Mar 30th 2010 11:37AM leverage contacts, eh? Not even hiding the fact that they're exploiting them for gain. I can't wait to graduate, and leverage my friends for jobs. :p
Anyways...that's fascinating that there are so many women. I mean, what is this saying about them? Are they unwilling to break the stereotypes of women being primarily social creatures, with few other skill sets? It just seems oddly sexist that community manager is their high point of entry in the industry.
Mar 5th 2010 2:54PM "...instead of making all tanks able to trivially maintain threat in all situations."
"...instead of making all tanks MORE able to trivially maintain threat in all situations."
Tanks are the same. The differences are trivial. I can't believe people are complaining about tanks...
Druids. Warriors. Paladins. All can Aoe. All can single target. All can do all. The disadvantages and advantages are trivial. I know i'll get blacked out, or attacked with some inane "dont want something that seems like work" argument. But...honestly.
I'm kind of defeated at this point. Is this REALLY how people think these days? Is this really what people want? It's incredibly depressing; not because of what it does to the game, but because of what it means about gamers...
"4) There is too much incentive to AE every pull, which puts a burden on the tank to AE tank every pull."
He's implying that it's a burden...AE tanking is barely challenging. Esp if you're a paladin. The ONLY trick in tanking comes if you screw something up. I mean, as a bear I could hold a whole group without struggle on a heroic. My paladin didn't even have to try, really. To AOE tank, you just run in, and spam a couple buttons, with your fingers on a few others in case something gets away. DPS don't have to CC...so...you just sit there? I admit I haven't played a warrior, but if it's harder than THAT, I don't understand - how could it be a bad thing?
"5) You could probably add that bears need a button to hit besides Swipe."
That's a hilarious statement. Emblematic, I think, of the entire problem with the game. Even if it is an extreme example.
"But on content at appropriate level, it wouldn't be so bad if *some* of the pulls required more crowd control and single-target damage."
Another comical statement. This guy should do stand-up...
'Sir, SOME of the pulls should require the team to think on their feet, use timing, crowd control, and more than just threat spamming.'
Ah yes, "CC abilities", we have dismissed those claims. (couldn't resist)
"I don't think they're going to go back to the days of CCing every pull. I mean, I think they tried that with the new ICC heroics and we can see how well that worked out. What they'll do is make it attractive to want to CC, but it won't be mandatory."
Now. I can't say I've had any incentive to try to ICC heroics, but what I will say is that these sentences contradict each other. CCing every pull in a heroic was never a requirement, except, arguably, in H Magisters Terrace. One simply had to be geared, talented, and experienced. Not even for bears. I knew a bear who could multi-tank better than some paladins. So, it was ALWAYS attractive to want to CC, and was never mandatory. Therefore, if they are doing what is stated in the last sentence, they WILL be going back to the 'old' days. What they will do is something different altogether.
Jan 26th 2010 7:07PM It appears the singularity is about to explode.
+1 for all who get that reference
Jan 23rd 2010 1:01AM Are you saying that faeries and unicorns don't exist? :\
I don't believe you.
Plus, the beta is a bug testing time. They actually just fixed a ton of problems in STO with this latest patch...or were you not researching? Or maybe I'm not paying attention enough. Still seems like you're making overarching statements without any realism. Just like people who claim that just because it's a problem in beta, that everything will be ideal at launch.
I use the beta defense. Still, I really don't expect perfection at launch. I still expect a lot of problems left over. *shrug*
But maybe you're right.
I maintain my faith in faeries and unicorns.
Despite what you try to do to......KILL MY DREAMMMSSS
Jan 22nd 2010 4:54PM Do you want me to go into detail of the stereotypes of women who play online games? About how they act? About what they take advantage of? I know you're desperately attempting to seem sensible, but a lot of stereotyping still comes through.
Most guys are not like that. In fact, the biggest problem is not that guys will want to talk just because it's a girl, or give gifts, etc. But that they remain silent, and very subtly, very quietly, give the girl more leeway, more priviliges, and ignore a girls negative aspects so they can become 'friends'. But it's just because she's a girl.
I think a lot of it comes from insecurities in the men involved. They want it to be "their territory" because in the real world, most likely, they've been constantly rejected and perhaps socially abused by girls. I've seen it happen to people, and it's a little sad. They don't feel like their escape is complete if girls are involved, and the same social structures that existed externally - that is, treating girls better just because they're girls in order to gain their favor - takes place, and they feel, from their own experience, that they would be rejected yet again.
Of course, that's just a guess. And everyone's different. Likely some of them are just complete jerks.
On the other hand...I've been accused to being a 'jerk' just because I calmly pointed out the flaws a few girl players had in their playstyle. They freaked out on me, and other players called me a jerk. When, where I to have said the same thing to any male player, they would have admitted the failing, or at least thought about it, or even contradicted me if they thought I was wrong.
I think it's a little sad that you prefer to appear as a male just to avoid dealing with men as yourself. There are other ways of dealing with them, I'm sure. ignoring them. Making fun of them. Returning their gifts with a laugh. Avoiding them. If you need to deny that you're a women - which you don't - then its more your problem, imo. They're idiots, but you're letting them get to you.
As for guys playing girls, only the first poster got it right. Guys play girls, AND girls play guys. I've known both. Hell, I've HAD a few female characters (though everyone knew I was male). It's role-playing. It's a game. We shouldn't force people into different characters if they don't' want to be. Let them be a girl, let them pretend to be a girl. Let them be a guy, let them pretend to be a guy. As long as it's what you feel like doing, whatever. (so long as they're not doing it to escape interaction...).
And to be honest the majority of the people I talked to online, back when I played Wow, were RL girls, and "proved it" over voice chat, even though there was no requirement for them to...I dunno. Of course, we all know there are no girls on the internet. That's a given. So I can't really deny the claim, despite what you claim your interview has found. It's just a fact, there are no girls on the internet....I mean, how do we know you aren't really a guy? Mewmew is a name I'd choose if I wanted to pretend to be a girl. I think you should prove it.
Jan 21st 2010 11:28AM Sorry to have to stoop to this level, but:
Anyways. Back to intelligent discussion.
I am completely aware of everything you have stated. Everything. You get that, right? If you're talking about people like me, and people who believe what I believe.
The problem I see is that they ARE just in it for the money, not because they don't care about the game, not because they're monsters (though some may be). But because they HAVE to. They NEED to suck the money from us in order to make their games. That's the depressing part of the way we live our lives.
So it's really just an attack on our system, or capitalism in general, not a particular attack on the industry or the people in it. Art across the board is being ruined by the need or hunger for money. You should hear me go off about what it's doing to the literary world, something I REALLY care about.
So, to summarize and repeat myself
Jan 19th 2010 11:28AM Survival is about money, not about the work you do.
Until it is, people will find ways to get money without working. Make money because they have to. Because they lose their job. Because their job doesn't make them enough to keep them happy and comfortable.
Please stop thinking that most scammers, RL or otherwise, are anything other than normal people.
Jan 18th 2010 3:23PM That's all well and good. Irrational, sure. But I'd be careful with that line of thinking. If we all agree to agree, or worse, agree to disagree on everything, then nothing will change. We'll all remain in our own little worlds, forgetting the rest of the world around us, believing we are right, and all the while the world allows us to believe that we are perfectly right in believing the way we do, even if the facts prove otherwise.
It's a balance is all I'm saying. Sure, some irrational abuse occurs, but the opposite can be just as bad. Bland acceptance is a sickness as well.
Jan 15th 2010 9:43PM Balmora is a Dunmer city, not an Imperial city.
Jan 14th 2010 4:21PM It's been great so far, barring the massive lag issues of course. I'm not sure what the problem is on Cryptic's end. I even had this problem with Champions, even months after launch. SERVER NOT RESPONDING. Seems like they should have gotten it fixed after STO launched.
The ground combat is a little meh, as many people have been saying. It needs a lot of work, but it is definitely better than expected. I don't necessarily blame them however, since they basically have to make your BO's effective in combat, like in a ME or DA:O, but without the pause functionality of those games, even while making it so they're not so powerful than you can win without actively participating in the battle, even though the BO's outnumber you - seems like it would be hard to keep that from being nothing more than a glorified AI battle. It works so far much better than that. Then again, this is low level. Which is ALWAYS boring to some degree. I fully expect that with a complete set of ground abilities, ground combat will be a blast.
Ship combat is a lot of fun, actually. I die if I'm not careful, even in a group. My only complaint is the no death penalty, which I've heard is coming back in close to before launch. As it stands, no planning needs to be done, since we can just rush in and respawn and fight again in around 5 seconds. In spite of the lack of a death penalty, the game STILL feels somewhat strategic. Powerlevels, shield redistribution, well timed abilities - even at this low level - is impressive to me. It all has to be done right, or you'll die. When there is a death penalty, it will be perfection.
The huge concern I have is with BO's, actually. They're not customized via the character creator. That was amazing to me. I couldn't believe that wasn't the case, and it's completely disappointing. You buy a BO, from one of the built in races, and can then go to the tailor (who is apparently also a plastic surgeon) and customize them as if there were in the character generator, except for special abilities, gender, or race. If you want a custom race, you essentially choose "Unknown Bridge Officer" and get an alien that looks like the base unknown alien, and have to go and customize him in order to get him to look the way you want. This is a very strangely implemented system at the moment, and a little immersion breaking. I should be able to say "new bo" then go into the Character Generator, and built him/her from scratch just like I built my own character. *shrug* It's baffling why they did it the way they did.