Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 61 to 72 of 72
  1. #61
    Founder
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    4,622

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hendrik View Post
    Different teams or departments work on different projects.
    Assuming you are correct, presumably when they started adding huge amounts more fluff, they hired more of the people that do that. I would have preferred they not start adding huge amounts more fluff and instead hire more people who fix bugs. And I think a log of other people would have preferred that also.

  2. #62
    Community Member Singular's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,792

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MajMalphunktion View Post
    And in FR lore the Tressym is specifically from Eveningstar.

    And hating owlbears?The owlbear is depicted as a cross between a bear and an owl, which "hugs" like a bear and attacks with its beak. Gary G. created the owlbear, which was inspired by a plastic toy and introduced the creature to the DnD world in the 1975. It has been in every version of DnD since. It has changed shape at least 3 times.
    The tressym is freaky repulsive! Sorry, but it's longish body and wings - blach! I can't stand to look at them.

    Haven't seen the Owlbear, though. I always thought that was one of the oddest, err...most useless, creatures in D&D.

  3. #63
    Community Member Full_Bleed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    West Palm Beach, FL
    Posts
    826

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Postumus View Post
    Pets don't trash lore. Ever hear of familiars?
    They absolutely trash lore. There is no question about it. First, the vast majority of the cosmetic pets in the game aren't legitimate D&D familiar creatures. Second, this game doesn't have familiars. If they were familiars we wouldn't be having this discussion. Familiars are part of D&D lore. The cosmetic system is an abomination and does not exist in the lore of Eberron or the Forgotten Realms.

    Certain classes can have familiars. Certain creatures can be familiars. And familiars aren't only cosmetic.

    Certain classes can have companion creatures. Certain creatures can be companions. And companions aren't only cosmetic.

    Certain classes can Summon Monsters. Certain creatures can be summoned. And summoned creatures aren't only cosmetic.

    See the pattern?

    Comparing the cosmetic pets to familiars, companions, and summoned creatures is missing the point by a wide margin.

    I don't even have a problem with cosmetics. Introduce visible cloaks to the game, available only through cosmetics and I'll spend some money on it. Introduce mounts that can be used in some of the BIG zones (and make some zones where people would want them), and I'll buy them. Give casters a line of "Illusion Spells" where people can buy certain cosmetic Illusions, and I'll buy them. I could go on for pages of LORE compatible cosmetics that the game could be selling... but isn't. Instead we've got beanie babies.


    And just because they impact your enjoyment in a negative way (for some unfathomable reason), doesn't mean they can't have a positive impact on other players. Your personal preference does not trump that of everyone else.
    No it does not. And I hope you're spending enough money to make up for all the money I (and others ) are no longer spending. I mean, what kind of crackpot am I that I should criticize a D&D game for not producing content that is consistent with the lore of the actual game? You guys need to get rid of players like me as quickly as possible.

  4. #64
    Community Member Hendrik's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bell's Brewery, MI.
    Posts
    10,991

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HAL View Post
    Assuming you are correct, presumably when they started adding huge amounts more fluff, they hired more of the people that do that. I would have preferred they not start adding huge amounts more fluff and instead hire more people who fix bugs. And I think a log of other people would have preferred that also.
    Oh, don't get me wrong, I would love to see more then the current count of over 8000 bugs fixed. But then I am also happy to see those 8000+ bugs fixed. Gift horse, mouth, and all that.

    Fluff sells. Fluff keeps us in the content we all want so much. Some buy the fluff to support the game, some buy tons of Otto Boxes.

    Maybe we should start a campaign to stop making and selling the fluff til more bugs are fixed? No more new pets, no more Otto box sales, no more armor skin development.

    Quote Originally Posted by hsinclair
    I heard the devs hate all wizards, bards, clerics, fighters, and fuzzy bunnies and only want us to play halfling barbarian/paladin shuriken specialists!

    It's totally true, I have a reliable source. You better reroll now.
    Adventurer, Bug Reporter, Mournlander.

  5. #65
    Community Member Philibusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    'Murica!
    Posts
    1,005

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Full_Bleed View Post
    They absolutely trash lore. There is no question about it. First, the vast majority of the cosmetic pets in the game aren't legitimate D&D familiar creatures. Second, this game doesn't have familiars. If they were familiars we wouldn't be having this discussion. Familiars are part of D&D lore. The cosmetic system is an abomination and does not exist in the lore of Eberron or the Forgotten Realms.

    Certain classes can have familiars. Certain creatures can be familiars. And familiars aren't only cosmetic.

    Certain classes can have companion creatures. Certain creatures can be companions. And companions aren't only cosmetic.

    Certain classes can Summon Monsters. Certain creatures can be summoned. And summoned creatures aren't only cosmetic.

    See the pattern?

    Comparing the cosmetic pets to familiars, companions, and summoned creatures is missing the point by a wide margin.

    I don't even have a problem with cosmetics. Introduce visible cloaks to the game, available only through cosmetics and I'll spend some money on it. Introduce mounts that can be used in some of the BIG zones (and make some zones where people would want them), and I'll buy them. Give casters a line of "Illusion Spells" where people can buy certain cosmetic Illusions, and I'll buy them. I could go on for pages of LORE compatible cosmetics that the game could be selling... but isn't. Instead we've got beanie babies.
    ^THIS. Exactly, Exactly, EXACTLY, EXACTLY this!!!! Very well said Full Bleed!
    All that is wrong with DDO, life, taxes, poltics, religion, music, fast food, education, the criminal justice system, the weather, society, the universe, and previously-discontinued-but-now-on-their-way-back snack cakes, is all the fault of Wizards of the Coast. I know this because Fred told me so, and Mind Flayers are smart.

  6. #66
    Community Member Charononus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    5,345

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Full_Bleed View Post
    They absolutely trash lore. There is no question about it. First, the vast majority of the cosmetic pets in the game aren't legitimate D&D familiar creatures. Second, this game doesn't have familiars. If they were familiars we wouldn't be having this discussion. Familiars are part of D&D lore. The cosmetic system is an abomination and does not exist in the lore of Eberron or the Forgotten Realms.

    Certain classes can have familiars. Certain creatures can be familiars. And familiars aren't only cosmetic.

    Certain classes can have companion creatures. Certain creatures can be companions. And companions aren't only cosmetic.

    Certain classes can Summon Monsters. Certain creatures can be summoned. And summoned creatures aren't only cosmetic.

    See the pattern?

    Comparing the cosmetic pets to familiars, companions, and summoned creatures is missing the point by a wide margin.

    I don't even have a problem with cosmetics. Introduce visible cloaks to the game, available only through cosmetics and I'll spend some money on it. Introduce mounts that can be used in some of the BIG zones (and make some zones where people would want them), and I'll buy them. Give casters a line of "Illusion Spells" where people can buy certain cosmetic Illusions, and I'll buy them. I could go on for pages of LORE compatible cosmetics that the game could be selling... but isn't. Instead we've got beanie babies.




    No it does not. And I hope you're spending enough money to make up for all the money I (and others ) are no longer spending. I mean, what kind of crackpot am I that I should criticize a D&D game for not producing content that is consistent with the lore of the actual game? You guys need to get rid of players like me as quickly as possible.
    Just a thought, but you realize sp isn't dnd either. Pets are just part of mmo's lately, they make money, and many people seem to like them. How an optional addition to the game can ruin your gameplay to keep you from spending money boggles my mind. There are so freaking many other problems, bugs, and questionable design decisions going on that to have this as a gripe point just seems ridiculous to me.

  7. #67
    Community Member Hendrik's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bell's Brewery, MI.
    Posts
    10,991

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Charononus View Post
    Just a thought, but you realize sp isn't dnd either. Pets are just part of mmo's lately, they make money, and many people seem to like them. How an optional addition to the game can ruin your gameplay to keep you from spending money boggles my mind. There are so freaking many other problems, bugs, and questionable design decisions going on that to have this as a gripe point just seems ridiculous to me.
    Hehe.

    Funny that some iconic D&D creatures being available to players is so immersion breaking and ruins the game, yet a SP bar is not.

    FB needs to pick his 'fights' a little better when it comes to immersion in a MMO.

    Quote Originally Posted by hsinclair
    I heard the devs hate all wizards, bards, clerics, fighters, and fuzzy bunnies and only want us to play halfling barbarian/paladin shuriken specialists!

    It's totally true, I have a reliable source. You better reroll now.
    Adventurer, Bug Reporter, Mournlander.

  8. #68
    Community Member Full_Bleed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    West Palm Beach, FL
    Posts
    826

    Default

    FB needs to pick his 'fights' a little better when it comes to immersion in a MMO.
    Actually, I don't.

    This is a legitimate, lore adverse, complaint. And it's a fabricated issue on their part. It's unnecessary. Fun, lore-consistent cosmetics and other utility could have been the alternative.

    If the developers aren't told how much some of us dislike this, they aren't able to consider catering to our needs as well as yours. Last I checked, they want all of our money, not just the money of people who buy cutesy cosmetic pets.

    Again, the consequence is simple: Beanie Babies Online is not the game some of us signed on for. And with every miniaturization of an iconic D&D creature that's bouncing around town and in dungeons doing goofy tricks, we go deeper and deeper down the rabbit hole.

    When Rift came out several people I play with did their damndest to get me to abandon DDO to go play it. Same with Aion and LotR and Vanguard and Conan and The Secret World and SWG, and on and on. I've stuck with DDO, despite all its flaws, primarily, because I like the D&D *world* ("worlds" now) this game is based on. The mechanical translations (like the SP bar and melee combat) to an MMO are pretty good by MMO standards (been playing these things since UO and EQ.) But turning this joint into a petting zoo is a fundamental, and unnecessary, evolution of the look and feel of the game. It's a core change to the campaign setting. That some of you can't comprehend that isn't my problem. It's ultimately going to be Turbine's problem.

    Because if I've resisted all those other games over the years but am having an ever increasingly more difficult time arguing against Elder Scrolls Online (and I've never even played any of the ES games) then maybe it's worth noting that people aren't just leaving the game because of bugs, p2w, and nerfs. The game purposefully failing to even look like the world it proposes to be might be *part* of the problem.
    Last edited by Full_Bleed; 06-09-2013 at 10:08 PM.

  9. #69
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Old world
    Posts
    119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Full_Bleed View Post
    They absolutely trash lore. There is no question about it. First, the vast majority of the cosmetic pets in the game aren't legitimate D&D familiar creatures. Second, this game doesn't have familiars. If they were familiars we wouldn't be having this discussion. Familiars are part of D&D lore. The cosmetic system is an abomination and does not exist in the lore of Eberron or the Forgotten Realms.
    Is adopting a pet (no familiar) against D&D rules?I dont think so, its a roleplay. You can roleplay everything that is not forbiden in rules. when i was playing pnpD&D i had skeletal rat as a pet and severed woman's head as puppet and nobody had problem with that. what I know, you can roleplay everything what is not directly againts the rules, so if this pets dont have impact on game, its ok. even agruments like they are wild creatures are invalid, becouse all of those pets are -LINGS that mean they are just babies, so they are not wild or dangerous. there is lot of people who have adult tigers (real ones) at home, or other wild animals.
    Of course all pets must be from d&d world,thats the only rule. and they are
    Last edited by Huldrekall; 06-10-2013 at 01:47 AM.

  10. #70
    Community Member Hendrik's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bell's Brewery, MI.
    Posts
    10,991

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Full_Bleed View Post
    Actually, I don't.

    This is a legitimate, lore adverse, complaint. And it's a fabricated issue on their part. It's unnecessary. Fun, lore-consistent cosmetics and other utility could have been the alternative.
    Actually, still think so. Focusing on this very small and frivolous feature when there are much more lore/immersion breaking things in game is quite humorous to me. Where is your fight against the SP bar vs spells per day? That is totally anti-lore/D&D. Where is your campaign against Otto Boxes? Those are so totally anti-immersion it slaps you in the face. What about the Store?

    Turbine is not fabricating this issue, with respect, you are. With the numerous posts/threads about pets, even with the forums being a small part of the population, your anti-pet crusade is clearly in the minority. But keep your uphill battle going to remove things from all the players that want and enjoy them.

    You see, for most of the DDO playerbase, these pets ARE lore consistent. Ignoring the huge lore breakers and immersion destroying things in DDO for this very small thing is disingenuous at best.

    You don't like pets, thats fine and your personal choice. You have the option to run groups without any pets while in Quests and that does work, if you ask politely. But to want pets gone for everyone is pushing a personal hangup on everyone else, and we all know that does not work and will not work not when money is involved.

    Even the poll to have the option to visually disable pets has fallen flat.

    Turbine does not have any problem with selling pets as they are making them plenty of money to support further content design and pet design. Only the players that want them taken away from all others are having a problem doing it.

    Quote Originally Posted by hsinclair
    I heard the devs hate all wizards, bards, clerics, fighters, and fuzzy bunnies and only want us to play halfling barbarian/paladin shuriken specialists!

    It's totally true, I have a reliable source. You better reroll now.
    Adventurer, Bug Reporter, Mournlander.

  11. #71
    Community Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    819

    Default

    I would rather they dedicate any and all resources to things that actually make the game better. But if they insist on adding useless pets I would at least appreciate if they gave us a "/showpets off" command so we don't have to see other people's pets if we don't want to. They can be irritating visual noise, especially when you get multiple pets in a group. I have no problem with other people having/wanting pets, despite their fully useless nature, so long as it doesn't impact MY experience.

  12. #72
    Founder Hambo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Sacramento, Ca.
    Posts
    3,784

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tharveysinjin View Post
    I would hazard a guess that, because people do buy these pets, pigs will fly before they remove them . . .hey, wait a minute. . .I want my flying pig!
    ^This!

    With a Top Hat and a Monocle!
    Carpe D.M.! (Sieze the Dungeon Master!)
    Founder #2003 - Interocitor Repair - Call for discount prices

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.

Reload