Jump to content

  • Curse Sites


Member Since 09 Apr 2012
Offline Last Active Feb 03 2014 04:28 PM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Another PUG Experience

30 January 2014 - 06:06 PM

View Postgw2guruaccount, on 30 January 2014 - 05:44 PM, said:

The problem with your analysis is that it doesn't bar opportunities. For instance we would all agree that if there were a guild dedicated only to having thief class members that's fine. It's as discriminatory as asking for a stat set for a specific run. The issue with discrimination and fairness only arises in the cases where exclusivity produces a lack of opportunity. PUGs do not work this way.

This is just for the sake of argument since I am indifferent to groups advertising for specific builds. How does advertising for PUG with requirements not lead to less opportunity?  The pug that wants warriors only with lessen the opportunity for my ranger, the group that advertises for all Koreans will lessen my opportunity since I am not, the group that advertises for all female will again lower my opportunity to join, only achievements points > 10K will lower more opportunity.  If more and more people start adding requirements my opportunity to play diminishes.  Is it ok because currently there are still other PUG that do not have restrictions?  Can I simply advertise for red haired people only for a computer programmer job because there are plently of other companies without this restriction?

In Topic: Another PUG Experience

30 January 2014 - 05:30 PM

I think the basis of the issue is this:  "is it fair to advertise for a PUG with requirements?".  On the surface it seems totally reasonable.  It could be compared to job skill requirements for an interview, physical fitness requirements to become a fireman or police officer, education requirements to be a licensed trade.  If people accept that these requirements are necessary then there usually is no problems.  Problems arise when some people think the requirements are unfair or discriminatory.  No female firefighters, no black golf club members, only asain accountants need apply, no republicans wanted, over the age of 21, taller than 4', blond hair and blue eyes only, under 150lbs, "no chinese or dogs" (not mine but from that old Bruce Lee movie). These restrictions may not be illegal but some people may find it offensive.  I think the people that don't like your restictions for the PUG may feel the same way.  They probably realize it is not illegal, ie violate EULA, but they may find it offensive. They probably feel the purpose of the game is to provide entertainment and have fun and they meet all of the requirements to be entertaining and fun producing.

In Topic: P2W Poopstorm brewing? - VIP Membership data [Official Response]

11 January 2014 - 03:05 AM

As I was reading this thread I was scratching my head thinking I had entered some type of up-side-down Bizzarro world.   I saw statements that suggested the communist Chinese game players wanted a p2win type of game.  They wanted to play in a fantasy world where having or spending more money gave you an advantage over others.  Then I saw post from others who I assume live in capitalistic economies who rallied against the idea of paying money to get ahead of your fellow game players.  They seem to be advocating a form of socialistic fairness where people with little money can acquire all the same items someone with a lots of money has and block the ability for people with money to get an advantage. :D

In Topic: Update Notes for December 10th

11 December 2013 - 01:51 AM

I was hoping to be able to send a collection expander to a friend and get 3 more for myself for 40% off but it does not apply to those type of items. :(

In Topic: Now Through December 31: Purchase Gems to Receive Exclusive Gifts

04 December 2013 - 04:41 PM

View PostEl Duderino, on 04 December 2013 - 04:25 PM, said:

Thank you for your post. I understand what you are trying to say. Also, the quote wars isn't offensive, it just makes it harder to reply to without also resorting to them and my hand is red from all the slapping it gets. ;)

I agree, looking for revenue is important and I apologize for not understanding where we were taking the argument, I just feel that the argument of "because money" is often used to hide the HOW and WHY.

That being said, I still stand by the fact that I don't think that making things trade-able would be a significant loss in revenue versus the immense gain it would have to making the game more enjoyable. It doesn't just have to do with minis, it is also about ascended gear, dungeons tokens, etc. It would be a big step towards making the game more enjoyable because I wouldn't have to worry about associating 1 reward with 1 activity even if that activity isn't something I find fun. I could reasonable spend my time having fun and still expect to get that reward. In the case of something like dungeon tokens, I understand both sides of that argument, but I find it less appealing with something blocked by credit card purchases.

My ideal would be to find ways to make money without limiting or excluding people who are playing the game for fun. One suggestion I have had would be to add more craft-able armor and weapons to the game that can be sold online, but keep them in the rare category, or even (if ascended gear was trade-able) in the exotic category. It would add so much to the crafting skills, which are rather stale from lack of anything interesting to craft, let alone any way to actually profit from them - and it would open up the need for transmutation stones. It is a win-win in my opinion.

In this specific case, I don't think people wouldn't spend money to get the backback or mini - but I do think that people who aren't going to spend the money would appreciate knowing that if they saved up their coin for a very long time, they may be able to have it too. Plus, if someone did buy the mini or backpack and decided they wanted to trade them for gold or something else - they could do that too instead of needing the keep them forever.

To be honest I like your idea of making these items tradable and maybe you are right that it would not cause a significant lost in revenue to make them tradable.  The problem is the decision makers don't seem to think so or at least they are not acting like they think so.  Maybe they will change their mind in the future,  they have switch positions before.