Jump to content
LOTROCommunity

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 03/20/2014 in all areas

  1. I know who Tolkien fans really are... even the usual suspects on the OF... I can see into their very souls... we are: "Our songs are stonger songs."
    1 point
  2. And now in addition to this campaign for PC, you're also part of the community team and have specific knowledge of the reason the thread was locked? Because as far as I can see there is no constructive blue post at the end saying 'hey guys, great discussion, but we're watching this other thread so please leave your feedback there.' Or are you just trying to dictate where we're supposed post now in addition to how and what we post?
    1 point
  3. Wow, you are starting to sound like the worst of the OF. Do you not see that?
    1 point
  4. Link to a summary of all the q and a http://dulfy.net/2014/03/20/eso-reddit-ama-summmary/
    1 point
  5. My god, man. They're under no obligation to post at all? You're sounding like Sapience now. Of course they're not under an obligation to post. And neither are the players under an obligation to give them any money. The 'responsibility' lies with the seller of the product. You can NOT try to say otherwise. Especially to a disaffected, frustrated customer group. No, we absolutely do not need to 'bash' developers. We do not need to be 'uncivil'. If you want to encourage people to be more civil then good for you. Nothing wrong with doing that, whether it relates to LOTRO or life in general. Yes, you could try saying to someone 'Hey, they're being stupid, but you're still here, you still want to play, and if you haven't quit yet then let's try harder and smarter to get what we're looking for.' But don't ever deviate from the notion that Turbine has a responsibility. But stop and think for a second: if you're message to the players is something along the lines of 'Guys, they won't listen to us if we're not nice to them'... what does that say about the company? 'Unprofessional' is the kindest word that comes to mind.
    1 point
  6. The 'short memory' part feeds into the 'unfailingly polite' part. If you're thin-skinned, hold a grudge when someone insults your work, or show chinks in your personality armor and allow acid into your voice, you'll get a black-feathered arrow in the guts like Smaug did. As for TSK, he did not bash (to my recollection) the people on the PC (directly, specifically) but he did 'bash' in addressing the organization of the Player Council itself: TheStormKing, on 22 Feb 2014 - 10:47, said: That's about as 'entirely' as one can 'give up' on a game and a Player Council, I believe. But perhaps I shouldn't attempt to speak for him. For me though it was a revealing note from a PC member. Lastly, you said this: I'm not saying you're wrong about it being a result of Turbine's choices when it comes to being forthcoming about things. I do however, think that they've gotten into a vicious cycle and its going to take a level of community support to get two-way dialogue back to the levels it was at in the SoA days. A significant part of that almost certainly has to be 'don't jump all over them to complain about everything you find wrong or wish they were doing' whenever they post. Crell...this is not two friends or two equal sides. This is producer and consumer. The producer does not get to pick and choose which consumer feedback it will listen to. You can NOT put the onus on the players to 'be civil to Turbine' in order for positive results to occur. Turbine is the one selling something. Turbine has to 'earn' that from the players with new and different efforts than what they had been putting forth. The onus is on them. If someone says 'This game sucks!' then you ask 'Why do you say that? Let's talk about it' instead of getting another sermon from Sapience on one's tone and how they say things. Change will 'start' with Turbine, not the players.
    1 point
  7. And Doro is the one we look to as a role model for forum posting decorum!
    1 point
  8. As I understand it (and I could be wrong) it's as follows. Those that pre-ordered the imperial edition get a white basic horse, equivalent stats to the in game 17,200 gold one, that's not available anywhere else. Those that also want a horse straight away but don''t want to spend £20 extra on the imperial edition, can pay something like £10 for a Palomini coloured basic horse ( also same stats as the 17k one) Those that don't want to spend £10 can wait until they have 17k gold and buy one. We talk about gold and it seems a lot, but there's no silver or copper in this game. Over the last beta weekend, I had 4000 g at one point with a new character and I was only messing around, I don't think 17k will take more than about a week to get if you really want one. (Compare that to Lotros horse initially, took me months to get). All of the above horses come with Speed 15% Stamina 10 inv 0 You can feed the horse up over many days and this can give you one of the following. Speed to move quicker Stamina so that you can sprint on horse longer and take more hits before getting dismounted Inv which adds slots to your inv all the time you have the horse with you regardless of whether you are riding it or not. Alternatively, if you have the gold, you can spend 42,700k on one of the following Draft Horse optimised for carrying Speed 15% Stamina 10 Inv 10 Galted Horse Optimised for stamina Speed 15% Stamina 20 inv 0 Light Horse optimised for speed Speed 25% Stamina 10 Inv 0 I don't know exactly how it works having only played beta for a few weekends, but if the cost remains the same for each feed (250g) I buy the cheap horse for 17,200 and spend 2500 buying 10 inv levels, it would have cost me a total of 19,500 rather than 42,700 for the expensive horse with the same stats. However I would have to wait 10 days worth of feeding to get there. I've googled this a lot, and it seems (there seems to be some confusion) that each stat is capped at 50 and the expensive horse gives you a 10 stat bonus, meaning you still get 50 points over about 50 days to spend on your horse, but if you had the inv horse, as it already has 10 in the inv, you could only put another 40 in but that would then leave you with 10 to spend in one of the other 2, but again, it seems a bit vague how it works. So it's far cheaper to get the 17k horse and feed it up but you will loose out on 10 overall stat points (if the posts I read, the people understood it properly, and they might not have)
    1 point
  9. This is the real cause... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzLtF_PxbYw
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...