Rift 3.0 - Nightmare Tide is now Open Beta !

[Fencers]

-cough- f2p -cough-

Hm. I don't quite understand what F2P has to do with bad design decisions here. It's not like Trion are monetizing Masteriers or that a sub fee is needed for developers to come up with a better idea than a passive effect that gives "%5 increased damage".

Also Rift wasn't any more content rich as a sub based game than as F2P. The reverse is true actually; more content has been released post-F2P.

Engine optimization has never been a priority in Rift regardless of payment model.

Seems like a strawman to bring up F2P in some context of poor design, lack of optimizations or incomplete content in the OBT.

[Kelimbror]

Hrm...I was also tempted for the uber pricey nuclear shark mount. I get really good performance with my new machine, but I haven't done anything quite like Volan since upgrading. I'd rather not risk it. I guess I'll check it out as F2P months in the future just to see what it was like.

[Puremallace]

People not seeing the content is not really caused by Hit Rating. The system isn't faulty. It works exactly as intended; a gating mechanism for a bimodal, tiered endgame.

Either a tiered endgame in a bimodal progression system or player expectation is faulty.

No debate here. I'll not even try to say anything other then this. What annoys me is the lvl 65 zones is one directional and has elite mobs everywhere. I simply do not get how you look at Vanilla Rift open zones and come up with this SWOTOR style zones of one directional play with hardly any exploration.

[Fencers]

No debate here. I'll not even try to say anything other then this. What annoys me is the lvl 65 zones is one directional and has elite mobs everywhere. I simply do not get how you look at Vanilla Rift open zones and come up with this SWOTOR style zones of one directional play with hardly any exploration.

Hm. I recall the Rift vanilla zones being fairly linear. There were at most two choices of where to go; Stonefield or Scarwood, Shimmersand or Mathosa, etc.

I guess there is technically less choice now, in NT. But I think that is more to do with there being fewer zones than vanilla or SL (especially). This is a "small" expansion.

[Selah]

Hm. I don't quite understand what F2P has to do with bad design decisions here. It's not like Trion are monetizing Masteriers or that a sub fee is needed for developers to come up with a better idea than a passive effect that gives "%5 increased damage".

Also Rift wasn't any more content rich as a sub based game than as F2P. The reverse is true actually; more content has been released post-F2P.

Engine optimization has never been a priority in Rift regardless of payment model.

Seems like a strawman to bring up F2P in some context of poor design, lack of optimizations or incomplete content in the OBT.

You're right about Trion making poor decisions, I've played a Warrior since beta. If anyone is familiar with Trion's poor design decisions, it's a warrior.

What actually caught my interest was your statement about content in the sub model versus the f2p model. I've heard this discussion a lot and took an interesting look at it. I went to the official forums and looked at the release dates of the original Rift game ( March 1, 2011), the launch of SL (November 13, 2012), the launch of 2.3 (the f2p model, 6/12/13), and the most recent patch (2.8, August 6, 2014). I compared these dates to the amount of patches released under each payment model. What I found was that in 27 months (from launch of vanilla Rift to the f2p model) Trion created 15 patches at a rate of 1 patch every 1.8 months, so about a month and three weeks between patches. During the period of time between the launch of 2.3 (the f2p model, June 12, 2013) to the launch of the most recent patch (patch 2.8, August 6, 2014. Trion had created 5 patches over the course of 14 months with an average of 1 patch every 2.8 months.

[Fencers]

You're right about Trion making poor decisions, I've played a Warrior since beta. If anyone is familiar with Trion's poor design decisions, it's a warrior.

What actually caught my interest was your statement about content in the sub model versus the f2p model. I've heard this discussion a lot and took an interesting look at it. I went to the official forums and looked at the release dates of the original Rift game ( March 1, 2011), the launch of SL (November 13, 2012), the launch of 2.3 (the f2p model, 6/12/13), and the most recent patch (2.8, August 6, 2014). I compared these dates to the amount of patches released under each payment model. What I found was that in 27 months (from launch of vanilla Rift to the f2p model) Trion created 15 patches at a rate of 1 patch every 1.8 months, so about a month and three weeks between patches. During the period of time between the launch of 2.3 (the f2p model, June 12, 2013) to the launch of the most recent patch (patch 2.8, August 6, 2014. Trion had created 5 patches over the course of 14 months with an average of 1 patch every 2.8 months.

The vanilla patches had to add a lot more to game. Rift was less developed in it's vanilla period. The content add through SL was greater though- we saw more zones wi/ more stuff to do in those zones.

Number of patches is not really indicative of the complete developmental history of Rift.

I also only play a Warrior. Nothing else. Its been... challenging.