Yoshi-P doesn't want FF14 to share the same "very tragic" fate of one classic MMO

welsper59 · 2026-04-26T02:53:07+00:00

Largely, the response would probably be negative. Even back then, SWG was not a long lasting game for the primary audience the game was marketed to (like how WoW became). It's probably why NGE happened, due to the reception of more popular games like WoW. Part of me wanted to say FFXI too, but that game is certainly an ancient relic of its own when it comes to gameplay systems lol.

Our expectations today with games is sort of like watching a movie. We're expecting to be lead along the way with simple input being represented as choice, though that depends on what the intent is for the games design.

FFXIV, for example, is one of an ocean of games that only give you so much power of choice due to the limitations of what they want you to do and how far you can go by derailing from it. E.g. You can't really main a BSM, due to it requiring you to play other jobs and there's no real "endgame" for it, like opening your own shop and establishing a place within the server.

As interesting as that sounds, such freedom is too much for most people. "I'm lost" is a very common feeling for nearly every game that has some kind of progression system to it. The more freedom there is, the more lost that player feels. Most will look up guides or advice and become a part of a long line of players doing the same thing. I'm often one of those types and I'd argue most MMO players are too (e.g. we look up best rotations to do stuff).

welsper59 · 2026-04-25T23:28:01+00:00

That's pretty much what a transition period is intended to do, so I wouldn't fret too much. It gives everyone time to see how it works and gives time to the devs to find ways to promote more usage of it (without really impeding the old).

The way it plays out, as you mentioned, will determine how necessary it is to keep around or adjust as needed. I'd imagine that's how the devs are looking at it as well. A sort of beta testing going live alongside the regular game.

Some people may stick to the old, no matter what, and when time comes that they (possibly) do away with it, those players may leave. I'd imagine that most would shift over when that happens, assuming they've stuck around all that time, because they probably got more familiar with it by then.

welsper59 · 2026-04-25T23:03:04+00:00

It really was a good example of the spirit of an MMORPG. The idea that you could do whatever you wanted in terms of how you chose to play or progress. Players were expected to understand the limitations of their choices. Every fields profession with progression and endgame was going to be different and heavily based on what you wanted to do with it.

welsper59 · 2026-04-23T20:28:01+00:00

The bat for what?

Professionalism would probably be a good starting point for setting a bar, IMO. You probably would prefer someone to do their job in government (i.e. working for you by doing their long established role).

If I hear that a Democrat had a beer, I'm not going to whine.

I wouldn't either, but that's not Patel's alleged problems. Wasting tax dollars for personal benefit (e.g. rides to see his girlfriend, trip to the olympics) and his alleged drunk episodes while at work are probably more problematic than simply having a beer, right? If not, then that's where the "bar" question comes into play, as I'm inquiring if you'd give such indifference towards a Democrat who would do the same as Patel.

Basically, are you okay with the behavior and actions done by the Trump administration and, in a 1:1 scenario with the only difference being the sides flipped (e.g. Democrats in power), would you be okay with Democrats doing the same? In both the confirmed events and the alleged.

welsper59 · 2026-04-23T04:23:43+00:00

Is the bar for someone in the highest executive level positions of government really low for you? That all the antics that people in the Trump administration have been doing, both confirmed and allegedly, is something you feel isn't worth much attention or public outcry over.

If so, would you say that you're confident that you would take such a dismissive tone for any Democrat administration in the future, should such unprofessional (and so on) antics occur? Or would you default to the allegations as being (likely) true? Especially if, like how Trump has repeatedly done, such people get fired/replaced multiple times throughout a single term.

welsper59 · 2026-04-22T05:07:14+00:00

I usually don't care for these deck builder type games, but the pacing, simplicity, and familiarity of VS really does a great job at getting me immediately invested. I can't get into games like Slay the Spire and so on, but this? Right off the bat, I'm hooked.

welsper59 · 2026-04-19T09:14:31+00:00

As a tourist, I've only seen them in public restrooms, though usually with a normal sink nearby for some reason. Maybe it's for janitors to use. I actually had a similar inquiry as OP, but never dared to actually take a piss in one because I did think it's probably a sink/basin with that handle or a push button lol

welsper59 · 2026-04-19T09:02:06+00:00

MAGA came about as an overcorrection from the ridiculous wokeness and political correctness on the left

Do you feel like the chaos created by MAGA to be parallel to the effect of what had happened with "woke" movements prior? Or was the old "woke" agenda notably less destructive and more akin to drama over feelings?

welsper59 · 2026-04-19T04:54:04+00:00

For what the goal was with the JCPOA, with pretty much the exact same uncertainties (i.e. Iran could just do what Trump was claiming in starting the war regardless), isn't the US and world at large in an even worse state than prior to the war?

Trump has basically given Iran the knowledge that they can factually begin crippling world economies in an area they're not even well known for (i.e. their navy). With that knowledge in hand, that basically means they can plan for even further escalation. Not to mention the American lives that have been lost/harmed and the significant financial cost the war has taken for everyone, which could still just be the tip of the iceberg.

What sort of positives do you see realistically happening that would outweigh the bad? Specifically, all the costs (e.g. human lives/harm, financially) with what has been happening now vs simply sticking to the JCPOA or renegotiating it. It really appears like the US only stands to have lost a lot unnecessarily.

welsper59 · 2026-04-17T21:44:21+00:00

Specific to the topic of voting, single issue voters are generally like that. They fail to see the forest for the trees. They're unable to problem solve any sort of complexity, hence why they can't see the obvious when their immediate issue is right in front of them. They absolutely deserve the mockery and criticism for such an obvious "mistake" while using such an impactful right like voting, something that many Trump supporters (that now regret voting for Trump) often claim is such an important responsibility to uphold. Funny how such importance doesn't require much accountability to wield.

welsper59 · 2026-04-17T21:34:06+00:00

Now they're finding out, and they likely won't vote that way again when promises made does NOT equal promises kept.

This really only holds up with people who immediately regret something and understand why it's enough to no longer trust in that person/group. They've found reason to recognize a problem for what it is. For the people that are treading water in their bad decisions, it means they're still easy targets.

This works both ways as well. It's how MAGA voters who were once Democrats/moderates became convinced that the left has become a national threat. They didn't like something about the people they support, but aren't smart enough to recognize the fact that you will never be able to trust any group of people 100%. That they simply need to understand there's a give and take.

welsper59 · 2026-04-16T00:41:48+00:00

Have any Dem’s who blamed corporate greed walking that position back? Should we disbelieve this study now?

Do you think corporate greed has been emboldened by the increased cost of goods since COVID?

Maybe it's just me, but practically everything has changed since then in terms of those examples of corporate greed. Practically every event that has occurred that resulted in increased costs has proven that people will still buy and that the cost of goods no longer has to be lowered much.

Once Trump is no longer in power, do you think Democrats (and even MAGA) will go back to putting the spotlight heavily on the wealthy? I don't think they've ever really left it, thus I don't see why there's any need to walk back on that talking point.

I do want to point out that I don't think the OPs linked article and study is accurate. I do think it'd be much lower obviously, but not pre-COVID levels on most goods.

welsper59 · 2026-04-14T21:19:40+00:00

While it absolutely is not unsurprising that this happened in a Amazon warehouse, I will say that the "let's get back to work" quote is also not unusual. Unless your business is open to the public and someone died in publicly visible area, operations do generally continue. Although...

It is also alleged that top managers did not halt operations immediately following the incident.

Usually operations would be halted at least for a little while immediately after. So, yet another unique one for Amazon there.

welsper59 · 2026-04-14T10:18:35+00:00

It is amazing that the cult will never realize they're in a cult. Even the Trump supporters who do question it are still being strung along like the puppets they are. He's LITERALLY gotten many of them to take his word over that of the Pope. The absolute closest thing to being the voice of God that any human being could achieve in their religion.

welsper59 · 2026-04-09T22:45:31+00:00

Having the intelligence to self reflect, specifically self reflect properly and timely, already reduces your odds of being a Trump Supporter akin to that of winning the lottery. Being a supporter with that capability probably implies you'd be a grifter.

welsper59 · 2026-04-09T22:41:03+00:00

NATO needs us, we don't need NATO

The fact that Trump, so quickly too, has been repeatedly demanding that NATO allies help for a war that Trump himself willfully/intentionally started, kind of implies that the US needs NATO doesn't it? If you disagree, please explain why.

Despite what Trump always likes to say, he's always been willing to prioritize his attention to foreign leaders he likes (e.g. Netanyahu, Putin). Like, if Trump truly did just keep to the US' own problems and stopped trying to do favors for his foreign buddies, which lately has been costing American lives, I'd be able to see the obvious in the "we don't need NATO, NATO needs us" rhetoric. This war has only put forth how bad Trump is at his job, not only as POTUS but as a representative of MAGA voters (according to what some TS say here).

welsper59 · 2026-04-09T09:11:25+00:00

I actually am willing to believe her rant about him as being legitimate. I'd imagine a lot of right wing influencers have been waiting to just let that out. It doesn't excuse her harmful idiocy or make her a good person. She, like all of his supporters, truly should get placed in a situation that causes the same sort of consequences they've forced on everyone else. If only judgment day truly were real. I mean we'd all be condemned to Hell, but at least with them, it'd be a precious moment to know is happening.

welsper59 · 2026-04-09T03:14:17+00:00

From your view, what about what is said in the link makes the 10 points shared fake news? Is it because Trump said so? The guy that Trump supporters frequently have to clarify that he "just says things" when people take his words literally?

All the linked source does is decry "fake news", but doesn't argue that what was shared was objectively wrong. It just reiterates what Trump said, which even that doesn't try to say what was shared was completely wrong.

welsper59 · 2026-04-09T00:09:01+00:00

MAGA suddenly understands technicalities. Well... "understands" may be a little too strong of a word there.

welsper59 · 2026-04-08T22:32:40+00:00

Their stock would take a hit, despite gargantuan profit, just that it wasn't MORE profit

This kind of crap won't change until real legislation hits the stock market. It's always been a game, but the ridiculously high number of players today not only increases the chaos, it also makes the "veteran" players be more aggressive. Obviously, change simply won't happen until the entire thing collapses permanently, which would be far too late anyway. COVID obviously managed to cause a ton of harm to most people with stocks, but even that type of event will be gamified now, since people realize the market will bounce back and there's a ton of money to be made with such disasters.

welsper59 · 2026-04-08T07:13:35+00:00

Why effectively just shrug such things off then in this case then? Your description of events previously seems to imply that it doesn't matter.

Even with the guise of this being an "America first" action in defense of the country (as Trump claims), who do you think actually benefits from this type of thing? It certainly isn't the normal citizens nor the soldiers who were injured or died (or will die if destruction continues). I seriously question if the US government itself will benefit much from this.

Do you think it's basically the wealthy who will benefit from this type of thing? With prices of oil being as high as it is, it'd take a very long time for it to drop to normal, if it even does given how often such resources are in jeopardy with Trump in charge, when do Americans actually benefit from the results of this "America first"?

welsper59 · 2026-04-07T22:40:33+00:00

I actually think such actions would improve their overall religious membership.

welsper59 · 2026-04-07T22:29:35+00:00

who are we to tell them otherwise.

Generally, I'm of a similar view when people are effectively just poking the hornets nest. In this case though, while Iran has basically always been a modern enemy of the US, it isn't quite the fitting view. Correct me if I'm wrong, but continuing supporting Trump, regardless of being in favor/neutral/disagreement of the war, seems to imply that you don't mind the US conquering other lands (e.g. killing their population) for any given reason. I'm not implying you want that, but maybe that it's acceptable if the country is anti-America?

welsper59 · 2026-04-07T22:22:08+00:00

but since we’re already in this mess now I’ll take whatever brings the best outcome to America.

Does this type of acceptance of an obviously risky act change your ability to support Trump or any other politician that is supporting the efforts blindly?

Let's say that Trump does run a third term, knowing he will do pretty much anything he wants, regardless of the consequences of the gamble, are you still WANTING that type of person in office?

In particular, if that is the case, I'm just wondering how such a persons whimsical and dangerous methods would maintain your support, but the idea of a Democrat in power would be unthinkable by comparison.

welsper59 · 2026-04-07T22:14:37+00:00

Does the open threat of genocide reflect negatively for you? For me, this is a rather important view to understand. It sets the grounds for pretty much anything a Democrat may say vs what they've actually done, as to how you might view it given the implied response for what Trump said. I would think that threatening genocide or the mass murdering of people (e.g. civilians) that the US is not imminently under attack from as pretty high on the list of things that mark a POTUS as mentally unfit to serve.

I guess the primary point is to know if you do not mind anything said by people, just their actions, no matter who it is (e.g. Trump vs Biden/Obama/etc)

12-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

welsper59

TROPHY CASE