Jump to content

  • Curse Sites


Member Since 13 Jul 2010
Offline Last Active Apr 16 2014 04:25 PM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Feature Patch Update Notes

16 April 2014 - 02:09 PM

View Postchefwaffle, on 16 April 2014 - 11:23 AM, said:

How so? It destroyed the community outside of wvw of all servers. Also, EU have like 6-8 different languages all in the same overflow. Imagine how hard it is organizing marionette or teq or the upcoming world bosses changes.
I thought the MegaServer system was supposed to sort people by langauge, or are there simply not enough people using the same langauge?

In Topic: When is this patch dropping?

15 April 2014 - 08:29 PM

There was a bug with the starter zones and the mega server that would transport players in those zones directly to a build of Zhaitan designed for hardcore players. Or not.

In Topic: Pay-to-win

10 April 2014 - 06:18 PM

View PostMazingerZ, on 10 April 2014 - 05:58 PM, said:


Translation: "we all know I have no evidence and there is actually evidence to the contrary, but I'm still right!". You should look into logical fallacies, just becuase it might make sense doesn't mean it's true. Not only is it not true but it makes no sense.  MMOs make money through longevity and a large community.  Trying to wring out all the cash from your community and not changing to meet their desires is how you go out of business and then you have no one to get any money from. Do the right things because they're the right things, charge a fair price for the extras and have a good product and you can actually grow and that's where the money is.  That doesn't mean Anet always does the right things, but they know they're not at the point where they can do anything and make money, unlike WoW.

Where exactly did I blame people's individual issues as a factor in the products Anet present? People's individual issues impact them individually, but that doesn't mean they can blame anyone else for their failings.  Are you really trying to argue against personal responsibility, that companies should not offer products because someone might not act responsibly? That is incredibly naive or you're reaching for relevance because nothing said so far has any merit.

Your disposition is obviously very firmly set, to you Anet is evil and any changes they make has nothing to do with the buckets of feedback from players and only has to do with making as much money off people as quickly as possible. Again, quite naive.  You're counting positive changes as negatives, why exactly are you here when you obviously hate the game? Seems your fears trump reality. But at least we've cut most of the crap and know it's about fears and personal issues more than any real issue inherent in the game.

In Topic: Pay-to-win

10 April 2014 - 05:42 PM

View PostMazingerZ, on 10 April 2014 - 05:24 PM, said:


Ah yes, the for-profit motive to change the game-play experience to encourage the gem trade that has not happened and has no evidence.

We didn't defend those practices, I and others refuted them and the only repsonse was repeating the flawed premise again and again.  Then we operated under all of the conditions set and still proved your arguments wrong in every narrow definition set. Here's how simple it is, GW2 is not P2W.  You have nothing but a premise, it has been proven wrong, and you have no evidence to back it up.
Since you have a habit of ignoring what is written and say the exact opposite:


To make it completely clear; I don't want anyone to be exploited and no one is currently being exploited.  On top of that people ultimately make their own decisions with their money, if someone has a spending problem they should reevaluate their habits and seek outside help.  You can't be the culprit and the victim.

The simple fact is it isn't a simple fact.  It's a conspiracy theory that has no foundation.  Not only that, in the game we are seeing barriers being removed in multiple areas; dyes, armor skins, weapon skins, traits, repair fees, and I'm sure I'm leaving out some others. You are claiming Anet is covertly making things more difficult and burdensome while they are overtly making things less difficult and burdensome. It doesn't add up in any way and when called out on it and the lack of evidence all you can do is repeat yourself.

In Topic: Pay-to-win

10 April 2014 - 05:16 PM

View PostMazingerZ, on 10 April 2014 - 04:44 PM, said:


That transition only happened because all your conditions were accepted because there is no other way to talk about it.  You refuse operate outside the premise GW2 is P2W, mostly because there's nothing but a premise there.

You do know people control their activity, right? If you don't like it don't do it, and there's a catch.  Those "typical MMO'ers" would otherwise (or also) play another MMO paying a sub fee as you said yourself.  Paying $5 a month for a costume is still $10/mo cheaper than any other game (assuming they pay with real money and not gem trade). So if you want to compare to the industry GW2 is less exploitative than other games, even the F2P games that aren't really F2P but slightly larger demos. But then you throw in the gem trade and that goes out the window because they can leverage their time to get anything they want and the exploitation argument dissapates.

No, what Feathermoore is talking about, as we all have, is taking statements out of context and then extrapolating and implying something that isn't there and is the contrary of their position.

Unfortunately for your argument, without narcissistic jealousy there isn't a problem, and as Feathermoore was referring to, that usually only impacts the "top tier" achievers and collectors. When your gaming habits turn into or reinforce pyschological disorders you might want to reevaluate it.  I'm not quite sure why someone would argue in favor of discrimination, grind, and content segregation based on a player's situation, but whatever floats your boat.

View PostFeathermoore, on 10 April 2014 - 04:50 PM, said:

I don't think what you are saying and what I am saying are mutually exclusive. I was focusing on the interaction between game feature design and the gem to gold conversion. I don't really think that gem to gold has any impact on most casual player's game. My original argument was that the only game design changes that could be made to encourage monetization in a way that would negatively impact gameplay only really effects achievers and that the same design decisions that would benefit the monetization from them are also standard practice in subscription MMOs that these achievers come from.

Casual players don't usually fall into the category of achievers. At least not to the level that would impact gameplay since they typically aren't going to put in the time that non-casual players would be that due to interest or time availability. Gems to gold is more likely going to be done by casuals than a non-casual achiever and help casuals get things they want by renting out people with more time. The game is designed for casuals to not feel left behind and the gem store is designed to compliment this design goal.

I'd have to agree, but it gets tricky when operating under all the conditions they set, which is obviously the goal.