raspberry jam, on 24 January 2013 - 03:52 PM, said:
Yes, ANet satisfied your expectations, and that is the problem. Assuming that you are the average GW2 player, you will keep purchasing GW2 products such as gems and, possibly, expansions, despite the amount of bugs that we see in every patch. That is why ANet needs to accept responsibility here. By not banning exploiters,by saying that "sorry, we caused an upset of the economy" or similar, they would look the culprit. And that would be a good thing, since the admission of responsibility (which would only happen when a bug is released) would mean that the average GW2 player buy less GW2 products. That in turn would mean that there would be a profit interest in more QA.
I'm not going to do shit about it. What are you going to do? Buy more GW2 products? Yeah that'll help, encouraging the current behavior of releasing bugs and fixing them afterwards.
Ohhh good, so now you're suggestiong we dont spend any money until they reach the point of what you call nearly 0 bugs (which acording to you 1 bug and 1 exploit for all the wintersday release isnt close enough to 0 for you). So that will result in less money whihc you never know maybe forces them to fire some QA due to lack of funds. I have a feeling you need to rethink your strategy. Also not sure how leaving exploiters to exploit is an admittion of guilt. I dont know maybe I am wierd, maybe someone else can correct me or I dont know but is fixing the bug a much better admition of hey we did a bug, its our fault and we fixed it then letting exploiters exploit. I mean if like you say they're trying to dodge responsability wouldnt it be much much better to just do nothing?
Think about it, if you dont fix the exploit you can claim there is no exploit there is no bug, its all intended. If you dont ban players there will be no attention turned towards the exploit and no one would be the wiser. Some people would complain the economy for ectos got destroyed for a time but eventually wintersday would end, no more snowflakes available and no one would be able to abuse the exploit anymore. There thats the perfect way not to shoulder any responsability.
Like they did? stop the recipe, fix the issue, ban exploiters, news that went into all major game news outlet I have no doubt there are tons of people who have never played GW2 that know Arenanet let slip an exploit for wintersday. I am sorry but your theory of this being arenanet not shouldering responsability doesnt make sense imho.
raspberry jam, on 24 January 2013 - 03:52 PM, said:
I don't think that any testing should be done to catch recipe exploits. Testing should be done, of course, but the main method of catching recipe exploits should be review. Just look at the numbers. If the numbers are too messy to look at (which far too often is the case, especially like this when an item inherits properties), then clear that up. Crafting exploits is a classic in MMOs, so anyone who develops an MMO should take special care with those.
No, I think that if exploiters remain in the playerbase, ANet will have more motivation to improve their QA. It's not a difficult concept actually. Both us players and ANet wants a healthy game, but for different reasons, and with different definitions of "healthy".
And as you say, some actions are definitely exploits, known by ANet and yet not punished. But at the moment you first do the exploit, you don't know if it will be bannable or not. With the snowflakes, it was pretty clear cut, but with other exploits, things are less obvious. Some people might feel that mesmer portals might detract from, and cheapen, the experience of jumping puzzles. You can say "just don't use them", but that only solves half the problem; there will still be the feeling that you could do something in a better way, but you don't.
Profits being calculated in markup yield the same argument... Increased expenses are still profitable if they lead to a greater profit (of course). Also, doing it for the profit does mean that you have a marketable game. This is obvious to everyone else, but I will explain... a highly marketable game can be expected to sell more copies than a less marketable one. Since the per-copy average is profitable, being highly marketable is profitable as well.
I... Ok, I know. Sorry. Let me try again.
If you sell more copies, you will make more money.
Maybe you understand now. Let's go on. Where were we... ah, yes, the seatbelts. No, assume that the manufacturer didn't know about it. And yes, ANet obviously did provide a faulty item. Either the recipe or the salvage ratios were faulty, or both. If not, the exploit would not be possible.
The ambiguity of what is a bannable exploit and what is not is actually a very good thing. Most players dont exploit and honest players would like no player to exploit no matter how small if possible. If some exploiters decide not to risk exploiting a minor exploit they could get away with because its the kind of exploit Anet would never take action against.... Good where is the problem? I dont see it!
Ohh gee thanks for explaining to me that if you sell more copies you make more money, would never have arrived to it by myself not even in a million years. Come on thats not what I was saying at all. Okey let me put it in simple terms like you did.
Lets say your company employees just 1 person. This person for simplicities sake earns $60,000 a year. A single game costs $60 so you need to sell 1000 copies per year just to break even (yes we got 0 utility expenses, no publisher and dont have any marketing)
If now you create a new game and decide to employ 15 people, 1000 copies a year will no longer cut it. You instead need to sell 15,000 copies a year to break even. ohh looky looky we actually need 15x more boxes sold when we employ 15x more people.
So yes obviously selling more boxes brings in more money, but if you increase your expenses and hiring 15x the amount of people you had before will certainly do that you need to increase your sales but the same amount you increased your expenses. Obviously HR isnt all the expenses GW2 has going for it, but in my opinion increasing man power by 15x while projecting sales to be somewhere in the range of 2x your old product you are most likely sacrifing some markup for the sake of quality. Let me explain a bit since you tend to easily misunderstand me if i dont. Increasing the life team by 15x definitely increase the quality of the game. I mean who doesnt love so much new content each month right? Now I dont expect man power is all the expense Gw2 has by far but unless there is a some other expense thats 5x the cost of HR then they conciously decide to sacrifce markup in favor of quality (obviously hoping in the long run the high quality of the game will return in a greater profit)
You never get tired of playing with words do you. If a manufacturer gives you something faulty while doing all that can be expected (reasonable testing, using proper materials etc..) then yes manufacturer gave you a faulty item but all you can expect for them is to fix your item or replace it. Isnt that what arenanet did?
raspberry jam, on 24 January 2013 - 04:03 PM, said:
But you said you agreed with me. Were you being sarcastic?
i don't think that any MMO is completely free of exploits. I do know, however, that the ones where devs take responsibility do better than most.
I never agreed with you.
And how do these companies that do better take responability exactly ? by just letting exploiters exploit to their hearts content without repurcussions? Care to provide 1 example?
raspberry jam, on 24 January 2013 - 04:07 PM, said:
Yes, you are accepting it and that is the problem. If you (I guess we'd need a couple of more people) set higher standards, the game would have less bugs in general. Why do you want more bugs in the game than absolutely needed?
Small correction, we dont accept the bugs we accept Arenanet's response to them. BIG HUGE difference.
if Arenanet had simply left things as they were and left the exploit in then that would have been totally unacceptable and I dont think any of us argueing with you would be okey with that. But yes 2 bugs in a release the size of wintersday is acceptable and bug addressed the day its discovered is definitely acceptable. Exploiters not left free to exploit at their hearts content, very acceptable too. We're happy with that response.