower the barrier to entry for raiding, while widening the available viable gear pieces for each slot.  If you got Tier from heroic raids but a nice piece dropped in Mythic, right now you would skip the Mythic piece to avoid breaking the set bonus.  If the Tier has the two worse secondaries for your class, you sucked it up and wore it, cause of the set bonuses - unless you can find another piece of Tier in a different slot to equip, allowing you to swap that slot out to something that had better stats; and that's assuming the other piece of tier doesn't have junk secondaries as well...

    Class Armor sets are nice, in theory, but in practice they are and have always been awful - a sort of jail cell once you've gotten them.  They were awful in EQ - years before WoW existed - and they're equally awful in WoW.
    SBFordByrgenarHofenjimmywolfNephethMadFrenchie
  • EQ class stereotypes, too much?

    The game does seem a bit like plagiarism to me.  Completely shameless in the way they've basically cloned EverQuest.
  • Pantheon vs Wow Classic

    Dullahan said:
    The quest in EQ was your every adventure, not some npc sanctioned task.

    No.

    The devs were correct.  There were tons of Quests in EverQuest.  The problem is that the game was not set up to alert users to where they were, they didn't give XP, and the rewards were not worth the massive amount of time you had to spend finding and doing them.  You basically had to run around and hail every NPC, and some of them didn't offer quests unless you directed specific text at them.  The system was just terrible.  It's a lot better now than it used to be, though.

    There were quests everywhere.  They were just largely worthless.

    In WoW the quests facilitated the leveling experience.  In Classic you still had to grind a bit, but not nearly as much as in EQ, because the quests there largely didn't give XP (I don't think most of the earlier quests gave much - and certainly not enough to care, when they did).

    The difference between Quests in WoW Classic and EQ Classic was fairly "fundamental."  The quests in WoW served a different, and more foundational, purpose in the leveling and story-telling process.

    I actually think this hurt EQ, as it really short-changed the excellent lore and back story the game had.  In WoW, you are force-fed this information with the quests, dialogs, and cinematics..  But, because most people skipped the quests in EQ, they tended to remain relatively ignorant of what was going on in the game, why, how things arrived at certain points.

    This made WoW a lot more interesting to play from a story-telling standpoint than EQ, which is probably why people continue to sub at expansion and major patch launches to play through the content.  Blizzard has made the content interesting, and they've made people take note of it.

    Verant/SOE never really did that.
    KyleranDullahanGyva02
  • So you are happy with the direction It's going?

    Mendel said:
    centkin said:
    What has mostly happened to the progression of MMORPGs is that computers stopped getting faster.  There were a lot of good ideas, that were implausible back in the day and still implausible now. 

    We won't see much improvement until computers actually make a leap in something more meaningful than graphics.
    Things besides graphics aren't dependant on hardware speed though, so I'm not sure why you think more would help.  We've got enough hardware for good physics simulation, or for better AI if that existed.  We've got more than enough hardware for interactive story, intricate game mechanics, voice chat, deeply developed NPCs, less predictable monsters...
    Very true, @sunandshadow.  There is plenty of hardware on the client end to do much more elaborate things than games attempt.  The problem, in my view, is that games aren't attempting to do anything more elaborate.  Processing power is adequate for much more difficult applications, why haven't we seen game developers attempt anything that can't be reproduced with analog dice?
    I disagree. 

    I am a software developer. I have worked on everything from large defence contracts through to small websites. I have also worked for a good games company, admittedly in QA rather than dev, but I hung out with the devs a lot. 


    Hardware is still a very real limitation. You would probably be shocked at just how many calculations are going on every second when playing a game. It is staggering! Not only is the volume staggering, but it all has to be perfectly timed otherwise everything falls apart. 


    The real barrier to improvement is on the software end. Not in terms of designing interesting things, there are plenty of capable devs for that, but in terms of how we do the fundamentals. I'll give you an example. 

    Games are sequential - one thing follows another - so timing is extremely crucial to a game running properly. I cannot calculate whether I have shot you before I have calculated where I am aiming, then where you are moving, then whether there is a collision or not. It is thus vitally important that calculations happen in the right order. 

    What this means is that most games still only utilise a single core on your processor. This is the easiest way to ensure the correct order is followed. Multi-threading (calculations being done on different cores) is an extremely complicated thing to get correct - not due to the hardware, but due to writing the software properly. So, I have a quad-core processor, but most games only use one core. That one core typically sits at 90-95% load whilst the other 3 idle at 20-30%. The software is causing me to hit a hardware limitation. 

    This gives us the illusion that buying new processors means we're getting more performance, but for gaming that isn't true. We are still hitting hardware limitations on a per-core basis and will continue to do so until game engines improve. This is obviously a generalisation - some games do utilise multi-threading.

    Maybe that was true 10 years ago, but not nowadays.
    How has it changed these days? It was my understanding that multi-threading is still a real issue for a lot of game devs and they struggle to take advantage of multiple cores - something I can attest to from watching my hardware monitors. 

    The good developers/firms have no issues with multi-threading.  Look at any Blizzard game.  They run gloriously on Multi-Threaded systems.  This is part of the reason why WoW runs so well, along with Overwatch ... which runs amazingly.  You can raid in WoW on a Kaveri-era AMD APU in a Notebook, but you can't even play Path of Exile on that kind of machine (it's completely unplayable - sub-20 FPS performance even with stuff turned down).  Blizzard developed their games with an eye towards the future, and they keep on top of their Graphics Engine Maintenance.

    Now, contrast that to EverQuest II...  Which runs awfully on newer systems because the game was developed with poor assumptions, and they've done very little to modernize their code base or graphics engine.

    I think a lot of developers simply aren't putting in the work to optimize their games well.  They are rushing to release, so that they can make as much money as possible.  They are putting these things off, but they are generally done half-assed, if at all, when they get around to it post-release.  Players should demand this on release...  Especially for Buy to Play or Subscription games.

    The incentive to polish a game drops substantially post-release, unless there is outrage about the quality.  Most people don't notice the efficiency issues - they simply stop playing if it runs badly on their PC, or they upgrade a component or two, if possible.  They often don't give any feedback.

    Developers will always do the PR spin about how they plan to tackle these issues, but recent history has taught me that they often take years to even touch them.  Path of Exile pretty much ceased to exist to me before they "fixed" DeSync, for example.

    MMORPGs should be developed with an eye towards the future.  They are long term investments of both time and money, so you have to assume that more people will get more systems with higher core count and better GPUs.  If you don't utilize properly, then they aren't getting much value out of their upgrade when playing your game.

    I think that it's unforgiveable for a new MMORPG to release with bad CPU and/or GPU utilization, and poor hardware scaling.

    Generally, if a game is not well optimized on release, I don't bother with it.  It's a pretty good indicator of developer priorities or competencies.
    Jean-Luc_PicardMendel
  • FCC killed net neutrality. What does it mean for gamers?

    The FCC never had the authority to regulate ISPs, given their classification, so Net Neutrality wasn't really legal anyways.

    In order to regulate ISPs in this way, the law needs to be changed to classify Internet Service Providers the same as Telephone Companies.  If that is done, then the FCC can regulate them in this way.

    This used to be the case, but lobbyists have power.

    I don't have a problem with this decision, because the FCC never had the jurisdiction to do this.  Just because something benefits us doesn't mean we should allows laws to be warped to allow it to happen.  If you make exceptions in this case, in your favor, then you can't complain about exceptions that harm you being made later on.

    The big issue with this isn't the fact that it kills Net Neutrality, but the fact that people are pissed at this, but ignoring the elephant in the room...  Probably half or more of the people in this country have no choice one cable provider because monopolies are allowed to rule the country region by region.

    When there is more competition, this will become a non-issue.

    If Verizon wants to charge Netflix more, then Netflix can say no and the users on Netflix who want good 4K streaming will simply move to the ISP that allows it without destroying their user experience.

    Right now, this is impossible for a lot of people.  If you have Comcast, yo often have no choice other than Satellite Internet... and that's unusable for things like gaming, VoIP, etc. due to ridiculous PINGs.

    This is why AT&T was easily able to be pressured off their stance of blocking FaceTime back in 2012.  They have competitors in the same market who told their users "it works here, and we'll save you some money in the process. Come on over!"
    Sandmanjw
  • Pantheon vs Wow Classic

    I dunno, I always felt that when somebody complaints about a game that it has "bad animations" thats because they dont have anything else to say and just dont like the game. Likewise with "good animations", people just want to praise a game and cant think of anything else.

    Nobody plays a game because it has good animations. Nobody avoids one because it has bad ones. Its just not relevant enough.


    Many people avoid games because of bad animations and graphics.  It just looks terrible.  There's a reason why most people new to MMORPGs will avoid EQ - because of the graphics and animations being terrible.  If SOE were to upgrade EQ's graphics to be comparable to WoW's, then I'd be playing that all day and night, but I cannot stomach them at this point...

    Pantheon's environmental graphics look nice, but it's character models (from what I've seen) and animations (ditto) didn't.  It looked quite EQ, and that's hard to look at when you play a game for hours on end, several days (if not every day) a week.

    If what you said was true, then Pantheon would have 0 reason to exist, because players could simply just play EQ right now.  The only reason why people are excited about this game, is because it's basically EverQuest with a graphics overhaul.  It really doesn't have any more than that to offer players, from what we've seen.  It's purely a nostalgia play.  The developers are pretty transparent about that.

    There is a certain level of polish people expect in a game, particularly if it requires a subscription and when they've bought better computing hardware to run the games on.

    To claim that "Nobody does this or that"...  You really are outside of your jurisdiction :-P

    In the real world, outside of forums where you an band together with others who agree with you (in defense of some game in development, etc.), many people will reject a game for those every reasons you state NOBODY would consider.