Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

    10.00 USD 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ninjabadger

  1. This kind of thing comes up over and over again, the core issue is not specific to cherry picking.  Different people want different things from the game.   Some have the time and flexibility to camp timed spawns, make sure they get there first, often not realizing that by doing so they are inherently preventing others from playing the game how they want.  Like with rare spawns and non instanced boss fights, the first group of players adopt the attitude that if players want to access this content they should force their way into first place like they did.   This "get there first" approach may to some be the definition of PvE, but there are others, who may want to in groups or guilds compete cooperatively with the environment, without also having to compete against other players in order to do so, often other players who have more time to play or a more flexible schedule.  With games of this model it can become a "lack of real life" arms race.   I do not believe either party to be wrong, they just want different things.  In live people pretty much had to just get over it, although there was a marked difference in how different servers handled things.  What I do find frustrating is people getting all worked up saying "This is how the game is, it is what I am doing so it is the only way, and it will stay like this, opinions that it may be better some other way are just invalid and we should never talk about it".  With the emulator some things could be changed, if the community wanted it.   Maybe some people have seen this topic over and over, but you can tell from the title what it is, if it pisses you off do not read it.  On pretty much any forum topic there is a "Yes" camp and a "No" camp then this repeated, trollic presence of "We should not even have the discussion, I have been here for years and have seen it five times, you should read all of the 5000 previous posts on this site before you dare talk to me!".   Surely it is in the best interest of the whole project for it to do what most players are happy with.  It may be that most players want a "get there first" open world, with static spawn times they can try to fight over and monopolize.  But without talking about it here the community will not find out.  The arrogance of some saying "STFU! just want the same things as me and that is the end of it".   Think of this, if you are in the "get there first" camp.  Would it actually bother you that someone else gets a piece of loot from a boss in a parallel instance, or otherwise gets more easily enabled access to some resource, not having to ensure they log on at the right time to get it first?  I mean if certain resources were made that, it takes some time to get them, on average the same time investment per player, but you do not have to race others to get it first or not at all.  Is it getting things which others miss out on because you got it first which actually makes you enjoy the game?  Does it really make you feel better about the size of your penis?   That is one thing WoW did get right.  You and your guild could tackle the content when and how you wanted to, without interfering with anyone else ability to do so, in PvE.  Why some people bring things up, like the original poster here is that they see the potential for a game they might enjoy, but the actions of others are preventing it.  Actions enabled by the way the game is configured, but it may be possible to configure the game a different way such that everyone can play the content they wish to play.   You have your right to say you want the game to exist in a certain way.  But telling others they cannot say (to the community and the dev team) how they think it would be better makes you an asshole.  I expect this to be flamed/trolled to hell, denounced as being of topic, not related to cherry picking, but greedy, arrogant people, who would not dare speak like they do online if they met someone in person, strutting about and puffing their chests out is what kills MMOs for a lot of people and is the core issue in pretty much any discussion of game mechanic.  If other players are a part of the experience you want to play with people you actually want to spend some time with.   Content how you want it + players you want to play with = Good MMO
  2. This was my first guild in live with Ninjabadger JE, made before I knew the connotations of ninja. When I was exploring the Gate for the first time there was a raid on, I had no idea what the people were doing but they all shouted at me for sitting there cloaked at like lvl 120. I was just getting the explore XP. This was all after pappasmurf had left though and Solsister I think was leading the guild. I left when another member formed his own small Guild (Olympus) and eventually was dumped with the leadership of it. Still stayed friends with some BMs though They were awesome at helping me level, building top notch equipment and such. Good Times
  3. Not if they are triggered. World drops, from some type of enemy (like any red dragon bot thing). Not something that can be camped but something people have to invest time in. Either or in addition to that (if its even possible) some kind of mass quest hand in of large quantities of a common resource (again not camp-able). When triggered would it be possible to set loot rights to the activator, not anyone else? That way a kill steal can be avoided. In order to not affect the game for large guilds (they want to play the game in a way they want too) the timed spawns could be left in place and run by rotation. The drop rate of rare components and/or the frequency one player can hand the quest in could be adjusted as to not make the raid too common. Even once per character (lvl 150) every 1-3 months would give an alliance of small guilds a chance to do the encounter a few times on their terms. Players could optionally be limited to doing no more raids than they currently could in a set time to avoid it being farmed. Alternatively the loot drop rates could be adjusted so that drops are as common as they are now albeit spread. I know it is not a perfect solution but it is a starting point and I do think something is possible to keep everyone say 90% happy.
  4. You are missing my point. The fun for some is a team effort against the environment, not a form of competition against other players. It is how some want the game to be and how they want to play it. This opportunity is being either denied, gated or being made more difficult by others. Hence why I am suggesting people look for an alternative mechanic whereby people can all play the game how they want. This could be an alliance taking a rotation slot, although see my earlier point about not wanting to have to do it every week or being able to do it every week. Forget the loot for a moment as well, it is about solving the puzzle, following the story and completing the encounter like the big guilds did when they first attempted it, before they had it on farm mode. If it is how the developers want the game then fine, but they need to say so to remove ambiguity and let people know where they stand, like Eve does. It was not like this however in live, at least on some servers. I know that is not practical right now but there are other ways. It is discussing these ways which work for everyone which I believe is best, not each group trying to convince the other. That will never work.
  5. I am not going to add much more to this but wanted to reply to your point number 1. Yes, the small guilds could form up into some form of an alliance, in effect being a large guild themselves. The problem is many do not want to compete with other players in order to compete with the environment. There is nothing to stop the large guilds, who are likely to be able to bring more firepower from taking the kill anyway. This drastically changes the encounter and the experience for all involved.
  6. I would not say it needs locked as such although those who have made their point already might to well to back off and let others make theirs, making the thread more readable for new posters as well. The main message I believe developers need to take from this and have a think about is that there are two groups of players who want the same thing but in different ways. There used to be 4 servers, some with big guilds (Orion, Andromeda) and some with more of a public group effort (Galileo, Pegasus). People ultimately had a choice to play how they wanted, especially after server transfer was introduced. Now everyone has moved in together on Sunrise. It is still just the testing phase so ultimately at this point people may just need to learn to get on together, but as the game progresses it could become a problem.
  7. Both parties I think would do well to see the others point of view. If either side wants access to all of the spawns or a guarantee that every spawn is killed immediately then perhaps the developers need to clarify the type of game. Is it pure team PvE or is it a competitive game rewarding those with the time and numbers. One argument I saw earlier was that for large guilds raids were the only type of game left. This will eventually become true for smaller guilds and individuals. It does not mean the smaller guilds want to raid as much as the larger guilds do. To see the point of view of the smaller guilds look at the effect and not the wording of any pact. Some players would like to be able to do the content without having to compete with other players for it. These people feel EnB is a pure PvE game and whilst it is not PvP other players introduce a level of competition which given their numbers, equipment and practice makes it hard to make any inroad or even to raid at all (without being beaten to the kill) For small guild members, looking at it from the large guilds point of view. They want to make sure no slot is wasted and that they get a fair chance, regardless of whether you think it is fair the intention is to stop fighting over it. Forming a guild alliance and getting into rotation would be fair as players would all get equal chance. Back to the big guild members, some players or alliances might not want to raid weekly. Could they request a one off slot in rotation? (obviously going in at the end of the next cycle, or full cycle and a bit). Having fixed days could be difficult as well since peoples real life commitments might mean they can never raid on the allocated fixed day. If the public or alliance raid does not kill the boss you are not losing out. It is killed the next day by the big guild. Small guilds will likely have lesser equipment initially and may need to learn the encounters. Demanding that they need to be able to do it before they have had a chance to work on it is something which small guilds might find unfair. If they kill the boss then large guilds do not get loot, if they do not kill the boss then large guilds still do not get loot, it makes no difference. If the public/alliance raid failed to take down the boss on a regular basis due to something like lack of numbers then it might be suggested that a minimum attendance is required. Large guild players could also join these raids although as backups, otherwise it defeats the whole point of a sharing system. If the two parties cannot come to a compromise then I would hope the developers can add in extra functionality which allows them to do so, or at least means they do not get in each others way. If the people currently raiding most end up raiding the same amount and for the same loot quantity then having a small fraction of additional raids would not devalue the rare items and could satisfy the requirements of the smaller guilds. Everyone would be happy, raiding as much as is an even share but with the larger guilds taking extra time when smaller guilds do not want it. With such a small server population if everyone could agree to some system then spawn times could also be returned to fixed and published.
  8. I am just getting back into the game so I apologise if I misunderstand anything I played WoW for a number of years. What put me off of doing the 25 man content was the guilds capable of doing it demanded you play like 5 nights per week. Of course it was different in that all raids were instanced. Do the guilds currently in rotation tend to have minimum playing requirements? It is possible to play well without playing excessively. I eventually found a 10 man strict guild and playing 2 nights per week we managed to kill Agalon in Ulduar as well as doing the meta-achievement for hard modes, placing world 8th in 10 man strict at the time. I know that 10 man strict did not have the competition levels of 25 man and was not an official thing. My point is that as a small guild we did difficult end game content but at a pace which fitted with real world commitments. What I hope a community project of Earth and Beyond would be able to accomplish is a mechanism for players with less weekly time to see all content and have access to all items, albeit at a slower rate proportional to their play time. Another idea . . . what if the following or some combination was done (I know some of it may exist already):[list=1] [*]Make all raids triggered by items dropping rarely but randomly from a large section of enemies. Adjust this to the required item rarity based on population. Large guilds still get more loot, small guilds get the opportunity for some. Individual enemies are not excessively camped. [*]Restrict the raid frequency only by items dropped and perhaps by individual player cooldown. Nobody can own a spawn time, nobody can farm it. [*]Reduce the drop rate of items in a raid based on the player population. The content can be done by many people without making rare items common, An increase in server population then does not make the situation worse. [*]If possible grant exclusive loot rights to the player who activated the event. Large guilds or groups cannot steal a kill, effectively returning to the ownership issue. Alternatively this could be moderator, put in the TOS and with punitive measures. [/list] I am not saying this is the set in stone way it should be done, I am just trying to suggest some form of direction things could go to allow large guilds to do the encounters as often as they can whilst still allowing smaller guilds to experience all content albeit at a slower pace. This is all done whilst granting players a chance to obtain rare loot based directly on the time invested (given equal group skill). Everyone is able to invest time, everyone is able to learn the encounter without annoying people who can rip through it. Players are limited by their own time investment, not a "lack of real life" arms race. As I said, I know the minimum time limit may not be so much of an issue but a solution of this intent could solve a lot of other problems as well.
  9. Email verification is a standard method for verification of account registration, it guarantees you can be communicated with and that you own the email account. From the looks of things this was a resolved issue which has reared its head again and people are trying hard to fix. This is a free to play community project and as such the occasional glitch or deviation from professional customer service can be expected. Just be glad accounts are being activated manually whilst the problem persists, they could just wait until the mail sending issues are resolved.
  10. Same issue. Checked spam and sent a repeat request. A manual activation would be great if possible. You seem to have made insane progress since I last checked the site.
  • Create New...