Global Chat: Controversy edition

Remember Global Chat? It may have fallen by the wayside last year, but it's a brand-new year and a great time to bring it back. We love hearing what you have to say at Massively, and we love it even more when we can share the best comments with all of our readers.

Massively staffers will be contributing some of their favorite comments every week, so keep an eye out every Sunday for more Global Chat, and maybe even pitch in a few of your own thoughts. If you've missed a few Massively articles that had some great discussion, this is your chance to weigh in, so follow along after the break to see what the Massively writers liked best in this week's Global Chat!

SWTOR introduced the less-than-welcoming planet Quesh this week, prompting the usual discussion about the upcoming game. AlienFanatic had this to say about what we've seen so far:

"I'm sure many folks are going to be pleased with TOR, but I'm somehow underwhelmed at the art direction so far. It's lacking a certain 'something' that makes it feel like Star Wars to me. Frustratingly, I still pine for a Star Wars game (not made by SOE) that is set in the universe of the original Star Wars movies. I MUCH prefer the art style of the early films, but sadly those days are long gone."

The EVE Online CSM was a hot topic this week, and our interview sparked some interesting discussion -- the word of the day was "microtransactions." Massively reader KTrell echoed the feelings of quite a few fans:

"What is this nonsense? 'The CSM still isn't happy that microtransactions are being considered. We unanimously agree we would prefer a microtransaction-free EVE. We have made it crystal clear that any items gained through microtransactions should not give any sort of competitive advantage, and CCP has assured us that this will absolutely be the case.' That is strange. I mean, I can buy PLEX with real money, and I can sell the PLEX for ISK to buy the best items. It is already in the game. What are they talking about?"

This week's Lost Pages of Taborea was all about learning to play your role, and Strangeland had some insightful thoughts about PvE and PvP roles in general MMO gaming. It's a bit on the long side but expresses a lot of thought on PvE play vs. PvP play:

"This is why PvE players are skeptical that PvP can coexist with the same builds. PvP and PvE, we all know, are totally different experiences, but games like WoW often try to make the same talent builds 'balance' for both.

"Simple example. In vanilla WoW, tanks were not expected to do DPS at all. They were expected to play a role of holding aggro and absorbing damage. Healers healed, Hunters pulled and rooted, etc. Everyone had an equitable role. Then you take your same talent build to the PvP arena and gee... unless you are a DPS class, you suck. So now, massive amounts of rebalancing and tweaking have to happen to make PvP and PvE both work for the exact same build.

"WoW (and other games) should never have gone down that path... the dual spec system they have now should have been introduced for PvP. You have a PvE spec with very different but equitable roles, and you have a PvP build you switch to when you enter the battlegrounds. (LotRO did this creatively by isolating PvP in such a way that player class specs would not be pitched against each other but rather against player-controlled monsters with totally different talents.)

"The process of trying to make PvE builds and PvP builds across every class type equal in both PvP and PvE has been the biggest source of homogenization of the game experience. Every class and build now has to be able to do everything equally. Nobody in the PvE crowd wants that, and if there were a distinct PvP dual- or tri-spec, then you could isolate the PvE experience from the PvP experience and create talents and builds that are right for each.

"The bottom line is you can build a diverse, balanced, equitable set of classes to challenge the environment easily enough... but as soon as you pitch those same class specs against each other, all the rules change and everything must be homogenized, ruining the diversity possible in 'equitable' trees where classes have a role to play."

Now it's your turn. Let us know what you think, and we'll see you in next week's Global Chat!