End with I17 and GR.

Not too keen on your approach but I would definitely like a graphical engine overhaul.

A great deal of the games mechanics problems addressed or removed.. and most of all reimagining of old content with new maps and fresh stories and new content...new content, new content....new content.......new content.

Ultra Mode

Wait.. what? Could you clarify what you mean by this statement? What mechanics problems need to be addressed? Which need to be removed?

This sounds more like a sock-puppet statement than anything legit.

Probably not going to happen.

While some of the Task Forces are up for revamps, such as Positron Task Force which is getting revamped in Issue 17, much of the existing content will remain that, existing content. So far with the known information in Going Rogue efforts are being focused on completely new leveling / leveled content rather than rehashing existing content.

No.



SO's, IOs, PvP, Base Pathing...list goes on.

That's fine. I like sock puppets. They make me laugh.



Thank you War Witch.

SO's - wait, what? Never heard of a "mechanic" problem here.

IOs - again - what is the "mechanic" problem? They seem to be functioning as described.

PvP - You know that is a work in progress.

Base Pathing - I love the Base Pathing exactly the way it is, but I concede that if you are a Base RAIDING fan, it won't work for you right now.

So you didn't really respond completely to je saist's question. Care to elaborate a bit more?

If you're basing that on being in Closed Beta, you just broke your NDA.

If you're not, then don't base it on what has been said and shown publically so far, because that's not even scratching the surface, considering the sheer size of the I17 download.

They need to settle with one type of enhancement, period. They need to balance the game and enemies around those enhancements and the bonuses they offer. (Currently MOST of our mission enemies are still working on the legacy SO numbers.)

PvP isn't a work in progress..it's a work that's on life support and probably just needs to be taken off.

The devs have repeatedly stated that the gaming engine has limitations so they can't implement the changes that they would like.

Base pathing as well as base construction needs to be worked on pathing for base raids as well as a better method of constructing bases, would be nice. (A friendlier UI if you will)

Last but not least...the Market...the market...the market...as well as the CoX Currency problem and the fact we STILL can't trade during coops due to "limitations" with coding.

I don't fear change. I simply can't judge a blanket statement as a good or bad idea when there is ZERO substance in it.

Make a new game. Is not an idea. Especially when you leave out any indication of what you're looking for in a new game.

I'm not insinuating anything. You seem to be assuming a great deal.

We'll see. I'm still on the fence with purchasing GR. With the developers history of what they describe as "content." I remain a skeptic.

OPs heart was in the right place. Unfortunately the rabid fan boyz got to him first. d;D

We're talking about the graphical upgrades of Ultra Mode, not Content, and not buying GR (since Ultra Mode is free in I17). No need to change the subject.

You and the OP say we need a graphics upgrade. We're telling you we're getting one. For some reason you have yet to explain, you think it's either nonexistent, or not enough. Explain yourself. Are we lying, or is Ultra Mode not up to your definition of a graphics upgrade?

Name Calling? How is that called for? Keep the discussion civil or stop posting please.

We have no way of knowing where the OP's heart is, because THERE IS LITERALLY NOTHING IN THE POSTS TO EXPLAIN WHY THEY WANT WHAT THEY WANT.

With the responses I got, I'm not sure there's anymore to elaborate on. It read like a catch-all I don't like how the game does this so I think it should change post.

I know the PvPer's don't like it, and they tend to be the most vicious about it, but there isn't a large enough PvP playerbase to justify spending any development resources on a PvP system. As I understand it, PvP is no longer a work in progress, it's now a do we keep it in the game, or remove it and move on from there? Now, I could be wrong on this. Player versus Player content could come back some day, but there's a large disconnect between what Castle, Posi, War Witch, and the other developers want to give players, and what the existing PvP player base wants.

I described it in another thread a few months back. Castle is interested in providing a PvP enviroment where players are balanced and everybody has a fair shot at winning a fight. This is good PvP. Pretty much every other PvP game out there, from Planetside, to Unreal, to Quake, to Tribes, to Call of Duty, and so on, is based around the concept that everybody has a chance. A cloaker in Planetside can take out a Max armor. It's difficult, but it can be done. A player in Unreal with a Flack Cannon can take out the guy in the tower with the sniper rifle. A player with a rail gun in Quake can take on the player with the rocket launcher... and has a chance. When you leave the FPS world and look at other games, the chances hold up. A person playing the Terrans in Starcraft can take on the Zerg. A person racing in Mario Kart or Jack X gets better power-ups and can take the lead.

The existing PvP player base, and the few people who left after the I13 changes, largely want a Ultima Online style auto-gank, haha, I win, tea-bag emote, run back to my base where I can't be attacked and proclaim my uber-awesomeness. Yes. There is a market for this style of play. However, it's not a large market. It's certainly not anything to base an entire game on. Ultima Online succeeded since, for the most part, it was the only game in town. Same thing with Everquest and it's open-PvP.

NCSoft found out the hard-way with Tabula Rasa that the number of people willing to pay MMO prices for a PvP-centric game was a drastically smaller number than the vocal minority had indicated. Tabula Rasa wound up offering players a PvP-experience that was less polished and incredible unbalanced when compared to Planetside, and a PvE experience that suffered drastically from the shift in developer focus.

The Tabalu-Rasa debacle is something that I'm pretty sure Paragon Studios and their publisher are not going to forget anytime soon. Sometimes that squeaky-wheel needs to be greased. Other times it just needs to be taken off and thrown away.

***

In the same way, base raiding as we knew it under Jack Emmert and crew is gone. It's not coming back. The demand from the player base is not there.

So bringing up either of these two issues, PvP or Base Raiding, in any discussion about the future of the game or how it works, indicates to me that the person broaching the subjects does not have a clear handle on how the game works, nor how the developers make money. It's basically the equivalent of I haven't been paying attention, so I'll bring up something that I know was a hot topic years ago.

My argument was that the game needs much more than a graphical upgrade and it would better serve paragon studios to start on a new format with new middleware to work with.

Will it happen some time in the near future? Who knows. Probably not.

You are somehow stuck on graphical upgrades.

So to sum up this long and...pointless post (as you most likely didn't read my response because you were typing this up...)

PvP and base raiding shouldn't be considered because it didn't work with this legacy system...

My argument..fix it so it works in the next games iteration...

You said you wanted an upgrade.

You were told we're getting one.

You gave a very vague response.

You were called on it.

You've tried to change the subject twice since then. I'm trying to talk to you about one thing, not everything. Stay focused.

Still haven't responded to this: Why isn't Ultra Mode enough of a graphical upgrade even though you said you'd like to see one?

That doesn't mean ideas shouldn't be explained. People jump on folks that think they have a "big idea" but really it's just a couple of simple sentences with no thought about consequences or how to execute it.

Like I said, I'm not opposed to or resent change. However I want GOOD change and compelling reasons to make it. I resent the implication that because the case someone makes isn't in any way compelling, that I'm a rabid fanboy, or "afraid" because I state in plain terms that their idea is flawed.

Angry fan boyz will be angry.

You can ask me this question at a later date.

Fixed a little

The irony of this statement is so ironic I might have to watch my ironic intake.

But really? If someone doesn't know that much about coding should they get jumped for that? It's rude as hell to call an idea completely stupid just because someone doesn't know about the code or something.

Expanding on this, Change for it's own sake is NOT good change.

Change to address a real - and definable - problem is what should be discussed.

It's really never about coding unless someone pretends they know about coding, then people who do know things about coding get bothered.

What the most common beef is is people post "Change X Now!" without explaining why it's not good enough, or what they'd like to see instead. This kind of post (which this thread is) is not in any way shape or form useful to a developer, or even other players interested in having a discussion.

Want to see change? Explain the change in understandable terms. You can explain what you like and what you don't like and what you'd like instead, without getting technical.