Last Active
Favorite Role
  • 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!"
  • War for the Atlas Expansion Launches Today! - Path of Exile - MMORPG.com

    Agree about the engine. Camera too close. UI is too big and can't make it smaller. Bad performance on pretty good systems compared to games with much more "intense" graphics. Awful animations.

    Also, the game is too built around leagues, IMO. The obsession with constant rerolls takes the fun out of the game, for me. You're constantly racing to high level to do basically the same content. I prefer D3's leveled GRift system, though I feel a mix of that and PoE's "map" system would be more optimal.

    D3's engine is on another level compared to this game, in terms of performance and look and feel. The graphics styles are different, but I still think D3 looks better.
  • What modern features would you like/accept in Pantheon?

    Mendel said:
    Mendel said:
    cheyane said:
    So I want mechanisms in place that will force players to leave after a certain time to allow others in.
    Modern games call these mechanisms 'instances'.  They work exceptionally well to give every player a fair chance at special loot, flags, etc, even at obscure times of the day or night.  They even manage to tick one of my personal goals, using the computer to solve a problem.  I would prefer minimal instances, but can accept them where they serve a purpose or solve a player's problem.  Balancing the server work-load isn't a player problem; that's the issue that instances most often address.

    'Instances' seems to be a dirty word around Pantheon supporters, though.
    Loot timers are used to solve that problem, too, but I just don't think it's the perfect solution.  Besides, it also leads some folks to accuse the developer of artificially throttling g progression to milk their wallets, despite the original intention.

    I would personally prefer a system where drops weren't by chance and were tailored to each individual.  A set drop would be scattered across multiple wings of a raid that weren't necessarily done all at once, but I pieces.  Maybe with smaller group quests that lead up to the raid encounter for each piece.  But those pieces would drop based solely on your success in taking down the boss at the end of the quest chain, not by farming it over and over for a chance.
    Loot timers simply don't work.  They've been in games seemingly forever.  The Ghoulbane camp in Upper Guk in EQ1 was one of those.  Almost every paladin wanted that sword.  It was pretty low level, around 15-20, but was a stepping stone for further paladin swords.  Even a randomized timer didn't prevent groups or even individuals from controlling that camp.  It seemed that camp caused a lot of the 'bad behavior' in the early game.

    'Success on taking down a boss..., not farming it...".  This has always been an option.  But how many people left the Ghoulbane or JBoots camps if the item didn't drop?  They camped it.  That even satisfies your 'end of the quest chain' condition, just consider the surrounding mobs as a 'quest'.  Trying to change this behavior is trying to change human nature.  Instances at least provide a mechanism to minimize 'bad behavior', accommodating each players 'wants' in a form that doesn't infringe on another's space.

    This was the case for most "camps," and this happens to an extent in later games as well.  Selling Loot Rights was a thing in EQ2, and many people got geared out by farming Platinum and buying Raid Gear.

    In WoW, guilds sell raid clears with drop priority.

    In EQ2, players were selling carries through Tipt and Vxed when Gates of Discord launched, as well as Uqua runs for people who needed the gear (you could literally control those named with a 1-2 groups of guildies.

    This always happens.  It cannot be stopped unless you lock loot to the players in the party immediately, like in Diablo III, and monitor everyone to make sure things aren't getting sold off in this way.

    I think instances are fine if it's just a container for content.  Doing a dungeon run when it's already overrun with players isn't fun *at all* when you only have an hour or two to play.  There is almost nothing you can accomplish there.

    The obsession with making a video game like Real Life is a bit of a fallacy.  People don't play MMORPGs to live in them.  They play to have fun.

    I don't have a problem with instances for most group content or PvP.

    I also think fast travel is a thing and I wouldn't play a game without it.  I'll never waste 2 hours traveling and dying on route from one place to another, like I did back in the day in EQ.  There are too many other good games out there to waste my time dealing with inconveniences for the sake of nostalgia.

    The genre has moved on, so I'm very cynical about this attempt to capitalize on nostalgia.
  • Pantheon vs Wow Classic

    Brunlin said:
    Daranar said:
    WoW Classic and what pantheon will be are two completely different beasts.  Furthermore WoW classic will be nothing more than a brief nostalgia trip for people.  It's just like progression servers on EQ, the first was full and quickly flat lined and each subsequent progression server they launch is less and less populated.   Probably for a couple of reasons including EQ progression servers, just like WoW Classic likely will be a far cry from the true original game because of all the changes to the core code and because P99 is a more authentic experience.

    But I digress.  By the time Pantheon comes out, WoW Classic will be a shell of launch consisting mostly of hardcore WoWers who would be playing private servers if they didn't launch this money grab.
    Actually the progression servers are doing good in EQ, each one get more popular and poular as they are released. The earlier ones do lose people but they lose them to the newer ones. Agnaar is doing well right now but we are only in the Velious expansion atm. Most of these servers loose a good bit of peeps after Gates of Discord. Agnarr will never go beyond LDON.

    As for WOW classic I dont think it will be a progression server, and unlike EQ it will be seperate from the live servers...meaning that current way the game runs will not dictate the older version. I think WOW Classic will have lots of peeps for a long time.

    MMOS are to easy these days and there is a desire for a harder game. In EQ on the progression servers, we do get people that have never played EQ and they love it and stay.

    The issue with progression servers is that they are like Seasons in Diablo or Leagues in Path of Exile.  They are great when they open, but it's a huge leveling/gear/content race and then the servers tend to die out a bit, until the next one is released.  There is really no continuity on those servers.  They are drive-by expeditions for people to race through old content over and over again.

    This is great from a business perspective, but players who want consistent community and decent gameplay pace simply don't like that.

    Progression Servers in games always turn into this, which is why every game that has gone this route has inevitably fallen into the trap where they are basically forced to keep releasing more and more progression servers, and then merge the old ones into other servers due to the server community's lifecycle being so short.
  • Is WoW worth a subscription in it's current state?

    Raquis said:
    more people will play the game if they take away the subscription but they don't care they know there is enough people paying the subscription every month and buying the expansions every year to keep them making money so they will not change it.

    I would never have guessed that more people play free games.  The problem isn't getting people to play, but developing a sound business model that is fair to all of those players and sustainable over the long term.

    I don't want to plan an MMORPG where I am nickeled-and-dimed for everything from character slots, to material storage, to inventory space, to bank space, access to higher tier spells/abilities, access to content, etc.  I'd rather just pay my subscription, buy the expansions; and be on a fairly even playing field with everyone else when it comes to gameplay, content access and overall "monetary balance" in the game.