BDA to Phinigel

[dafier]

How many hours combined does everyone on Phinny play on this particular day? Just curious.

[Ravager]

I want to be good at EverQuest, how much should I practice?

[Relbaic]

Originally Posted by Ravager [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I want to be good at EverQuest, how much should I practice?

17 hours at a time.

[Papa]

raid 21 hours in a given 24 hour day

[Mistle]

Originally Posted by Cave Troll [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

all you have to do to win at any online game is just increase playtime

Then why are there still five year LoL veterans in bronze...

[dafier]

Originally Posted by Mistle [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Then why are there still five year LoL veterans in bronze...

They just turned 8 years old?

[Danth]

Originally Posted by Cave Troll [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

all you have to do to win at any online game is just increase playtime

Here's a bit of a rant, since this is the rant forum:

Your comment I quoted is true only in those games which use levels, experience, or other features that improve character power but are locked behind timesinks. Such features are particularly common in player-vs-environment games, but (disgustingly) increasingly appear in player-vs-player games as well.

Back when I subscribed to MMO-flightsims, there were no such power-increasing features. The same used to be true in most shooter type games. A fresh newbie had access to everything a multi-year veteran had. The folks who won were the folks who were good. That's as it should be. This is also why players who flew (or ran, in shooters) around in big gaggles used to be laughed at: They had to hide in the horde because they sucked too badly to do anything on their own. If you were good enough, you could engage 1 vs 3, 1 vs 5, or 1 vs 10 and expect to win. Again--as it should be. Artificial experience levels and phony random number-based combat destroy real competition.

I assume the timesink-based power increases appear in modern player-vs-player games so as to give bad players a chance of winning now and then. 15 or 20 years ago it was common for bad players to remain little more than helpless cannon fodder even 6 months or a year after they started the game; it tended to harm the subscriber retention rate of such games because there are more bad or mediocre players than good ones. Timesink or experience-based progression lets those lousy players feel like they've accomplished something as they beat up on less-invested players who have no real chance of winning. That kind of crap never should have migrated to player-vs-player games; bad players should lose. Period.

Danth

[Ravager]

Originally Posted by Danth [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Here's a bit of a rant, since this is the rant forum:

Your comment I quoted is true only in those games which use levels, experience, or other features that improve character power but are locked behind timesinks. Such features are particularly common in player-vs-environment games, but (disgustingly) increasingly appear in player-vs-player games as well.

Back when I subscribed to MMO-flightsims, there were no such power-increasing features. The same used to be true in most shooter type games. A fresh newbie had access to everything a multi-year veteran had. The folks who won were the folks who were good. That's as it should be. This is also why players who flew (or ran, in shooters) around in big gaggles used to be laughed at: They had to hide in the horde because they sucked too badly to do anything on their own. If you were good enough, you could engage 1 vs 3, 1 vs 5, or 1 vs 10 and expect to win. Again--as it should be. Artificial experience levels and phony random number-based combat destroy real competition.

I assume the timesink-based power increases appear in modern player-vs-player games so as to give bad players a chance of winning now and then. 15 or 20 years ago it was common for bad players to remain little more than helpless cannon fodder even 6 months or a year after they started the game; it tended to harm the subscriber retention rate of such games because there are more bad or mediocre players than good ones. Timesink or experience-based progression lets those lousy players feel like they've accomplished something as they beat up on less-invested players who have no real chance of winning. That kind of crap never should have migrated to player-vs-player games; bad players should lose. Period.

Danth

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCDXwOzG7fE

[dafier]

Originally Posted by Danth [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Here's a bit of a rant, since this is the rant forum:

Your comment I quoted is true only in those games which use levels, experience, or other features that improve character power but are locked behind timesinks. Such features are particularly common in player-vs-environment games, but (disgustingly) increasingly appear in player-vs-player games as well.

Back when I subscribed to MMO-flightsims, there were no such power-increasing features. The same used to be true in most shooter type games. A fresh newbie had access to everything a multi-year veteran had. The folks who won were the folks who were good. That's as it should be. This is also why players who flew (or ran, in shooters) around in big gaggles used to be laughed at: They had to hide in the horde because they sucked too badly to do anything on their own. If you were good enough, you could engage 1 vs 3, 1 vs 5, or 1 vs 10 and expect to win. Again--as it should be. Artificial experience levels and phony random number-based combat destroy real competition.

I assume the timesink-based power increases appear in modern player-vs-player games so as to give bad players a chance of winning now and then. 15 or 20 years ago it was common for bad players to remain little more than helpless cannon fodder even 6 months or a year after they started the game; it tended to harm the subscriber retention rate of such games because there are more bad or mediocre players than good ones. Timesink or experience-based progression lets those lousy players feel like they've accomplished something as they beat up on less-invested players who have no real chance of winning. That kind of crap never should have migrated to player-vs-player games; bad players should lose. Period.

Danth

Reminds me of gaming in the 80s. Kids that were bad at Nintendo, Amiga and other game systems stopped playing and went back to riding bikes and going outside, then later died.

The kids that were good at games, like me, lived on and was good at everything in life.

[skarlorn]

will bda claim responsibility for the cold I got over the weekend?