Wednesday, May 12, 2010

So you mean to tell me that someone actually voted for the POL Window loop-song...

Well, this was the Japanese voting on it...

"Memories of Dusk and Dawn", the 8th Anniversary music set, is out on iTunes US (as well as other places), and the votes came up with some interesting choices, including the aforementioned.

Some obvious choices:

"Awakening" (Though I actually prefer the one from one of the subsidiary games...)
"Distant Worlds" (full version,with lyrics -- the CoP ending cutscene with the partial song is epic!)
"Ronfaure"
"The Sanctuary of Zi'Tah"
"Vana'diel March" (The OLD opening screen -- and the song which implies you probably waited too long to log in now.)

Some of the more "interesting" ones:

"POL Opening": WTH is this from? Sounds like a racing theme or something...
"Shadow Lord": Main Dynamis music. Seems a bit too plain.
"Gustaberg": Maybe because I'm Bastokan, but ditto.

Some I'd have voted for:

The Movapolos theme
"Run, Maggot, Run..."

-------------------

And I see I have two Campaign bitches:

1) the guy who basically moves the monster just enough to ensure that no one can "see" the monster so that the battle is extended.

2) And I see the hiders/hoarders of the last Campaign mobs are at it in full force. That shit has to stop.

7 comments:

Volkai said...

You again seem to attribute malicious intent where it is reasonable to assume there is none -- players at times like to challenge themselves by trying to solo beastmen (and sometimes other monsters) in campaign battles. The reason they drag those monsters away from the main battle area is quite simple -- they don't want help. They don't want assistance (or, as they likely see it, interference.) It is a test of what one can do by oneself, without the aid of others.

However, such fights can and will drag on, which does unfortunately leave others at times in a campaign battle with seemingly no foes. That is not then intent of soloers, but an unfortunate side effect.



In short: yeah, they're dragging out campaign battles, but it's not because they want you to stand around with nothing to do, it's because they're in the middle of soloing, and they're afraid you or another player is going to interfere with that, rendering their effort to succesfully solo that monster null and void.

Starcade, back on Leviathan said...

The thing is, this is the same type of abuse that goes on in Besieged.

If they don't want help, let them challenge themselves in an individual event. Let them do it on their own damn time, and not compromise the efforts of others -- it's like these conceited jerks see the NPCs as a hindrance.

I want to "interfere" with that if it's going to compromise the efforts to retain or take zones.

One of the things which pisses me off is that they seem to have the right to dictate to me what I can and cannot play, and I don't have the right to dictate that to them in return.

They seem to have the right to say "It's my $12.95/mo -- so I can do what I want, and tell you what you can do with your $12.95/mo."

Why do you think it actually took some JPs to prop up one server to learn how to get the Allied Ring before everyone woke up and actually tried to take the Northlands [S] zones?

Volkai said...

"The thing is, this is the same type of abuse that goes on in Besieged."
Yeah except Besieged happens in a much more concentrated area (only one city as opposed to spread out across two continents, and at one time instead of staggered battle starts and finishes,) and IIRC the monsters are a bit tougher -- and more likely to gang up on you -- than they are in Campaign.

Thus, soloing is much more viable with Campaign mobs than Besieged mobs. And really... I've never seen people try to hide/hoard monsters in Besieged with anything even vaguely resembling success. Run off with them, yes -- but that's usually someone going "oh shit oh shit oh shit my HP is in the orange and almost red and nobody's pulling this thing offa me gotta run or I'm dead", not trying to hide or hoard a mob.

"If they don't want help, let them challenge themselves in an individual event. Let them do it on their own damn time, and not compromise the efforts of others -- it's like these conceited jerks see the NPCs as a hindrance."
I'm sure most would do this in an individual event, if there was a single-person Campaign Battle... but unless you find a zone with a campaign battle that nobody else is going to join (ha!), that doesn't exist.

As for compromising the efforts of others... unless by that you mean when you're thinking hey why isn't this campaign battle ending? then I don't see it.

And it is not conceited to challenge oneself by trying to solo a mob.

"I want to "interfere" with that if it's going to compromise the efforts to retain or take zones."
It generally doesn't -- usually if someone takes too long to solo, others find them and 'interfere' with their soloing attempt, killing the mob. This is bad for the soloer (their effort to see if they can solo that mob is rendered null) but good for everyone else (the campaign battle isn't being dragged out anymore).

The critical thing here is intent: a soloer isn't trying to affect what you're doing... it's just a side effect, and an unfortunate one at that.

"One of the things which pisses me off is that they seem to have the right to dictate to me what I can and cannot play, and I don't have the right to dictate that to them in return."
They don't. You don't. But they can meddle with yours, intentionally or not, and you can meddle with theirs, intentionally or not.

Their attempt at soloing does not dictate what you can or cannot do. Your interfering with their soloing does not bar them from attempting to do so -- but does make it harder for them.

(end part 1)

Volkai said...

(begin part 2)

'They seem to have the right to say "It's my $12.95/mo -- so I can do what I want, and tell you what you can do with your $12.95/mo."'
Again, they don't. Nothing is stopping you from finding a soloer in a Campaign Battle and engaging the monster they are fighting.

But keep in mind that when you do, you are intentionally acting against their interests, while they were likely not intentionally acting against yours. If you're okay with that, then that's up to you...

...but since you seem to be strongly against groups of players coercing other groups of players into playing a certain way, I have to wonder if the conclusion that it's okay to interfere is, perhaps, a bit selfish?

"Why do you think it actually took some JPs to prop up one server to learn how to get the Allied Ring before everyone woke up and actually tried to take the Northlands [S] zones?"
Huh? I don't know about the servers you've been on, but on Phoenix at least one zone of the Northlands changed hands at least monthly even before the March update.

While it's a bit early to say for certain, there seems to be a repeating three-week cycle going on now more-or-less consisting of: "Nation A controls all Northlands except Throne Room" > "Nation A controls Throne Room" > "Beastmen control Northlands"

Starcade, back on Leviathan said...

Volkai part 1:

In equating the abuses of Campaign soloers and Besieged skill-uppers, what I mean is that the players, in both cases, are putting their own advancement ahead of the good of the server and the advancement of the general player.

I believe it is exactly the intent of the soloer to block the progress of other players by delaying the end of the battle or taking actions without regard to the retention of the Candy.

That's why they got rid of the Fortification XP in Campaign battles -- that's why they got rid of skilling up in Campaign battles.

That's why gear is more important than integrity to most players -- integrity doesn't get you into certain mechanics, they would tell you.

The thing is that I am sick of players who put their own interests above that of the team in team events -- Hell, I skill up too in Campaign, by participation! By the time I get a Red Mage level, all the work I do to help win Besiegeds skills up Dark, Healing, and Enfeebling magic to the previous level's cap.

They don't get that -- they come there for that purpose, and it drives me up the wall.

The conceited nature of the Campaign stuff is that _their_ XP cap is more important than the server retaining these zones and taking new ones to open up Campaign-specific BCNMs/SCNMs etc...

I mean, if they weren't acting only in their best interest, would there not be enough resources to lay the groundwork to take on the Throne Room [S] again?

Starcade, back on Leviathan said...

Volkai Part 2:

The problem is something I finally had to come to grips with on Saturday.

Someone is going to dictate terms to someone. I have to concede that -- I'd like to see those of us dictating terms at least to do so with more interests than just our own.

The problem is, I am left to disagree with you on one key thing: They are only concerned with their own progress, and it's a bonus if they can impede the progress of others -- which see LS drama, ninjar lots, etc. and so forth.

I mean, consider all the hypergame content. You think these players want everyone and their brother to be able to be level 99?

Re: Northlands [S] control...

Yes, on occasion, I saw it too -- but so rarely that it didn't make much difference, until the JPs on one server saw the benefits of doing so, and then everyone did it most all servers.

And you're right about the cycle, as long as enough JPs continue it, which doesn't seem to be happening on Siren.

Volkai said...

"That's why they got rid of the Fortification XP in Campaign battles -- that's why they got rid of skilling up in Campaign battles."
No.

XP was cut on Forts to remove the incentive to set your character to auto-attack a Fort and then leave and do something else (like sleep.)

Skillups were cut for much the same reason.


"I mean, consider all the hypergame content. You think these players want everyone and their brother to be able to be level 99?"
No, I don't think these players particularly want that. But I don't think these players want to prevent that, either. They just don't care.

To the apathetic, it's not a bonus to impede others. Nor is it a bonus to aid others, save in the (they likely presume) unlikely situation those others would return the favor.



This, it seems, is the core of our disagreements on many things. By my viewpoint, you seem to consistently see spite in the actions of others, where apathy is the far likelier explanation.