Page 23 of 23 FirstFirst ...
13
21
22
23
  1. #441
    Quote Originally Posted by WowIsDead64 View Post
    If eveybody has AWP and I'm only one, who has shotgun just for diversity purposes - then why do you think I'm not gimped by this non-Meta choice?
    What you are playing is akin to shooting paralysed childrens. It doesn't matter if you have an AWP or a shotgun, you will be able to complete your task with ease anyway.
    MMO Champs :

  2. #442
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Read the entire argument.

    Making a new game opens up more monetization avenues. If Blizzard made, for example, a Starcraft 3 game and put a cash shop in it, do you honestly think it wouldn't be at least as lucrative as a single store mount in WoW?
    It would be a massive financial risk.

    Part of that problem is RTS becoming less relevant in the mainstream as well, with MOBA having taken its place in popularity. Even a game like Stormgate has had to seek multiple sources of funding to continue development, and we will have to wait and see how successful it actually ends up being.

    And if Blizzard didn't consider it a financial risk, then they wouldn't have disbanded Team 1, their RTS team. Blizzard literally has no one left who worked on any of the original RTS games to make a SC3.
    Last edited by Triceron; Yesterday at 04:40 PM.

  3. #443
    Quote Originally Posted by WowIsDead64 View Post
    No, I don't have any prejudices against any classes, because I've been playing them all since Cata. Yeah, I had prejudices against Paladins back in WotLK, cuz they had 3 lives, while I had only one. And it leaded me to transfering to PVE server. But I no longer have any prejudices. What I try to say - is that may be Meta is unavoidable, but game should never be tuned around Meta. There shouldn't be such weird game designs, as "we tune outdoor around playing tank specs, cuz we have tank shortage in dungeons and raids". Why? May be cuz I play class, that lacks tank spec?

    - - - Updated - - -


    DF Rogues are in terrible state. In all specs. They're even worse than Mages now. At least classes like Mage and Warrior have enough dmg to nuke things. Rogues were ok back in Legion, when their healing ability didn't have CD. May be that's due to broken scaling at low levels, but they're almost unplayable now. Problem is - Blizzard have had 2 years to fix them, but failed to do it.
    I think you have to simply accept the reality that you're doing something wrong. I've long played out-of-meta classes and characters in all sorts of games. This includes WoW. Any class, and pretty much any spec (other than not spending points), is just fine. Sure, some are way faster, and others can AOE pull the entire mountainside... but every class can level and play solo, just fine. If you're trying to tackle raid bosses, or 50 mobs at a time, then I can see why you may be railing. You also spoke about not being able to actually leash mobs, and get out of combat. Once again, that makes no sense.

    You made me think about league of legends, and how I made a point to play characters with the lowest win rates and lowest pick rates. Guess what? I was still able to be successful.
    Last edited by Doomcookie; Yesterday at 08:52 PM.

  4. #444
    And this thread is going around in circles
    3 Major Rules of World of Warcraft Players:
    1. No one on earth wants to play World of Warcraft less than other World of Warcraft players.
    2. The desire to win>The desire for anything else in World of Warcraft. NO EXCEPTIONS
    3. Efficiency will be king no matter how you think it will improve the game.

  5. #445
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    Just how when WoW came out it was only splitting the EQ and WC3 playerbases because those were totally the only people who'd be willing to play a Warcraft MMO . Seriously, what's with this stupid fucking idea that the only market a new game can tap into is the one for the current 20 year old version? Was BG3's potential market capped at only people who played BG2? Was D4's market capped at only the handful of people who were still playing D3? Fuck no. There are literally tens of millions of potential players out there (some who already moved away from WoW but could come back for a newer iteration, and others who were too young to get into WoW during its heyday but would be down for a new game).
    Uh did you actually read what I said? And yes EQ2 did split the playerbase it's arguably part of the reason WoW was able to be so successful because people knew EQ2 was coming out so there was no sunk cost since they would be leaving EQ1 anyway. Also no there really aren't if you look at the trend games people don't tend to sit down and play mmos anymore it's all about drop in drop out content.

  6. #446
    The Unstoppable Force Ielenia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    22,218
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    It would be a massive financial risk.

    Part of that problem is RTS becoming less relevant in the mainstream as well,
    I wasn't talking exclusively about Starcraft 3, but any new game from Blizzard.
    "Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons" by Varodoc
    "You sit in OG/SW waiting on a Mythic+ queue" by Altmer <- Oh, the pearls in this forum...
    "They sort of did this Dragonriding, which ushered in the Dracthyr race." by Teriz <- the BS some people reach for their narratives...

  7. #447
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    I wasn't talking exclusively about Starcraft 3, but any new game from Blizzard.
    That was your example, and a context of 'any new game' is also subject to discussion.

    Otherwise 'WoW 2' is also any new game, and we are all discussing its merits and drawbacks, of which there are many on both sides of the discussion.

    We can see from projects that they havd planned in development, released, and cancelled that they seem to bank on big franchise sequels or else mobile games. There's not much inbetween, and even their remakes/classics has seem to run dry of things to recreate, unless they start diving into rock and roll racing or lost vikings.

  8. #448
    The Unstoppable Force Ielenia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    22,218
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    That was your example, and a context of 'any new game' is also subject to discussion.
    Not my example. The original poster talked about "why make SC3 when you can make another store mount".

    Otherwise 'WoW 2' is also any new game, and we are all discussing its merits and drawbacks, of which there are many on both sides of the discussion.
    I think there's a big difference between making a sequel to an IP that has no current game, and making a sequel to a game that is still going strong with expansions after expansions.
    "Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons" by Varodoc
    "You sit in OG/SW waiting on a Mythic+ queue" by Altmer <- Oh, the pearls in this forum...
    "They sort of did this Dragonriding, which ushered in the Dracthyr race." by Teriz <- the BS some people reach for their narratives...

  9. #449
    Quote Originally Posted by Xath View Post
    Uh did you actually read what I said? And yes EQ2 did split the playerbase it's arguably part of the reason WoW was able to be so successful because people knew EQ2 was coming out so there was no sunk cost since they would be leaving EQ1 anyway. Also no there really aren't if you look at the trend games people don't tend to sit down and play mmos anymore it's all about drop in drop out content.
    EQ2 came out only five years after EQ so that's a very different dynamic. The point was that splitting the WoW player base is irrelevant because the current player base is only a tiny fraction of the potential player base. As for trends, trying to predict them can be useful to a certain extent but great games tend to start trends of their own. WoW certainly did. Additionally, if we were talking about a realistic timeline for a new Warcraft title we'd be talking 5 to 10 years in the future so current trends are next to useless.

    On the topic of drop in drop out content, WoW already has plenty of that so why couldn't its successor also have that? If anything I think what you're getting at actually highlights one of the benefits of developing a new flagship title if you've grown so accustomed to a particular type of gameplay structure that you can't imagine deviating from that. You can certainly make an MMORPG that doesn't require people to participate in endeavors that can take several hours in one sitting to complete.

  10. #450
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    EQ2 came out only five years after EQ so that's a very different dynamic. The point was that splitting the WoW player base is irrelevant because the current player base is only a tiny fraction of the potential player base. As for trends, trying to predict them can be useful to a certain extent but great games tend to start trends of their own. WoW certainly did. Additionally, if we were talking about a realistic timeline for a new Warcraft title we'd be talking 5 to 10 years in the future so current trends are next to useless.

    On the topic of drop in drop out content, WoW already has plenty of that so why couldn't its successor also have that? If anything I think what you're getting at actually highlights one of the benefits of developing a new flagship title if you've grown so accustomed to a particular type of gameplay structure that you can't imagine deviating from that. You can certainly make an MMORPG that doesn't require people to participate in endeavors that can take several hours in one sitting to complete.
    The big question is then, what is the potential player base for a game genre that is well past its prime? What other big successful modern MMO's can we look to as a standard?

  11. #451
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    The big question is then, what is the potential player base for a game genre that is well past its prime? What other big successful modern MMO's can we look to as a standard?
    WoW's success came from accessibility and drawing in people with all sorts of gaming backgrounds. The vast majority of WoW players never even played an MMO before WoW. I don't see the need to rely exclusively on the current niche of MMO players.

    If your question is why haven't other MMO's managed to start a trend like WoW did back in the day, I don't really have a solid answer for that. They weren't good enough? They weren't as attractive or accessible to new players? Their aesthetics cater to too niche an audience? They didn't have the established IP/studio fanbase that Warcraft/Blizzard had/has? Combination of some or all the above?

    I've always noted that such an endeavor would be a risk, but that goes for every new game. Aren't we all glad Blizzard took the risk to make a game in an unproven genre that only had one truly profitable game 20 years ago? Yeah, a new Warcraft game could fall flat on its face and kill the franchise for a decade or two (though there's no reason why WoW couldn't continue on regardless). However, I think Blizzard still has a fairly high standard for game development, and if they were going to make a new flagship title for Wacraft, their biggest franchise, I'd imagine it would be an all in, bring the A game sort of thing.

  12. #452
    The Lightbringer Hottage's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    The Hague, NL
    Posts
    3,846
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Read the entire argument.

    Making a new game opens up more monetization avenues. If Blizzard made, for example, a Starcraft 3 game and put a cash shop in it, do you honestly think it wouldn't be at least as lucrative as a single store mount in WoW?
    RTS games in general are not in vogue anymore, the hayday of Age oif Empires, Command & Conquer and StarCraft are long gone.

    The bean counting spreadsheet commitees of a big giga publisher like ABK would likely never approve such a high-risk, low reward project.

    The same is true of a new MMO, even one based on such an established franchise as Warcraft. MMOs are not popular anymore, they are very much a niche product as far as any big publisher is concerned.

    Many people play World of Warcraft because it is so old. They have a history and legacy which won't exist in a rebooted game. 19+ years of gear, progress and nostalgia is a hard thing to replace to entice people to a new game, and the inevitable pulling of the plug on the existing game would result in millions of very bitter fans.
    Dragonflight: Grand Marshal Hottage | Remix: Rixxa, Paragon of the Mists
    PC Specs: Ryzen 7 7800X3D | ASUS ROG STRIX B650E-I | 32GB 6000Mhz DDR5 | NZXT Kraken 120
    Inno3D RTX 4080 iChill | Samsung 970 EVO Plus 2TB | NZXT H200 | Corsair SF750 | Windows 11 Pro
    Razer Basilisk Ultimate | Razer Blackwidow V3 | Alienware AW3225QF | Steam Deck 1TB OLED

  13. #453
    Quote Originally Posted by SilverLion View Post
    No. Because Starcraft doesn't sell. That was Thor's point in the clip. Starcraft just doesn't matter. Maybe a new Warcraft game might but an SC3? Nope.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hottage View Post
    Starcraft II: Wings of Liberty made less money for Blizzard than the sparkle pony mount. This was confirmed by PirateSoftware (a former Blizzard employee turned indie developer) during one of his streams.
    Ayyy somebody knew what I was talking about ty lol

  14. #454
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    The meta matters for casual players as much as the color of their neighbors' underwear matters when deciding what they'll have for lunch.


    Your explanations are weak and easily debunkable, as they always boil down to you pushing your own personal failings as part of the "average player" crowd.


    We doubt you even play WoW at all, mind you.


    Then stop playing PvP games if you don't like PvP. It's not hard.


    No. "Git gud" means exactly what's written on the tin: it means improve your skills. Your skills as a player matter a thousand times more than the class/character you pick in a game. Picking a "meta" class/character in a game won't magically make you go from the bottom 10% to the top 10%. But improving your skills would.

    A good player using the "worst meta class" will pretty consistently beat a bad player using the "best meta class".


    No, that is what you think "meta" means which, as you've already established pretty well beyond reasonable doubt, is divorced from reality.


    They're not personal attacks. They're challenges to your assertions that you are part of the average player group.

    - - - Updated - - -


    Not using consumables such as potions, flasks, enchants and other profession-created stuff is also a made-up rule.


    It is a made-up rule as well. It is also a 100% valid choice. Both are not mutually exclusive. But it being a valid choice doesn't entitle you to demand the game to be broken down to meet you at your desired level of "play".


    Literally no one in WoW is telling which class to play or which gear to get. You'll find guides telling you the best gear/talents for the classes if you're interested in improving your performance (which you've already established you don't care to) but no one is forcing to play "meta". No one but yourself, of course.
    No proffesion items are mandatory. It was confirmed by devs themselves back in WotLK. Mandatory consumables - is exact example of made up rule, created by min-max players. And you know what? Many things like gem sockets in all gear and mandatory enchants were removed from game due to exactly this reason.

    Devs make different systems just for sake of making them more diverse. But they should never make them mandatory. Because what they don't understand - is that there is psychological factor. I just DON'T like consumables. In any games. Because I don't like to manage things. That's it. It's my personal choice, yeah. So, such game design approach, as "If we add system, then it's mandatory" - is wrong approach.

    So. Consumables and temporary buffs are for min-maxers. Class/spec tools should be more than enough to play game properly. When this simple rule is violated - then it's just bad game design. As in case of ZM and it's mandatory stealth buff.

    As always. We've gone way to far in this completely unrelated discussion. Main question is still the same. Outdoor content is overtuned for player, who plays outdoor content only. And this should be fixed. If devs don't want to change whole game and "ruin" it for players, who enjoy difficulties - then separate solo mode should be implemented. As it wouldn't affect other players, then their voices against this feature aren't understandable. Only reason for it - being selfish and jealous. It's something like "How is that other players would enjoy this game instead of being forced to suffer in hard content with me?". Nobody is forced to suffer with you. Players quit game instead of playing what they don't like. Providing more diverse content would only bring more players into game. For example DF success can be connected to 5M players, who quit back in WOD due to removal of flying, returning back to game. So, 12M is also possible, if game would be as casual friendly, as it was back in WotLK. Some guys like Ion just should stop being stubborn and stop thinking, that challenge is only thing, players need.

    Making game more hard in recent xpacks - is chain reaction effect. Devs were doing things wrong, not as players were asking them to do, players were quitting too quckly as result, that leaded devs to thinking, that casual players just couldn't be kept subbed and focusing on small but more "stable" auditory of hardcore players. And solution is actually very simple. Just stop thinking, that you know better what players need and start doing what they actually ask for. As simple, as that.
    Last edited by WowIsDead64; Today at 09:24 AM.

    Solo MMO: no more humiliating queues and toxic competing. Aggro and combat: game would only be better without obsoleted mechanics.

  15. #455
    Quote Originally Posted by WowIsDead64 View Post
    As always. We've gone way to far in this completely unrelated discussion. Main question is still the same. Outdoor content is overtuned for player, who plays outdoor content only.
    I just hit level cap on my mage, a class I have never played before, and I'm doing outdoor content no problem without gear from raids or dungeons.
    So your argument is full of shit yet again.

    Have you ever considered talking about stuff you have experience of, instead of making shit up just so you have people to talk to?
    Quote Originally Posted by Val the Moofia Boss View Post

    I only view Warcraft up to MoP as canon.

  16. #456
    Merely a Setback FelPlague's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    28,331
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostile View Post
    I just hit level cap on my mage, a class I have never played before, and I'm doing outdoor content no problem without gear from raids or dungeons.
    So your argument is full of shit yet again.

    Have you ever considered talking about stuff you have experience of, instead of making shit up just so you have people to talk to?
    He hasn't even played dragonflight yet to be fair, he's talking about shadowlands

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •