No Profile Found
Sep 27th 2010 3:28PM I'd also like to add that I've noticed a trend that individuals who are adamantly *against* player housing have never played an MMO with a decent player housing mechanic, so they really don't know what the hell they are talking about.
They just regurgitate fallacious arguments they've 'heard on the internet' about the non-existent negative effects of player housing. Or, they believe that the implementation of player housing will negatively impact content they believe they are more interested in (which is really the only valid argument against it).
Sep 27th 2010 3:22PM "The amount of work it would take to create satisfying, Blizzard-quality guild or player housing is immense and only a relatively small amount of the player base would enjoy it. Indeed, it's possible adding effective housing would actively harm the rest of the game by depopulating towns. I'm not saying right or wrong; I'm just saying that I don't think we can pin "roleplaying issues" as being a causal or motivating factor for housing or the lack thereof."
I still have yet to see this fabled negative impact player housing has on depopulating towns. And there is no evidence to suggest a "small amount of the player base would enjoy it". In every MMO that *has* a good structured player housing (EQ2, LOTRO), the cities are still busy as ever *AND* the vast, vast majority of players own/use a house. Housing is used primarily for additional storage and to show off your trophies from raiding, instancing, PvP, and leveling. It's another level of customization *and* another hampster wheel of achievement to keep you playing. RPers just demand it more because of the implications on roleplaying that having your own home would have. But that is not the reason housing should be implemented into the game.
Sep 20th 2010 1:19PM Now, I'm not going to take the stance that you are wrong about Blizzard supporting Roleplaying because that's obviously the minority opinion here, even though by comparison to nearly every other MMO on the market, they are clearly not even in the top 10 as far as player supportive RP tools go. But I digress.
What I do want to say is that your reasons for defending that they do support RP as being:
2 Story Buildings.
Pets that don't kill stuff.
Clothing without stats.
And a naming policy they don't really enforce.
. . . is kinda weak as a defense.
Aug 12th 2009 12:36PM Only a good idea if you are able to manually change your phase in some way.
Content gating is bad. Phasing is content gating.
In the example of Icecrown, having new stuff appear after you slay Arthas is cool in concept. But then you start to realize that only about 5% of people will be slaying Arthas anytime soon after the release of 3.3 (or 3.4). And by anytime soon, I mean months. On my server alone there are only a handful of guilds who have downed Yogg. And even out of those guilds, not everyone has gotten the kill. So it would be a bad use of development time to implement an entire new phased world that only a small fraction of the players would ever get to see.
What about people who PvP instead of Raid? What about the people in your guild who haven't gotten the kill yet? What about your friends that aren't in a top-tier raiding guild?
There are a massive amount of obstacles that make this sort of implementation of phasing difficult. Not only that, but there are a substantial number of players that simply don't like phasing, at least not in its current implementation. Far too many times I have either needed help or have been trying to help other players quest in Icecrown. There are a number of group quests that can only be completed with players on the same phase and because you can't go back (or forward) you are completely at the mercy of just happening to run into someone on the same phase at the same time.
So, while I agree it would be "cool" to see these types of changes in the game world based on your personal progression through content, there is a definite reason that we haven't seen this in MMOs before - because it gates content and fractures your player base between the haves and have-nots. Blizzard has been doing everything possible to close this gap (emblem changes, no more attunements, easier content). Adding phasing to raid progression is the exact opposite of that design direction.
Jul 21st 2009 12:51PM From my contact at SOE:
Each team was required to cut at least one person. Vanguard lost 2, EQ2 lost 1, EQ lost 3, SWG lost 2, and FR lost the vast majority of the rest.
And yes, they were almost entirely development positions. Janitors don't cost enough to warrant laying off.
No, Smed has not taken a pay cut, last I heard he was recently returning from a vacation at some random tropical island I can't spell.
No, they are not now "part-time" employees, they were laid off, not demoted.
It also says nothing of the dozens of contractors that have been let go/not had contracts renewed (most of which, again, come from FR).
While the executives may not make $700k (although, if I had to guesstimate based on their personal habits, I'd say most of the upper eschelon is making between $300 and $500k a year), there is a distinct difference between the Lambos, Porches and Ferraris they drive to work, and the Jettas, Civics, and Saturns that the rest of the development team arrives in. And, of course, when things go bad, it is never their fault (the management), they never take pay cuts, and they never get laid off.
This should be no surprise (at least from the FR side of things), it takes a significantly larger team to build and launch an MMO than it takes to maintain one.