Disable hypers in frost, yes, no or LV restricted?
Comments
-
SylenThunder - Sanctuary wrote: »Which means that 63.61% of us do not want unrestricted hypering.
And merely 36.39% want unrestricted hypering.
And yet they turned it back on to please the minority.
And we wonder why the game appears to be dying.
I see other numbers 9,9% is against hypers in frost and the rest want it back or lvl restricted. b:chuckle0 -
Back to the same in a week, just like I said it would be. People were making such a big deal about it, like it was the end of the world. I knew pwi wouldn't change a thing. they took the easy route and just turned it back on.R9s3 Beast w/Demon Facepalm0
-
GlenRoss - Archosaur wrote: »Valiance said that our voices were heard and that the issue should be discussed. I never expected that our week-long vote would be the end of the discussion.
As they said they would do, they returned the fc function to the way it was, prior to the update. If they do indeed give thought to our opinion on this matter, it would have to go through some semblance of a change board, gain approval, be coded up for a coming release, tested, then presented.
I don't know whether that will happen but I was pretty sure it wouldn't be allowed to happen in an ad hoc, accidental fashion.
Is this the end of the discussion then then ? Didnt know that, but i like it b:chuckle0 -
HrunsPanda - Archosaur wrote: »I have explained before:
10% wants no hypers
35% wants unrestricted hypers
That is 3.5 to one !!!
the other 55% has an opinion somewhere in between and you cannot simply count them to either side. We do not know what they choose when they have to choose between the two. The exact same thing would be saying that 90% does not want the situation where hypers are turned off.
What you do can be either stupidity so you cannot intertpret poll results or it is purposfull misinterpretation of the numbers. So what are you stupid or a lyar ?
You're the one who isn't using logic.
Clearly anyone who voted that they wanted hypers disabled would prefer they were restricted as opposed to unrestricted.
Clearly anyone who wants them restricted also would prefer they were not unrestricted (otherwise they'd have voted for unrestricted... duh?)
So yes,
as SylenThunder stated 63.61% of us do not want unrestricted hypers and prefer they were restricted in some way.
My god...
and YOU'RE calling HIM stupid?HrunsPanda - Archosaur wrote: »Is this the end of the discussion then then ? Didnt know that, but i like it b:chuckle
You don't even know what he said.. My god you're thick.[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]0 -
Kniraven - Lost City wrote: »You're the one who isn't using logic.
Clearly anyone who voted that they wanted hypers disabled would prefer they were restricted as opposed to unrestricted.
Clearly anyone who wants them restricted also would prefer they were not unrestricted (otherwise they'd have voted for unrestricted... duh?)
So yes,
as SylenThunder stated 63.61% of us do not want unrestricted hypers and prefer they were restricted in some way.
My god...
and YOU'RE calling HIM stupid?
If you are trying to keep to this point after two people have just pointed out that its bull****, than obviously it can no longer be stupidity.
No you are not stupid, you are purposly trying to twist the numbers to prove an untrue point. You are evil rather than stupid. b:shockedI hope you never make it into politics, there are too many like you already.0 -
HrunsPanda - Archosaur wrote: »If you are trying to keep to this point after two people have just pointed out that its bull****, than obviously it can no longer be stupidity.
No you are not stupid, you are purposly trying to twist the numbers to prove an untrue point. You are evil rather than stupid. b:shockedI hope you never make it into politics, there are too many like you already.
Instead of insulting me why don't you quote a specific statement I made and tell me why it is false.
You said you disagreed with my conclusion, so tell what I stated that was incorrect?
Do you think that the people who voted for no hypers would not prefer restricted as opposed to unrestricted? If so then explain a reason why one might.
Do you think that the people who voted for restricted hypers would not prefer restricted hypers like they themselves voted? Do you think a good portion of them clicked this option on accident or misunderstood the question?
If you did not answer yes to any of those, then you just admitted I was right and you can leave now.[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]0 -
Dude seriously, i thought it is obvious enough already.... Really it is, why am i going to explain this to you again while you damn well know. (else really, sorry... but.... well... i wont repeat it, just pay very good attention in class from now on)
10% sais they want no hypers
35% sais they it like it always was.
55% sais they want a situation in between, that is restrictions.
Now the situation in between requires first official decision maming, then recoding, That is going to take time. So for now we have to choose bwteen "no hypers" and "like it always was"
You cannot make any claims to which of those tho the 55% would vote without actually having them vote.0 -
They pleased the majority of the players by turning the hypers back on in fcc b:nosebleed0
-
HrunsPanda - Archosaur wrote: »Dude seriously, i thought it is obvious enough already.... Really it is, why am i going to explain this to you again while you damn well know. (else really, sorry... but.... well... i wont repeat it, just pay very good attention in class from now on)
10% sais they want no hypers
35% sais they it like it always was.
55% sais they want a situation in between, that is restrictions.
Now the situation in between requires first official decision maming, then recoding, That is going to take time. So for now we have to choose bwteen "no hypers" and "like it always was"
You cannot make any claims to which of those tho the 55% would vote without actually having them vote.
So what you are saying is that it is possible those 55% would prefer unrestricted hypers as opposed to No hypers.
I agree. That is VERY possible.
However,
The 10% that said they wanted no hypers would obviously prefer restricted (in between as you put it) as opposed to unrestricted.
THEREFORE
65% would prefer restricted hypers as opposed to unrestricted.
Make sense now?
Quit telling me to go back to school when you can't understand simple statistics let alone English.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]0 -
Kniraven - Lost City wrote: »So what you are saying is that it is possible those 55% would prefer unrestricted hypers as opposed to No hypers.
I agree. That is VERY possible.
However,
The 10% that said they wanted no hypers would obviously prefer restricted (in between as you put it) as opposed to unrestricted.
THEREFORE
65% would prefer restricted hypers as opposed to unrestricted.
Make sense now?
Quit telling me to go back to school when you can't understand simple statistics let alone English.
please dude quit it and go to school.
Im a professional poker player, you acuse the wrong one of not understanding statistics.0 -
So they can turn hypers back on in a week but it took how long to disable PK in SP? New players did quit over not being able to enjoy the game how they wanted to, but it still took how long to fix? Maybe new players are really not part of the current business plan.
A lot of people have already posted very good explanations for why FC should be level limited, so I really cannot add anything to that. I am in favor of level limits, because at the levels where you run FC as a squad it is really fun and I would hate to see the instance die.
And those that thinks this game is funner at higher levels must really like shopping, because that is pretty much all its about. Obtaining better and better gear. The never ending cycle. Some who are lucky enough to have others to help them farm their gear can do that, though farming gets old after awhile too. Low level grinding helps to break up that routine a little.0 -
Personally, polls are pointless anyway. You have a majority choice from power levelers, hyper fcc babies, trolls and players who don't really understand long term effects or mmo community mechanics. Even I wont pretend to understand everything.
Obviously, the choices so far have been bad ones. We have a declining player population. Low level BH's are barely run. And low level questing zones are ghost towns. However, the best way to fix it should be assigned to someone who really knows exactly what they're doing and has the quality and enjoyability of the game at heart, and know the game thoroughly. Sadly, I can't see PWI ever employing a team like that, or paying them to make necessary changes.0 -
lvl 85 seems fare, Its easy enough to lvl to 85 now anyway without FC so there should be no need for lvl 1's to enter anyway.0
-
My best memory from PWI is when i first entered FC at lvl 75 to do the whole run.
Please do not make a level limit at lvl 85 and kill one of the most enjoyable things of the game (doing FC when its actually a challenge)
If you fear FC creating noobs, then let us do it at lvl 75. At lvl 85 its a cakewalk where you can faceroll trough the instance anyway so thats not where one learns skills.0 -
Because the random chance of poker totally applies to three solid numbers that are right in front of you. Okay, sure. -_-HrunsPanda - Archosaur wrote: »please dude quit it and go to school.
Im a professional poker player, you acuse the wrong one of not understanding statistics.
Sorry, you've really got no ground to stand on here. The 10% who voted no hypers would absolutely prefer restricted hypers to unrestricted hypers. You have yet to give any argument against this point, probably because there isn't one.
And even if there were, even in this zone of warped logic where people who voted "no" would prefer "yes" to "restricted," it still wouldn't matter because the "restricted" option won more votes than both of them combined. So for the life of me I can't understand why you're arguing about this.
Yes it's true that "restricted" is the most labor-intensive option for wanmei (though seriously, not by much). That doesn't change the fact that it's still the significant majority's opinion, and frankly needs to be done either way. If you're so convinced that wanmei will sit on their thumbs and do nothing, then you can just leave this thread feeling confident that that'll be the case.
Saying "nothing will be done about it" doesn't contribute anything to the discussion, unless the people you're replying to genuinely don't understand wanmei's process. And many of us do. We know it's an uphill battle. We know there's a fair-to-good chance that nothing will be done about it even if 90% of this poll supported it. We still want to try, and the undue pessimism is simply not necessary or appreciated.[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Yes, I'm still a stubborn holdout in favor of the old game. Haters gonna hate. ;]
Other Active Characters:
LigerKing (Barb), Girasole (BM), Shamsheer (Sin), ArborSoul (Mystic).0 -
Ok im gonna stop being reasonable as well:
only 10% wanted no hypers like it was for a week, so that means 90% is happy that this is undone !
PS little hint: I think it is stupidity that creates lvl 100 noobs, not FC.0 -
I did not read all freaking 80 pages of this, however here are my thoughts which may or may not repeat a few other people. 1. To simply open FF you have to be a certain level. 2. There are quest that take you into FF to be complete but can not be obtained to a certain level. This show that FF was designed for a higher level experience. As many have said there are ways to level without FF. Try leveling without hyperstones, without BH's, without questmaster and so on then you can maybe complain about not using FF to Plvl and alt but until then shut it the heck up. The game is in place to play the game to learn your toons to see all and do all in PWI if you could enter into the game at level 105 fully geared out what fun would there be? First of all you'd still have your *** handed to you by a more experience player because you wouldn't have had time to learn your own toon or see which one suits you best. There are a lot of changes to make this game more balanced and fair again and shutting down FF or restricting it in some way would be the first step towards many.0
-
SliverRage - Heavens Tear wrote: »I did not read all freaking 80 pages of this, however here are my thoughts which may or may not repeat a few other people. 1. To simply open FF you have to be a certain level. 2. There are quest that take you into FF to be complete but can not be obtained to a certain level. This show that FF was designed for a higher level experience. As many have said there are ways to level without FF. Try leveling without hyperstones, without BH's, without questmaster and so on then you can maybe complain about not using FF to Plvl and alt but until then shut it the heck up. The game is in place to play the game to learn your toons to see all and do all in PWI if you could enter into the game at level 105 fully geared out what fun would there be? First of all you'd still have your *** handed to you by a more experience player because you wouldn't have had time to learn your own toon or see which one suits you best. There are a lot of changes to make this game more balanced and fair again and shutting down FF or restricting it in some way would be the first step towards many.
+1
Though people need to stop making the "blah blah ppl cant play their character correctly" argument.
This is about the longevity of the game and utilizing the world that was made.
The reason nobody enjoys lower levels is because it has no community.
Restricting Hyper Experience Stones as a Whole to Levels 85+ would greatly increase this game's community and longevity.[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]0 -
Vanflyheight - Heavens Tear wrote: »you talk bout being sick of all the QQers? then why dont you look at yourself in the mirror first. your just as bad as the blubbering idiots who are after hypering in FC again. If im sick of anything, is that im sick of all your big mouth nonsense.
Seems like your nothing more than a dog who got his favorite toy taken away from him. nirvy didnt create the aps craze/noobs, FC did the most of it just simply by having players thinking that they had to everything as fast as they wanted. R9S3 is nothing more than broken gear that shouldnt of been added to this game from the getgo. No i think its mroe than time that you see what really goes on with "bad players". Whenever you even mention a mistake they are making bout something such as their gear or weapon has the wrong shards, not up to date gear, dont have certain skills, then they'll just throw a hissy fit and tell you that they knw what they are doing which in that case, cant do anything expect to let them fall flat on their face. how bout you quit being a cry baby and shut up for a change, "and have a nice day".
Have you completely forgot causation or are you just stupid? Everything is connected, and it's about time you people realize that. I came to PWI before even BH was out, and the lower level area's were pretty barren then as well. FC isnt the problem. But i hope the do input a lv cap, then you can see just how wrong you all are. And you still havent said how you were doing anything to 'help' the issue.0 -
Kniraven - Lost City wrote: »
+1
Though people need to stop making the "blah blah ppl cant play their character correctly" argument.
This is about the longevity of the game and utilizing the world that was made.
The reason nobody enjoys lower levels is because it has no community.
Restricting Hyper Experience Stones as a Whole to Levels 85+ would greatly increase this game's community and longevity.
Why didn't you say this some years ago when they made fcc an exp instance b:puzzled
A bit late to have great ideas in my eyes........0 -
Haila - Sanctuary wrote: »Why didn't you say this some years ago when they made fcc an exp instance b:puzzled
A bit late to have great ideas in my eyes........
We were saying this even before then when Oracles were released in the boutique.[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]0 -
If by "stop being reasonable" you mean "spin the results of the poll so that you like them better," then you've certainly succeeded. >_> Boy, I wish I could convince myself that an extra 55% of the populace agrees with me on any given issue. I'd never be wrong!HrunsPanda - Archosaur wrote: »only 10% wanted no hypers like it was for a week, so that means 90% is happy that this is undone ![SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Yes, I'm still a stubborn holdout in favor of the old game. Haters gonna hate. ;]
Other Active Characters:
LigerKing (Barb), Girasole (BM), Shamsheer (Sin), ArborSoul (Mystic).0 -
Haila - Sanctuary wrote: »They pleased the majority of the players by turning the hypers back on in fcc b:nosebleed
No, what they did was not pay any attention to polls and what the players said, and just turned the lights back on. The reason why PWI doesn't care what anyone says, is because, whether they left it alone, restricted it. or stopped it completely, they always going to have complainers. There is no happy medium. I don't see people saying their porridge is just right, and that is because it never will be. The easy way out was to continue as was.
People have to learn that it doesn't matter what they say, pwi will do it how they feel it should be done. They make money from 95% of the people that create a new toon. They make the most out of those 95% at higher levels. The faster people level, the faster they get their money. It's the pwi way, and the way they see it is, for every one player that gets pissed off and leaves, 2 more join, plvl, and spend money.R9s3 Beast w/Demon Facepalm0 -
SylenThunder - Sanctuary wrote: »We were saying this even before then when Oracles were released in the boutique.
Doesn't make sense to me, oracles were in boutique before fcc became exp instance.
You just dont like people with $$$ powerleveling XD.0 -
Mr_Swiss - Heavens Tear wrote: »
It's the pwi way, and the way they see it is, for every one player that gets pissed off and leaves, 2 more join, plvl, and spend money.
Let me fix this for you: for every ten players who quit the game another old player creates an alt, spends money and plvls it.
Also to the person who said the map was dead from the beginning, I have only been playing since 2011 and the low level areas were pretty lively when I started. All the way up until the swamp area.0 -
I vote 85+ lvl restrict and block lower lvl characters from even entering the instance. You CAN'T learn the class by having someone kill mobs for you and shooting heads for 2 minutes. I've been playing for 18 months, have three 100+ toons and avoided FC for the majority of their lvling. It would prevent future fc product nabs from being created imo b:scorn0
-
I know, that's my point. Even back then we could see what a negative effect power leveling was going to have on the game. This was quickly verified when BH's came out. Then to add insult to injury, FCC was completely changed and was no longer a farming instance.Haila - Sanctuary wrote: »Doesn't make sense to me, oracles were in boutique before fcc became exp instance.
You just dont like people with $$$ powerleveling XD.
Had nothing to do with people spending money to get ahead. It's always been a pay2win society. Had to do with seeing the effects of high leveled players that could barely run their class, were poorly skilled, and didn't have a damn clue about game or squad mechanics.
Which, in the end, is why the majority of people here have voted against hypering in FCC to one extent or another.[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]0 -
SylenThunder - Sanctuary wrote: »I know, that's my point. Even back then we could see what a negative effect power leveling was going to have on the game. This was quickly verified when BH's came out. Then to add insult to injury, FCC was completely changed and was no longer a farming instance.
Had nothing to do with people spending money to get ahead. It's always been a pay2win society. Had to do with seeing the effects of high leveled players that could barely run their class, were poorly skilled, and didn't have a damn clue about game or squad mechanics.
Which, in the end, is why the majority of people here have voted against hypering in FCC to one extent or another.
^THis 100%. But now that they haved used said system to level up, they are now hypocrites, in the concise definition of the word.0 -
Well, I for one would love to see the server records you seem to have that prove that these 1100+ people powerleveled.DionDagger - Dreamweaver wrote: »^THis 100%. But now that they haved used said system to level up, they are now hypocrites, in the concise definition of the word.
Or, y'know, maybe the fact that you can't conceive of leveling up without Frost abuse doesn't mean that other people can't.[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Yes, I'm still a stubborn holdout in favor of the old game. Haters gonna hate. ;]
Other Active Characters:
LigerKing (Barb), Girasole (BM), Shamsheer (Sin), ArborSoul (Mystic).0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 181.9K PWI
- 699 Official Announcements
- 2 Rules of Conduct
- 264 Cabbage Patch Notes
- 61.1K General Discussion
- 1.5K Quality Corner
- 11.1K Suggestion Box
- 77.4K Archosaur City
- 3.5K Cash Shop Huddle
- 14.3K Server Symposium
- 18.1K Dungeons & Tactics
- 2K The Crafting Nook
- 4.9K Guild Banter
- 6.6K The Trading Post
- 28K Class Discussion
- 1.9K Arigora Colosseum
- 78 TW & Cross Server Battles
- 337 Nation Wars
- 8.2K Off-Topic Discussion
- 3.7K The Fanatics Forum
- 207 Screenshots and Videos
- 22.8K Support Desk