PDA

View Full Version : Pet Peeves of the PC Gamer Community



Pages : 1 [2]

Nalano
27-12-2011, 07:25 PM
It's a minor point, because I understand what they're trying to say, and it's a valid complaint (if not one I particularly care for), but the meaning of the words they're actually saying is all too often demonstrably false. Though I have to say I don't know how I would prefer it to be said, so I can't really fault the people who say this for not knowing either. I guess it's more of a peeve about terminology than it is about the people who use it.

It's also a horrible conflation of several levels of "meaningful."

In a dialogue, being able to say what I want to say - or something close to it - is very meaningful to me, even if it doesn't make a huge difference to the plot.

At another level, people criticize ME2 for being proof that ME's decisions were meaningless, because it doesn't matter who helms the galaxy as they still won't help you. Yet, the survival of the Rachni (for a big example), the survival of Wrex (for a medium example) and the path Garrus takes (for a smaller example) all imply very substantive differences - the latter two already making difference in the second act, the former promising a substantively different third act.

jryan
27-12-2011, 07:48 PM
- Gaming forum threads designed to complain about complainers that surprisingly degenerate from ironic complaining to ironic complaining.

Nalano
27-12-2011, 07:59 PM
- Gaming forum threads designed to complain about complainers that surprisingly degenerate from ironic complaining to ironic complaining.

Jryan, master of hypocritical humor.

Which is actually keeping with the thread's theme.

jryan
27-12-2011, 08:03 PM
Jryan, master of hypocritical humor.

Which is actually keeping with the thread's theme.


Hey, you caught that one. You are improving.

Nalano
27-12-2011, 08:07 PM
Hey, you caught that one. You are improving.

This forum has room for only one sardonic ass.

Pistols at dawn.

jryan
27-12-2011, 08:10 PM
This forum has room for only one sardonic ass.

Pistols at dawn.


Psh, you and your PVP.

Nalano
27-12-2011, 08:36 PM
Psh, you and your PVP.

Ah! That reminds me:



Ban world PvP! I hate the idea of bullies and gankers and antisocial types messing up my game! Yes, I know it's a PvP server, but these animals have no sense of honor! I'm far more civilized, which is why I'm going to fight these rogues on the forums, using strawmen and feints and no end of invective, because forum PvP is not at all like in-game PvP!

jryan
27-12-2011, 08:50 PM
A WOW oldy: "PVP is broken because all the PVE guilds have all the best gear and dominate PVP!"

Nalano
27-12-2011, 09:05 PM
A WOW oldy: "PVP is broken because all the PVE guilds have all the best gear and dominate PVP!"

Well, that was absolutely true (http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e342/jonmphy/nerfhunters.jpg) then, tho. T2 > all. It was even worse with patch 1.3.1, where raid-geared hunters could one-shot anything.

jryan
27-12-2011, 09:32 PM
Well, that was absolutely true (http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e342/jonmphy/nerfhunters.jpg) then, tho. T2 > all. It was even worse with patch 1.3.1, where raid-geared hunters could one-shot anything.


Well, no, like most of the examples given in this thread of fellow gamers whining, it is the "broken" part that isn't "true". It wasn't "broken" except for the fact that there was a small subset of WOW players that played BGs and PVPed exclusively and ignored 99% of the game content complaining that weren't benefiting from the 99% of the content they chose not to play. For them WOW was/is like a FPS with a huge map.

What Blizzard did was split the game to service the PVP-only players, especially on PVP servers where RAIDers couldn't leave the capitals in raid gear anymore for fear of getting ganked.

Granted, in 4.3 Blizzard has erased the PVP/PVE gear difference in all practical terms given that you can now earn descent PVP gear through 5-man grinding and Transmogrification means that PVP servers are no longer awash with a bunch of cookie cutter PVP-geared toons.

Nalano
27-12-2011, 09:50 PM
Well, no, like most of the examples given in this thread of fellow gamers whining, it is the "broken" part that isn't "true".

Well, it was true that pure PvE raiders could trounce pure PvPers at BGs due solely to gear. Whether that "breaks" the game is up to viewpoint, but the PvPer saw it as forcing them to do something other than their preferred playstyle in order to do their preferred playstyle, and made the argument that PvPing doesn't give them the same gear advantage in PvE.

Further, the argument that they're playing the game wrong by "ignoring 99% of the game content" is a weak one because, first, if their playstyle wasn't meant to be played, they wouldn't be able to play it, and second, raiders ignore 99% of game content. As a former raider and a former PvPer, I can tell you that if you're not in a raid dungeon or a battleground, you tend to spend the rest of the time dicking around in the city, trolling trade chat - or simply not in the game at all.

jryan
27-12-2011, 10:15 PM
Well, no, because if you were on a PVP server then the 1.x model rewarded a balanced approached to playing the game because success in story driven content made traveling the wilds that much easier while BGs sharpened your PVP skills. Gear was gear was gear. Blizzard's solution for the small percentage of PVP only players was to take a big meat cleaver and split PVP content cleanly from the rest of the game content forever more. Those who wanted to do both really can't anymore due to the time sink on what amounts to two separate games with a shared lobby.

The argument that players couldn't play the way they wanted in the old system is weak given that the whole game, regardless of whether you are PVP or PVE boils down to a min/max affair where you are always required to play some predetermined way.. especially if you are in a guild. Take the warrior class, for example, and the fact that until 3.x the Fury branch was worthless and anyone who wanted to play that role was up shits creek. Now with 4.x it seems that the Warrior Tank is the one left out as you never see warrior tanks anymore in PVE.

Also, I think you are right that it is possible NOW to raid the way you are talking (lots of down time), but you seem to forget the old days where you needed to farm mats and gold all week long to afford the cost of raiding. in 1.x I calculated the cost of a single raid run to be around 50g between repairs per raid run, flasks and food when 10g/hour farming was the norm. When you consider that there were 3 runs a week that got to be quite a time sink. Back then PVP was what we raiders did to break the monotony of gold grinding. :D

Blizzard took the fun out of it when they made it a second grind unto itself.

Nalano
27-12-2011, 10:32 PM
To be fair, vanilla raiding was a lot easier than later - not least of which because the 40-man raids could shed 15 people (or carry 15 mouthbreathers) and still beat Tier 2 content, which would limit the necessity of farming mats for consumables. At that same time the investment of time required to grind PvP was at its peak, requiring 20-hour days to get to top tiers in competitive servers.

BC basically made raiding harder and BGs pointless, as all PvP gear worth a shit came from arenas, and due to the health pool inflation in PvP gear, PvE gear was less useful for the purpose of PvPing.

WotLK increased the damage output relative to health pools and PvE gear was more useful again - provided you didn't mind playing the glass cannon - but then, raiding became so easy that any mouthbreather could get a decent set.

So I'd argue that the biggest problem vis a vis carebears killing the PvP scene was vanilla.

GothicEmperor
27-12-2011, 10:47 PM
SO, I browsed this thread, and with my sadly rather minute intellect, I couldn't comprehend half of it, especially the later pages. A lot of meta-discussions on meta-discussions, and stuff about vanilla raiders in World of Warcraft. Why pirates would use tiny orchid fruit as their symbol is beyond me. Must be Activision's fault!

Keep
27-12-2011, 10:51 PM
SO, I browsed this thread, and with my sadly rather minute intellect, I couldn't comprehend half of it, especially the later pages. A lot of meta-discussions on meta-discussions, and stuff about vanilla raiders in World of Warcraft. Why pirates would use tiny orchid fruit as their symbol is beyond me. Must be Activision's fault!

No, you misunderstand! These raiders raid vanilla pods. See?

jryan
28-12-2011, 02:17 PM
To be fair, vanilla raiding was a lot easier than later - not least of which because the 40-man raids could shed 15 people (or carry 15 mouthbreathers) and still beat Tier 2 content, which would limit the necessity of farming mats for consumables. At that same time the investment of time required to grind PvP was at its peak, requiring 20-hour days to get to top tiers in competitive servers.

BC basically made raiding harder and BGs pointless, as all PvP gear worth a shit came from arenas, and due to the health pool inflation in PvP gear, PvE gear was less useful for the purpose of PvPing.

WotLK increased the damage output relative to health pools and PvE gear was more useful again - provided you didn't mind playing the glass cannon - but then, raiding became so easy that any mouthbreather could get a decent set.

So I'd argue that the biggest problem vis a vis carebears killing the PvP scene was vanilla.


They did change the PVP scene in prep for BC, but the ranking system was introduced late in vanilla which introduced the grind, and the maintenance need to maintain ranking. Before that I ran a bunch of AV to earn my PVP gear to get into raid progressions.

It was cool too because back then the PVP gear looked different than the T1 stuff and they hadn't gone full cookie cutter yet, so both sides felt like accomplishments and like they were meant to go together.

As far as raiding, I had the exact opposite experience. BC made raiding much easier, at least until the final progression, but even that never reached the level of AQ20 and the Twin Emperors.

Nalano
28-12-2011, 08:13 PM
As far as raiding, I had the exact opposite experience. BC made raiding much easier, at least until the final progression, but even that never reached the level of AQ20 and the Twin Emperors.

Being that the most difficult part of raiding is herding 40 mewling kittens to the same place at the same time, BC made it far easier. Being that the remaining players actually had to pull their weight, BC made raiding harder.

jryan
28-12-2011, 09:10 PM
Being that the most difficult part of raiding is herding 40 mewling kittens to the same place at the same time, BC made it far easier. Being that the remaining players actually had to pull their weight, BC made raiding harder.


It never seemed as difficult as getting 40 people in AV to act as a team.

Rauten
28-12-2011, 09:25 PM
I'm with Nalano, BC raiding was harder. In classic all I could hear from a buncha friends of mine was how piss easy the raids were, and that it was the only reason they didn't wipe despite the 10-15 morons that they had to bring into the fight just to fill the roster.
BC Raiding? they sweated bullets.

As for PvP, I loved the classic ranking system. For me, classic WoW PvP system was the best it has ever had. I specially miss those long AV matches, it actually managed to feel like a big massive battle, with a hint of PvE and questing here and there for seasoning.
And Korrak; let us not forget our good ol' friend, Korrak.

Nalano
28-12-2011, 09:44 PM
It never seemed as difficult as getting 40 people in AV to act as a team.

Are you kidding me? That was the most fun (http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e342/jonmphy/WoWScrnShot_101709_175712.jpg) I ever had in the game. Alterac Valley was hunter heaven (http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e342/jonmphy/thisiswhyhuntersgotnerfed.jpg). We wrote odes to it (http://www.the-waaagh.com/forums/?showtopic=37688).

jryan
28-12-2011, 09:49 PM
Who said that difficult is the opposite of fun? If it wasn't fun I wouldn't be doing it.

And yes, the old 3 hour AV matches were a blast, but you couldn't sustain an offensive with 15 no shows.

AQ20 was ACTUALLY no fun as it was so mind numbingly mechanical that a mouse slip could lead to a wipe. People decked in the best WOTLK gear could still wipe on AQ20 simply on the mechanics.

Nalano
28-12-2011, 09:56 PM
Who said that difficult is the opposite of fun? If it wasn't fun I wouldn't be doing it.

If it was difficult we couldn't be piss drunk when doing it. Winning is only a matter of running a pre-made. Then it's just a race to herd all your opponents to their spawn and camp them before the herding itself runs the numbers down. I like to think that running a Frostwolf Perfection and spawncamping the entire team motivated more than a few folks to quit the game entirely.


AQ20 was ACTUALLY no fun as it was so mind numbingly mechanical that a mouse slip could lead to a wipe. People decked in the best WOTLK gear could still wipe on AQ20 simply on the mechanics.

Please; don't try to upsell the difficulty too much. All raid mechanics are permutations on a theme of "don't stand in the fire."

jryan
28-12-2011, 10:18 PM
If it was difficult we couldn't be piss drunk when doing it. Winning is only a matter of running a pre-made. Then it's just a race to herd all your opponents to their spawn and camp them before the herding itself runs the numbers down. I like to think that running a Frostwolf Perfection and spawncamping the entire team motivated more than a few folks to quit the game entirely.


So you are arguing that a 20 man premaid AV is easier to form than a 40 man premade raid? You make no sense. If you are arguing that you just need a small portion of that AV to be premade to be successful then I may agree with you, but you have already made the same argument about vanilla raiding so you are arguing against your own point.

I am saying that putting together a successful AQ20 (or 40) was a lot harder than gathering a successful AV. It was possible to stumble into a successful AV PUG once in a while, but there is no way on earth that a random gathering of 20 or 40 vanilla players could complete AQ. Not in a million years.



Please; don't try to upsell the difficulty too much. All raid mechanics are permutations on a theme of "don't stand in the fire."


I'm not upselling the difficulty of AQ, in particular the Twin Emperors. The mechanics in that fight alone are still hard to overcome even though a well geared DPS toon can out DPS an entire 40man vanilla raid group nowadays.

Nalano
28-12-2011, 10:26 PM
So you are arguing that a 20 man premaid AV is easier to form than a 40 man premade raid?

Yes, 20 men easier. Also, less time consuming and far more rewarding on Vent, what with the lack of loot drama, backbiting and SRSBSNS.


The mechanics in that fight alone are still hard to overcome even though a well geared DPS toon can out DPS an entire 40man vanilla raid group nowadays.

At the time I came across Twin Emps, I was officer in an small guild collective that can best be described as "a regular raid guild with about three times the drama, plus a revolving door roster." We did it in three days. The hardest part was listening to those asshats on Vent for hours on end.

jryan
29-12-2011, 03:38 PM
At the time I came across Twin Emps, I was officer in an small guild collective that can best be described as "a regular raid guild with about three times the drama, plus a revolving door roster." We did it in three days. The hardest part was listening to those asshats on Vent for hours on end.


Again, are you arguing that Raiding was easier and therefor PVPers were screwed, or the reverse? We're talking about the end result of gear, aren't we? In the old system I was all but guaranteed a PVP set piece from just 2 or 3 of the extended AV runs. Running a 20 or 40 Raid meant that any given toon couldn't expect new loot in 2 or 3 runs (win or lose) -- the honor reward for kills far outweighed the victory bonus in those days in AV. It was much harder to achieve anything raiding.

Also, when you say it took you three days to down Twin Emps, how many hours did you commit to it? Did you ever get to farming status? Because I call shenanigans on that. In AV you reach farming status by the sheer effort of making a team, which you already said was easier... so why should PVP have had equal reward when it is so easy?

My original position was that the PVPers in vanilla bitching about the dominance of the raiders were simply whiners who completely failed to grasp how much harder it was for those raiders to get that gear. They wanted the benefit without the work. In getting what they wanted they changed WOW forever, and arguably not for the better.

As I said earlier though, at this point with instant gear swap and 1-to-1 Honor trade ins, a focus on Vendors for high level gear for both PVP and RAIDing, and transmogrification the difference in PVP and Raid is gone again. Hell, with a little patience you can get to iLVL 397 Raid gear running nothing but 5 mans.

Nalano
29-12-2011, 07:48 PM
Again, are you arguing that Raiding was easier and therefor PVPers were screwed, or the reverse?

Neither. I'm arguing that a raider could, at vanilla, switch to BGing as a way to cool down, and trounce all PvPers with his gear advantage. I'm arguing that a PvPer at the time could not transition quite so handily to raiding. I'm arguing that if a PvPer did not want to raid, he was put at a disadvantage in the one format he clearly preferred.

Batolemaeus
29-12-2011, 09:08 PM
I've just spent several hours debugging some performance problems. The following thing has cost me quite some time and nerve:

Lag != low FPS

I have no idea who started this insanity, but it's agitating trying to find some leads for specific issues when people use lag and low fps synonymously. The two words describe two completely different and independent problems with entirely different approaches to solving them.
It's like a conspiracy to spread as many red herrings as possible to anyone suffering from fps drops in regular intervals in a multiplayer game.

Kadayi
04-01-2012, 06:39 PM
Shallow article comment posts that are just thinly veiled axe grinding repeated ad infinitum at any given opportunity (appropriate or not) in some desperate attempt to convert us, the reader to their cause or hook the unsuspecting into a 'debate' on the subject that has zero to do with the game.

'This (insert name of game) might be good, but it will probably ship with Steamworks and I won't buy games with DRM.'

Label under care, subsection give a shit tbh.

thegooseking
04-01-2012, 06:57 PM
Suggesting that people are 'gullible' for being able to derive value from something. That doesn't even make any fucking sense. If I got the value I was looking for from it (or more), then how have I been duped or tricked or manipulated?

And you know what else? I don't really care that [big bad company's] only motive is to make money out of me. Fair play to them. What I get out of the deal is not contingent on their intentions; only on what they actually offer in exchange for my money. Why they're doing it is a total non-factor. This is why I support, say, Valve (which tries to make money from me by selling me stuff I want) more than, say, Ubisoft (which mostly tries to make money from me by selling me stuff I don't want). Believe it or not, I get more value from buying things I want than I do from buying things I don't want (does this really need to be said?). Accusations of fanboyism are really tiresome, and just a lazy attempt to dismiss the argument out of hand rather than responding to it properly.

But all of this is really just ancillary to the deeper problem: denial that someone got value out of something, even if they "think" they did. And my response to that is so simple even primary school kids could use it (and do, all the time): I think they'd know better than you, bub. You can talk about post-hoc rationalisation all you want; the simple truth is that value is subjective, and said subject is in a far better position to gauge how much something is worth to them than a stranger with an internet connection and an opinion.

Grizzly
04-01-2012, 07:18 PM
I've just spent several hours debugging some performance problems. The following thing has cost me quite some time and nerve:

Lag != low FPS

I have no idea who started this insanity, but it's agitating trying to find some leads for specific issues when people use lag and low fps synonymously. The two words describe two completely different and independent problems with entirely different approaches to solving them.
It's like a conspiracy to spread as many red herrings as possible to anyone suffering from fps drops in regular intervals in a multiplayer game.

I thought "lag" in gamer slogan meant 'A noticable delay between player input and that input actually happening'. high ping results in lag. But low FPS then also results in lag.

Kadayi
04-01-2012, 07:42 PM
@Goose

Is it not simply the case that they suffer from some degree of snobbery/superiority complex in that they believe they are somehow above the maddening crowd and able to see the tawdriness of what the masses consume?

When there was the whole Ubisoft always on DRM I always thought it was rather tragic that amongst those who elected to boycott AC2 when it was released (myself included ) were a group that thought somehow that wasn't enough and then DDoSed the games verification servers basically meaning no one could play for a couple of days. I think it's one thing to object to something yourself, it's another to ruin some elses choice in the matter. Gamers basically griefing other gamers.

Batolemaeus
04-01-2012, 08:57 PM
I thought "lag" in gamer slogan meant 'A noticable delay between player input and that input actually happening'. high ping results in lag. But low FPS then also results in lag.

But that's conflating two entirely different problems. There are many cases where there's a noticeable delay at a steady 60hz, and tons of cases (most of them actually) where low fps do not result in any delays.

Describing technical problems must be done with a certain degree of precision to be useful at all. If someone just says "lag" without making it clear they're referring to the original definition, it's best to simply ignore whatever they said since it'll be a red herring.

Nalano
05-01-2012, 02:32 AM
I put this link here (http://i.imgur.com/zjhkS.png) so I can find it again.

Wizardry
05-01-2012, 02:56 AM
I put this link here (http://i.imgur.com/zjhkS.png) so I can find it again.
Didn't know you could climb in post-Daggerfall TES games.

Cooper
05-01-2012, 04:11 PM
I don't know about you, but when I go hill climbing I always shuffle forwards at just a few degrees off of the horizontal, moving fowards but very slowly upwards too. Occasionally I also bunny hop my way up the almost-walkable bits.

Grizzly
05-01-2012, 05:56 PM
But that's conflating two entirely different problems. There are many cases where there's a noticeable delay at a steady 60hz, and tons of cases (most of them actually) where low fps do not result in any delays.

Oh, I thought that when gamers talked about 'lag' due to low FPS they were actually talking about lag, and not the act of having low fps by itself.