Thoughts about sinking Rift?

[Ancem]

There are a core grp of players out there who enjoy melee dps. I am one of them.

Rift is not a friendly game to melee DPS, hence many of us are looking for other games to play.

Most of the people who dumped on this guy said " Well I know ranged is better so that is what I play...."

Actually I think I was the only one who said that, and what I really said was that I learned early on that in these kinds of games ranged attacks are better than melee because most of the enemies you face rely on melee. So for extra survivability if you attack from outside of melee range you get several "free" attacks before they get close enough to hit you, and thus enemies are easier to kill as a result, and you die less often.

This is common in the Fantasy Role Playing Game genre, especially those that have friendly-fire effects turned off so you don't bbq your friends with your own fireball. Also common in any game that is in some way based on real world physics or tactics. If you're standing 50 ft away from me with a knife, and I've got a gun, I can shoot you at any time while you need to run 50 ft towards me while getting shot at in order to stick me with the knife. Melee-focused attackers are clearly at a disadvantage in most situations.

So by choosing to play a melee-focused character, you are making an informed choice to adapt to a more difficult and dangerous kind of combat. Good luck finding the game where bashing your opponent in the head is easier than attacking from a safe(r) distance. Maybe they'll make a new Mortal Kombat game...

Games that only cater to one playstyle don't survive.

The First Person Shooter genre would like to have a word with you. 20 years later and it's still Doom with better graphics.

[Ancem]

You couldn't be more wrong. These words were once spoken just before Blizzard released Cata. Since then over 2 million people left the game.... friends included.

OP admitted he doesn't have any "mates" ready to quit at his say-so.

Making a crappy game and losing subs because there are better options is one thing, posting empty threats on a message board is another.

[Wihtgar]

This is common in the Fantasy Role Playing Game genre, especially those that have friendly-fire effects turned off so you don't bbq your friends with your own fireball. Also common in any game that is in some way based on real world physics or tactics. If you're standing 50 ft away from me with a knife, and I've got a gun, I can shoot you at any time while you need to run 50 ft towards me while getting shot at in order to stick me with the knife. Melee-focused attackers are clearly at a disadvantage in most situations.

So by choosing to play a melee-focused character, you are making an informed choice to adapt to a more difficult and dangerous kind of combat. Good luck finding the game where bashing your opponent in the head is easier than attacking from a safe(r) distance. Maybe they'll make a new Mortal Kombat game...



The First Person Shooter genre would like to have a word with you. 20 years later and it's still Doom with better graphics.

I guess the Middle Ages and earlier eras never actually happened then. Now we know.......... hand to hand... sword to sword combat was never really common. It was just two fighters squaring off backed up with 1000s of guys with bow and arrows...

Interesting re-write to history.

Why even have swords in this game? Just have a knife or crowbar........ According to you its foolish to use one... So just take them out of the game. Think of the time and money the devs could save by not having all those animations and graphics. I bet they could make more bows and guns.

And then you talk about Doom..........

Should the game have a Chainsaw? What about a BFG? I mean its an FPS now... is that what you are saying? Is it a sci-fi FPS or more like Counterstrike?

This is a fantasy MMO.... people wear plate mail. Its not an FPS... which I have played many of (including Doom when it was released). Plate mail... knights... swords... shields... armor... all that. Some of us would like to use that stuff............

I guess you missed that............

Anyway, since you obviously don't care that melee players don't like this game, I'm going to simply ignore the rest of your posts.

Adios.

[Ancem]

I guess the Middle Ages and earlier eras never actually happened then. Now we know.......... hand to hand... sword to sword combat was never really common. It was just two fighters squaring off backed up with 1000s of guys with bow and arrows...

In the real world, learning how to shoot a bow is a lot harder than figuring out which end of the pointy stick to poke the other guy with. Sword-to-sword was not so common because most large-scale battles were fought with polearms, when a large group comes at you with ten-foot spears it's still pretty hard to get to arm's length to poke them with your little sword.

Most armies were groups of poorly trained farmers and such, using weapons that were easy to make and easy to learn. Why spend all your money giving farmers plate mail and big swords when they'll just fall over and drown in the mud?

Longbows were designed to punch through thick armor and kill those shiny knights before the get within sword range. Crossbows were designed to be easier to use than bows. And guns made armor obsolete. Technology improves over the course of years, decades, centuries, and different things rise to prominence or fall into obscurity. Dungeons and Dragons raised a generation or two who think that all of these things existed on the same battlefield, but it's just not true. People use what works and throw away what doesn't.

The better your missile weapons get, the less useful melee and armor are. That's why for the last few hundred years people carry guns instead of swords and plate mail.

In a game with wizards tossing lightning and rogues with rifles, if it were in any way based on real world logic, there would be no armor because all it does is slow you down and make you an easy target. Oh, and a grounded target too...

There ARE strategy games designed around these concepts. I've played a few, and others, like the original Warcraft, that throws real world events out and just keeps the cool stuff. Even then, being able to attack at medium to long range is almost always an advantage.

Anyway, since you obviously don't care that melee players don't like this game, I'm going to simply ignore the rest of your posts.

Adios.

Am I supposed to care?

Take your toys and go home, it's much better than trying to understand a different point of view and carry on a discussion like two adults.

[Zohl]

OP admitted he doesn't have any "mates" ready to quit at his say-so.

Making a crappy game and losing subs because there are better options is one thing, posting empty threats on a message board is another.

I’m not claiming to have “friends” willing to leave on command either. However, I do know that if players dislike certain changes they will leave. And leave by the thousands. Or in Blizzard's case by the millions.
It’s a risky business programming and publishing games. Always trying to come up with newer ideas and holding the interest of your subscribers and keeping investors happy.
December 31, 2013 is the scheduled release date for Elder Scrolls Online. It will be interesting to see how Blizzard and Trion can keep their loyal players away from that.

[xanduin246]

There are a core grp of players out there who enjoy melee dps. I am one of them.

Rift is not a friendly game to melee DPS, hence many of us are looking for other games to play.

Most of the people who dumped on this guy said " Well I know ranged is better so that is what I play...."

Well ok that's great. Enjoy this game, as it clearly caters to you. Or at least enjoy it as long as you can. The population of the servers seem to be shrinking pretty fast........

LOL.

Games that only cater to one playstyle don't survive.

as a melee lover from day negative 7, i can say that im not going anywhere anytime soon. the only time i ever play range is usually when i need to aoe, because the melee spec i prefer is pretty bad at aoe

also i dont think the general pop is shrinking, whats happening is large guilds are transferring to other shards, which causes smaller guilds to do the same, the population is shifting, not shrinking.. in my opinion, of course, i have no stats

[Ancem]

I’m not claiming to have “friends” willing to leave on command either. However, I do know that if players dislike certain changes they will leave. And leave by the thousands. Or in Blizzard's case by the millions.
It’s a risky business programming and publishing games. Always trying to come up with newer ideas and holding the interest of your subscribers and keeping investors happy.
December 31, 2013 is the scheduled release date for Elder Scrolls Online. It will be interesting to see how Blizzard and Trion can keep their loyal players away from that.

It's starting again, isn't it? "When Game X comes out it's going to totally destroy the playerbase of this game!" SWTOR has a year head start on ESO and you can see how much damage they've done...

They missed the Christmas rush by releasing the game on NYE, so chances are it's either going to pushed up a month and released before it's ready - like almost all MMOs are - or pushed back because people are going to be more concerned about paying for their Christmas shopping in January than paying for a sub to a new game.

And that's a month AFTER the Rift expansion which gives Trion a chance to generate buzz and increased interest in their game. A few thousand people will leave to play the "obviously superior" game and like every other game release they'll encounter bugs and a crappy interface and no endgame content. Then they'll come back to the game that's almost two years old, recently expanded and polished and familar.

[Ancem]

also i dont think the general pop is shrinking, whats happening is large guilds are transferring to other shards, which causes smaller guilds to do the same, the population is shifting, not shrinking.. in my opinion, of course, i have no stats

Nobody does. And even if you have toons logged into Meridian and Sanctum and count heads, it still doesn't mean anything. Some people don't log in every day, or even every week, but maintain their subs while they are busy with work or vacations. Or they have long-term subs and can take a month off to try another game and come back.

When I tried SWTOR I didn't log into Rift as much, but I had a 6-month sub so I was still a member before/during/after giving a different game a try. And I remember all the doomsayers claiming SWTOR would kill Rift, and then official word that they actually gained subs rather than losing people.

[Zohl]

It's starting again, isn't it? "When Game X comes out it's going to totally destroy the playerbase of this game!" SWTOR has a year head start on ESO and you can see how much damage they've done...

They missed the Christmas rush by releasing the game on NYE, so chances are it's either going to pushed up a month and released before it's ready - like almost all MMOs are - or pushed back because people are going to be more concerned about paying for their Christmas shopping in January than paying for a sub to a new game.

And that's a month AFTER the Rift expansion which gives Trion a chance to generate buzz and increased interest in their game. A few thousand people will leave to play the "obviously superior" game and like every other game release they'll encounter bugs and a crappy interface and no endgame content. Then they'll come back to the game that's almost two years old, recently expanded and polished and familar.

It’s the vicious cycle that’s been going on since the days of Pong.
Release dates are subjected to change at any time without notice… as we have all learned from Diablo 3. We’ll just have to wait and see what happens.