Also, to quote Douglas Adams: "Everyone lies to people with clipboards."
- Viewing Profile: Reputation: Feathermoore
FeathermooreMember Since 21 Aug 2009
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 08:47 PM
- Group Super Moderators
- Active Posts 3639
- Profile Views 8306
- Member Title Underdog
- Age 25 years old
- Birthday April 10, 1988
Posted Beyond Freedom on 20 February 2014 - 05:52 PM
Also, to quote Douglas Adams: "Everyone lies to people with clipboards."
Posted Corsair on 31 January 2014 - 01:08 PM
Posted Corsair on 30 January 2014 - 01:45 AM
Que sera sera, whatever will be, will be. Don't let these people's own vexations affect you too much and realize that they are people just living their lives and doing what they think is right for something they love. The best course isn't contradictory or combative, but conversational. Talk with them on it and don't attack. And realize that leaving the conversation is always an option should there be no ground gained or conversations advanced.
Posted shanaeri rynale on 13 December 2013 - 09:18 PM
To clarify I am looking forward to hearing the communities thoughts on speed of acquisition such as how long crafting time takes? or drop rates in fractals and other areas of the game etc.
I hope this adds some clarity.
Does this sound like they listened to the community on what they wanted to talk about re vertical progression? Or did Anet go ahead and want to talk about what Anet wanted to talk about?
I would say, based on all the threads and posts about H vs V progression it seems they did the latter.
Is this a change of direction from old vs new Anet? You decide.
Posted BlackBoxx on 05 November 2013 - 09:52 PM
PS: the customer is not always right, but it's my job to make whatever he wants possible. In the end, I help him be right. I've got redesigns, firmware changes and even forced a particular Windows update just to cater to clients. I don't do that for customers with hostile attitude though. Business 101.
Good thing my company is widely known for it's superb customer support then. I go out of my way to give the best solution possible for any problem, oftentimes that's problems which are currently impossible but ain't in a few days if I put my weight on it. But I don't accept vile customers. Most people are reasonable and the vile customers are usually those who don't want a solution in the first place.
I doubt you'll find anyone who disagrees with the sentiment. However, like in any debate or discussion, the first thing you need to do is define your terms. What do you mean by "vitriolic customer"? "People who don't want a solution" would work, but that is clearly not the case with many of the interactions ANet has had with their player base. Plenty of folks, like myself, have been waiting for GW2 for five years. That kind of time for emotional investment isn't one to be simply tossed aside. We want the game to be good. We simply want it to be they way it was pitched to us, and the ability to criticize to the same degree we can with other products.
Normally, that would be the end of my contribution until I get a working definition, but luckily, ANet has already done that for us. Unfortunately, they are wrong. When a customer says they were lied to, and can point to a collection of evidence to back it up, that is not vitriol. When a customer dares to ask for a response from a developer (the real life equivalent would be asking to speak to a manager), that is not vitriol. Even if a customer says something unproductive, like "[company] is incompetent", that is not vitriol. At worst, these statements/questions are unpleasant.
Accusations of lies and dishonesty should never, ever be brushed aside, and the accuser punished. Not in the business world. A good business will look at the facts the accuser brings up. What does ANet do? Deletes posts, and hand out infractions as if the customer has crossed the line by pointing out that they did not get what they were promised (if a company's word cannot be taken as a promise, then that is a shady company with whom I want no dealings). The honest thing to do is to admit when a mistake is made, and fix it. Sadly, ANet refuses to acknowledge that there is a problem... or at least, they don't acknowledge the right problem.
Banning employee call outs is just baffling to me. I get that the developers need to actually develop the game, and can't stop what they're doing to answer each and every question they get from people on the internet, but there is no harm in a customer asking (even demanding) for a response. Ignore call outs, sure, but at least give the actual meat of the post its due attention. If the post actually brings up an issue that warrants a response, have an appropriate employee give the response. If it just so happens that the right person to respond is the person called out to, this might just be an indication that the customer knows what they are talking about. This is someone to whom it is worth it to listen! Not to ANet. They don't like questions being asked directly for whatever reason.
Lastly, let's assume that a customer is truly being abrasive. There is a cut-off point where a company/employee should say "I'm not dealing with this. Please leave". That point is never at the outset of the interaction. Even when a customer enters a store saying "whose [noun] do I have to [verb] to get some attention around here?" (fill in the blanks with whatever words you like. I personally like using [teeth] and [admire]), the appropriate response is not to immediately kick them out the door.
I said it earlier, and I'll say it again, the onus is on ANet to be the professionals, not the player base. They need to be the ones with skin so thick that an elephant wearing 16 leather jackets would be jealous of the crap they can shrug off. This is true of any customer/company interaction. I've been on the company end of dealing with PitA customers. It sucks. I know. It can really put a damper on your day. If you (that's the impersonal you, not anyone in particular. just to be clear) can't handle it, then leave the service industry (video games are very much a service when online functionality is involved). But, play your cards right and you will reap the reward. Once in a blue moon, I've had said PitA customers approach me after our interaction to apologize for being a PitA (now I'm hungry for some flatbread for whatever reason). The pride one feels when getting that kind of reaction is usually only the first... let's say 'return of investment'. Those customers (no longer PitA's) usually return, often asking for me specifically, to serve them. That's the second part. In time, these newly loyal customers will bring in their friends to do business with you. That's when you know you're the best damn person at your job.
This is the basis behind the 80/20 rule (http://management.ab...areto081202.htm). 20% of your customers make up the majority of your revenue, while 80% mean very little. I've also heard it said that 80% of your business comes from 20% of your customers. Either way. it means your loyal customers are very important, even if they are a minority. DON'T TICK THEM OFF! A company cannot afford to lose customers willy-nilly and hope to thrive. ANet is not immune to this. Every person they give an infraction to is less likely to purchase gems if the smallest of "offenses" get them punished.
Patience and lenience are a must for a company. ANet is lacking in, yet demanding of both.
Posted Trei on 28 October 2013 - 03:43 PM
The Zerker group goal is to complete the dungeon and do it quickly. Most likely they are there to farm gold or dungeon tokens. They have probably completed the dungeon multiple times and the dungeon experience means very little them. Failure to complete the dungeon is not an acceptable outcome. Doing the dungeon quickly or efficiently is the only challenge left.
The “Other” group’s, for a lack of a better name, main goal is to experience the dungeon. Some may call it to have fun. Time is probably not an issue for them, and failure is called a good try. Gold and tokens are a nice bonus for doing the dungeon but probably not the main reason they are there. Other people in this group could be there just to learn or socialize.
They are not justifications for anyone else to complain about how a player should run his group.
Posted Captain Bulldozer on 05 September 2013 - 05:56 AM
Wouldn't it be more productive to a reasonable discussion if we could all refrain from resorting to name calling and degrading the people we disagree with? You may be against negativity, but your post is also steeped with it.
Posted Captain Bulldozer on 03 September 2013 - 12:57 AM
Posted Corsair on 12 July 2013 - 01:25 AM
Posted Just Horus on 09 July 2013 - 05:07 PM
Posted smoke070z on 17 May 2013 - 08:03 PM
i wish just guild wars 2 had the complexity, charm, and atmosphere the original did. i think there's something about those big green fields in pre-searing that'll always have a place in our hearts. i've had some of the best gaming moments of my life in this game.
i can't be the only one who tears up when they hear this song
Posted Frozire on 29 May 2013 - 04:09 PM
Let's start with the title, State of the Game, not State of PVP, as if pvp is the soul and heart of the game, not. PVP has been and will always be a niche activity. Yet Guru, plays up PVP balance as the only balance worth talking about.
State of the Game was originally meant to cover all aspects of the game.
Sadly after weeks of searching for hosts that was experienced in PvE and/or WvW we simply had to put it on low and just continue the show with strictly PvP where we had gotten an enormous amount of feedback and support.
So we did not “play up” anything, there just wasn’t enough backing from the Community to support PvE and/or WvW.
Not to mention State of the Game was never ment to be a super critical "give it to ArenaNet"-show. We created the show on the premise of having a two way communication between developers and the community on a regular basis. We never wanted and never will want every month to be about how much we can laugh at them for doing mistakes or how many bad decision we can point out. We wanted it to be a genuine discussion that brought the Developers down in eye-sight with players that are passionate about the game.
Don't get me wrong we want to improve the game and we most certainly have no interest in the show not asking critical questions. But there is a line that we have no interest in crossing where it goes from having genuine conversation and simply throwing dirt.
I am sorry that so many of you have been unable to see all the points, critical questions and changes proposed/made on State of the Game. I am even more sorry to not have read any mails from the majority of you suggesting things, that you find important, to ask on the show. I hope we can see a tighter collaboration and participation in the future. If we don't get told, we can't fix!
Posted Captain Bulldozer on 18 May 2013 - 01:28 AM
A very good example of this is WoW.
People are always talking about back in the good old days in Vanilla. But while the game actually was in Vanilla it was more or less a beta and people complained about more or less everything.
For some reason the "good old days" are always better when they are the "good old days" than when they actually happened.
Don't expect to get anyone to listen to or think about your comments when you trivialize the opinion of anyone who happens to disagree with you. Intelligent people can reasonably disagree on this point, so you claiming that anyone who sees it differently than you do is just "nostalgia" is not only disrespectful, its plain factually incorrect.
Posted draxynnic on 16 May 2013 - 12:23 PM
What gives WoW its position is a combination of the following:
1) It used a well-known franchise with a large starting fanbase, giving it a target audience that were near-guaranteed to take it up if they had any interest whatsoever in a vertical progression MMO.
2) For all their faults, Blizzard is near-unmatched in making highly polished, professional games with all the bells and whistles. Nine months after release Guild Wars 2 is still weighed down with well-known bugs (including traits that simply don't work), aggravating control issues, and complete lack of a viable group finding feature in a modern MMO - it's unlikely that Blizzard would have allowed such a state of affairs to last nearly so long.
3) While WoW has become the poster child for hopeless grind, gaming addiction, and other undesirable MMO traits, it's still a darn sight less vertical-progression-focused than what came before it. Compared to what else was on the market when it released, WoW actually differentiated itself by making a substantial move away from the mountainous vertical progression of its predecessors. This is how its seen as being more casual than it's predecessors... because it IS.
4) Size builds momentum. When you're the biggest in the market, that means it's going to be your game that people pick up because their friends already played it or simply because they've heard it's the biggest in the market.
These are the reasons why WoW is on top - and none of which have vertical progression in them.
If you look through the MMOs that have come even close to WoW's success, the overall trend you'll notice is that they set themselves distinctly apart from WoW. Not simply by having a strong licensed franchise of its own to start from or some gimmick that WoW can simply steal - they have some fundamental distinction that calls to players that are turned off by WoW's fundamental mode of operation. In the case of Guild Wars, this has always been a substantially reduced focus on vertical progression.
The result? Well, I noticed a few years back that whenever the Blizzard fanboys wanted to claim the superiority of WoW over some other MMO(-type) game, it was Guild Wars they kept coming back to. Why? Because in Western markets, it was the only credible and stable competitor for a fantasy MMO, keeping it on their radar rather than flaring up over a couple of months and disappearing like all the other MMOs that just tried to copy what worked for other MMOs. When Warhammer Online, D&D Onlne, LOTRO and scores of other vertical-progression-based MMOs were crushed beneath WoW's iron heel, it was Guild Wars that stubbornly persisted like a thorn slipping through a crack in the boot even in the face of near-abandonment by its own company.
Why? Because it didn't just try to copy WoW's success. It did something different, and in doing so, it claimed for its own a portion of the market that was dissatisfied with WoW, and part of the reason for that dissatisfaction is that not everyone likes vertical progression.
Seriously, if your claims were accurate, we wouldn't even be having this discussion because from what you're saying, everyone agrees that vertical progression is the best thing for an MMO. But we're disagreeing with you because many people think it's not the best thing for their MMO, and that's why their not playing WoW in the first place. If your game is going to be based off the same assumptions that WoW is, your game had better be so kittenly awesome that it's not only accepted by the people who try it as being better than WoW, but that it also overwhelms the massive incumbent advantage that WoW already has.
The truth is... it sounds like vertical progression, grinding (arbitrary term of difficulty) content to get all the (arbitrary term of quality) gear so you can move on to (arbitrary term of the next level of difficulty) content is your thing. There are lots of games on the market that supply that, including WoW. You're literally spoiled for choice.
Me? I get literally nothing from replacing my +4 Sword of Awesomesauce to +5 Sword of Greater Awesomesauce That Is Fundamentally Identical To The +4 Sword Of Awesomesauce Except With A Larger Number so that I can progress from fighting monsters that were balanced with the +4 SOA in mind to monsters that were balanced with the +5 SOGATIFITT+4SOAEWILN in mind. Instead, I gain my enjoyment from overcoming challenges with tactics (not just repeating things I've already mastered until my numbers get high enough) and by trying new ways of doing things using new builds and professions.
Vertical progression doesn't just do nothing for my enjoyment, it actively hinders it. Having a requirement to collect gear to support a new build because my old gear wasn't compatible with that build is, to me, a barrier to fun, not a contribution to it. Needing to repeat what might have been hundreds of hours of grind to get a character of a new profession up to a point where it can meet the challenges my first character can is a major barrier to fun, possibly even dealbreaker-level.
It may be pat, but it's true - it sounds like the WoW-style of game is what works for you. Play one of them. There are enough of them on the market. Stop trying to hog the entire market and let me have the game that works for me. Please.
And finally, because it bears repeating, if you take just one thing from this post it should be this:
If your claim that vertical progression was what everyone liked was true, nobody would be arguing to the contrary. The very fact that so many people are disagreeing with you demonstrates better than any specific argument that your claim is flawed.
Posted draxynnic on 15 May 2013 - 02:57 AM
You're also falling into the fallacy of assuming that what motivates you is what motivates everyone else. Studies have actually shown that there is a set of different gamer motivations, which are present in different mixes in different gamers. Only two of those motivations (the achiever and griefer motivations, the latter being the type who like to hang out in low-level zones with high-level characters in games that have unavoidable world PvP and gank newbies) are really supported via vertical progression. For roleplayers, explorers, and competitors, vertical progression can be pointless or even a barrier to enjoyment of the game.
Part of ArenaNet's method of distinguishing itself from WoW is that it makes vertical progression less of a barrier to players who are less motivated (or even demotivated) by it. This is part of why their manifesto had the "if you hate MMOs..." line - the reduced vertical progression is intended as a draw for players who are turned off by the idea of being on the constant gear treadmills offered by most MMOs. By necessity, reducing the barrier presented by vertical progression means, unsurprisingly, having less vertical progression. When people say things along the lines of "if you prefer the way WoW does things, go play WoW", they're not (entirely) being flippant - if what you want is better catered for in another game, it's completely legitimate to expect you to play a game that's better suited for catering to what you enjoy in a game.
There's also an unspoken "and stop trying to ruin our game" in there... which I'm going to put out in the open. When 90% of the MMOs out there are designed for people who enjoy constant vertical progression treadmills, that makes the 10% that don't work that way all the more precious to those of us that don't. The majority of MMOs out there are already being made for your playstyle. Please leave something for the rest of us and stop trying to convert the few that don't.