Curse

Shasgaliel · Nov 20, 2008, 12:04 PM // 12:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cluebag

The goal of the trolls here are to destroy the thread with raving and insults and otherwise disruptive tactics, so if this thread is closed, the trolls win cause the mods let them win.

And in the same post:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cluebag

Your clever and well thought out arguments against criticisms, such as “qq” and other petty insults, along with your severe impairment when it comes to reading comprehension, only hurts yourself and your gang of trolls, whom also seem to suffer from malignant narcissism. To suggest that anyone who “complains” is a greedy ingrate, along with a bunch of other ignorant, spiteful crap, and to imply that we should be thankful for every single last crumb Anet offers without question, well, all I can really say is that you need to go out and get a new bag to hold your clues, because yours has a hole in it and you've lost some.

I hope you know why I connected this two quotations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cluebag

The implications that, as customers, we should take what we're given, be thankful, and stfu is folly. By that rationale, if Anet decided that your particular toon's head needed to be remodeled and what the remodeling resulted in was your character's head now resembling a large chunk of human excrement, you should, by your definition, be thankful that Anet is even doing updates anymore and shouldn't be complaining cause it doesn't affect the economy or anyone else for that matter, or most importantly, me.

Your arguments here are misplaced. Anet added something you do not have to use or even see. You got something more than you had before. You complain that it is not enough. It is different from changing something from good to worse. As I wrote before If they had not added any book there would be no issue. So far people are trying to avoid yes/no answer for this one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

If PvE players get a bonus reward for things they've already done, PvP players should get a ZKey for every 5k faction obtained before the addition of ZKeys.

After all, it's only fair for those with prior accomplishments.

ps: Where is your economy now?

I really like this post. QFT

Takeko Nakano · Nov 20, 2008, 01:07 PM // 13:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

If PvE players get a bonus reward for things they've already done, PvP players should get a ZKey for every 5k faction obtained before the addition of ZKeys.

After all, it's only fair for those with prior accomplishments.

Except that Zaishen keys mean £££££ so will unbalance the economy. Whereas the players who want retroactive books say they'll give up their money to get the XP/faction/rep.

So the two aren't comparable.

Sjeng · Nov 20, 2008, 01:13 PM // 13:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeko Nakano

Except that Zaishen keys mean £££££ so will unbalance the economy. Whereas the players who want retroactive books say they'll give up their money to get the XP/faction/rep.

So the two aren't comparable.

Well actually, the Z-keys do not create money, you can sell them to players for earned money, so that won't really unbalance the economy.

But I do agree that giving only the faction for the title would have been enough.

Cluebag · Nov 20, 2008, 01:45 PM // 13:45

Hmm, maybe I didn't illustrate it clearly enough. The first statement of mine that was quoted was just an observation of the predicted course of the thread if the trolls were allowed to continue running amok unchecked. The second quote was another observation on troll behavior and an appeal for them to come to their senses, in so many words. True it could have been said more nicely, however, if you are implying that I am troll because I called out the non-contributing posters and their incitingly nasty rhetoric, then I would say that I disagree. To my recollection, I haven't attacked anyone who was trying to argue a position in a civil constructive manner, however, I do realize that these posts are subject to interpetation and ideas will be supplanted if the arguments aren't placed in a coherent manner.

As far as the Z-keys are concerned, that is indeed a fair point. However, I'd point out that the people seeking retroactive faction maintain that the retroactive money reward is unnecessary. I guess one could argue that allegiance faction could be turned in for jade/amber, which could then be traded in for money, but the impacts on the economy in this case would be negligible since firstly, the faction would be likely exchanged for the double reward by donating it to the alliance, and secondly, the jade/amber earned from a retroactive reward would have a significantly less monetary value than the Z-keys.

I've seen people insist that the Z-key rewards aren't real money, or a similar suggestion, yet the fact remains that the real world value of the keys approximate that of an ecto on a 1:1 ratio. Each mat brings in how many Z-keys each month? Thousands? Tens of thousands? If I'm not mistaken, the winners of the monthlies take home 4500 reward points, which is about 900 keys, which is approximately worth 900 ectos, give or take. Several thousand ectos dropping out of the sky each month for “free” somehow do not have a significant impact the economy, or rather the system in place which we refer to as the economy, and we're still arguing about the welfare of this economy in light of the repeated position that retroactive money rewards weren't desired.

Now I'm just going to guess here and assume that the argument for retroactive Z-keys was used to illustrate another perspective on receiving compensation for accomplishments previously obtained. I understand this position and see your point (I'd like to also point out that it's likely even the pve'ers would also have managed to accumulate a fair bit of balthazar faction over several years, albeit significantly less than the dedidicated pvp'er), and if it were possible for Anet to credit this previously earned faction without destroying the economy, I'd be fine with it. I'm fairly indifferent when it comes to matters with the market, but I understand that some positions have to be established in order for it to “function”, regardless of the presence of factors which contribute to its dysfunction. Unfortunately, in this scenario, the market has determined the value of the Z-keys which happen to be the reward for a balthazar faction exchange, and in order for Anet to credit people “fairly” it would require a lot of work. The position still stands, however, that Anet's implementation of retroactive faction could have been performed without a monetary reward, and all this talk of further disrupting the economy would have been eliminated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shasgaliel

Your arguments here are misplaced. Anet added something you do not have to use or even see. You got something more than you had before. You complain that it is not enough. It is different from changing something from good to worse. As I wrote before If they had not added any book there would be no issue. So far people are trying to avoid yes/no answer for this one.

I think my point still holds true. I was countering the position that because Anet gave us something, we should be appreciative of it and not question it because it's better than nothing. In principle, I would disagree with that sentiment, or at least be skeptical of it, because free doesn't always mean good. The good/bad aspect of a change is always going to be subjective, and while acknowledging some things might be mostly good, they might possibly could be even better or could stand for some improvement, which is much of what the people on this thread who are in favor of retro faction credit are advocating for. And you are probably right, that if the books weren't introduced there'd be a lot less dialog on retroactive compensation, yet the grind would remain an issue of contention, possibly even more so due to the absence of that alternative the books provide.

Shasgaliel · Nov 20, 2008, 02:01 PM // 14:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cluebag

I think my point still holds true. I was countering the position that because Anet gave us something, we should be appreciative of it and not question it because it's better than nothing. In principle, I would disagree with that sentiment, or at least be skeptical of it, because free doesn't always mean good. The good/bad aspect of a change is always going to be subjective, and while acknowledging some things might be mostly good, they might possibly could be even better or could stand for some improvement, which is much of what the people on this thread who are in favor of retro faction credit are advocating for.

If you state it this way I entirely agree.

To turn around a bit discussion:

I have still one big concern about possible improvement suggested in this thread. What about prophecies only players? In case the solution of only xp and faction are given retroactively then prophecies players would be worse off than players of any other campaign. They are still worse off now but at least they get money...

Trub · Nov 20, 2008, 02:03 PM // 14:03

Sometimes, too much of a 'good thing' can cause problems.
If ANet were to start making any and all awards retroactive at any point....believe me, many players will not see the challenge of the game anymore.
Sure, it would be like a windfall at first, but then the novelty would die...and players will go back to the whining.
Such a vicious cycle.

pumpkin pie · Nov 20, 2008, 02:08 PM // 14:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cluebag

SNIPPED

I think my point still holds true. I was countering the position that because Anet gave us something, we should be appreciative of it and not question it because it's better than nothing. In principle, I would disagree with that sentiment, or at least be skeptical of it, because free doesn't always mean good. The good/bad aspect of a change is always going to be subjective, and while acknowledging some things might be mostly good, they might possibly could be even better or could stand for some improvement, which is much of what the people on this thread who are in favor of retro faction credit are advocating for. And you are probably right, that if the books weren't introduced there'd be a lot less dialog on retroactive compensation, yet the grind would remain an issue of contention, possibly even more so due to the absence of that alternative the books provide.

No, actually, giving the players who advocate for retro faction does not means improvement to this update, it just means we/you/everyone who has done the missions related to the change would get more factions, and giving players more factions does not equal an improvement to the update. It just that, giving more factions to players. It does not make the update anymore batter then it already is.

Gill Halendt · Nov 20, 2008, 02:10 PM // 14:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

No, actually, giving the players who advocate for retro faction does not means improvement to this update, it just means we/you/everyone who has done the missions related to the change would get more factions, and giving players more factions does not equal an improvement to the update. It just that, giving more factions to players. It does not make the update anymore batter then it already is.

For those people working on reputation titles who were expecting a reduction in grinding, that would be an improvement.

pumpkin pie · Nov 20, 2008, 02:13 PM // 14:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gill Halendt

For those people working on reputation titles who were expecting a reduction in grinding, that would be an improvement.

Now i am

didn't I read through out this thread, people who advocate for retro faction saying that Anet did not reduced the grinding but introduce more ways to grind?

Gill Halendt · Nov 20, 2008, 02:22 PM // 14:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

Now i am

didn't I read through out this thread, people who advocate for retro faction saying that Anet did not reduced the grinding but introduce more ways to grind?

I don't think there's much to argue here. Do you really think this update did anything against grinding?

"You can put lipstick on a pig, but that's still a pig". So, you can introduce new ways to grind a title, but that's still grinding. Honestly, I can't see how filling books by repeating once again missions done hundreds of times before o vanquishing an area over and over can be considered anything but grinding...

Sure, those new ways are probably more entertaining than planting flags or digging tunnels while in the mouth a giant worm, but grinding is still there.

pumpkin pie · Nov 20, 2008, 02:25 PM // 14:25

Gill Halendt, I got Rank 8 Kurzicks in 2 days, which I have been unable to level up even with the last 2 double factions weekend because I have limited playtime, you tell me does that reduce grind... I was at early Rank 7.

see attachment.

Avarre · Nov 20, 2008, 02:31 PM // 14:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gill Halendt

Sure, those new ways are probably more entertaining than planting flags or digging tunnels while in the mouth a giant worm, but grinding is still there.

It's meant to be a grind.

The only difference is that now actively playing the game is encouraged more than before.

Ate of DK · Nov 20, 2008, 02:44 PM // 14:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sjeng

Well actually, the Z-keys do not create money, you can sell them to players for earned money, so that won't really unbalance the economy.

But I do agree that giving only the faction for the title would have been enough.

You can get golden items from the Zaishen Chest that earn you money when you sell them to a merchant.

Shasgaliel · Nov 20, 2008, 02:50 PM // 14:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gill Halendt

Sure, those new ways are probably more entertaining than planting flags or digging tunnels while in the mouth a giant worm, but grinding is still there.

Hmm so in this case to remove the grind for this titles they should handle titles for free just like that with the update? Whatever they would introduce you can argue that this is just another grind. The point is the only thing which is not related to any grind is getting those titles for free..... I think "working" (perfect word for a video game) on the grind based titles and complaining that they are grind based is hmm quite unfair for me.

We got some faction for free and that already reduced the grind needed. Not much but still. Now vq can offer more faction per hour than hfff and it is not only for Kurzick but also for Luxons so the grind needed is reduced. So I dot not agree with the argument that update did not reduce the grind. Just by the pure fact of getting some faction for free it did. I can agree with the fact that the expectations on the grind reduction were much higher and they were not met but that seems not to be the argument here.

Now how far this grind reduction should go? If you give too much for free you help some players but at the same time harm the ones who had already the factions titles. Please remember they had to do all this terrible grind to get them. Now possibility getting it easier is already unfair for them. I am not sure if arguing where and how much grind should be reduced has any sense since it is Anet who has to evaluate the trade off between making happy those with 26-29 titles maxed and those with +30 like seems to be the case here.

Gill Halendt · Nov 20, 2008, 02:55 PM // 14:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

It's meant to be a grind.

The only difference is that now actively playing the game is encouraged more than before.

Didn't you say the game is "currently in the phase of trying to artificially extend gameplay through grind"?

That's not what I'd call "actively playing" a game...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shasgaliel

We got some faction for free and that already reduced the grind needed.

Not quite. You just got a one-off reward for a mission you've done before. Retroactively. Just because you couldn't technically get it now by just doing the mission again, since it's given only on the first completion and you already have completed it. So it's not "free" at all.

Avarre · Nov 20, 2008, 03:05 PM // 15:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gill Halendt

Didn't you say the game is "currently in the phase of trying to artificially extend gameplay through grind"?

That's not what I'd call "actively playing" a game...

Grinding is not mutually exclusive with playing the game. Vanquishing, AB, etc are all playing the game.

I'd question whether easily botable things like hfff are on the same level of 'playing', or 'active'.

The issue that the vast majority of Guild Wars pve (and pvp to a large degree now) is pure grind is entirely irrelevant to the above point.

Gill Halendt · Nov 20, 2008, 03:24 PM // 15:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

Grinding is not mutually exclusive with playing the game. Vanquishing [...] playing the game.

Vanquishing is. Doing missions is.

Having done them was.

Repeating them for the sole purpose of getting a reward is "active", but I wouldn't call that "playing". It's rather "grinding while doing something less idiotic than planting flags".

I play missions because I like it, not because I want a reward. This new system is encouraging repeated play to get rewards, which is exactly what GRINDING is.

Riot Narita · Nov 20, 2008, 03:35 PM // 15:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gill Halendt

This new system is encouraging repeated play to get rewards, which is exactly what GRINDING is.

Grind is not something new that arrived in this update though. There was grind before the update, and its still here - but if you're going to grind, this update reduces it and/or eases the pain for many titles.

Shasgaliel · Nov 20, 2008, 03:36 PM // 15:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gill Halendt

I play missions because I like it, not because I want a reward. This new system is encouraging repeated play to get rewards, which is exactly what GRINDING is.

So to remove incentive to grind they should remove the rewards at all or remove rewards for subsequent completion?

Gill Halendt · Nov 20, 2008, 03:43 PM // 15:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shasgaliel

So to remove incentive to grind they should remove the rewards at all or remove rewards for subsequent completion?

Nope. But I still don't see a single reason why they didn't make books retroactive. For a lot of players like me that could have helped reducing grinding sensibly while harming NO ONE, since all they've been doing in the last two or three years was playing the games with multiple characters. We've basically been said "Congrats. Now to reduce grinding, DO IT ALL AGAIN".

Why does the reduction apply only to new players? Why do older player need to GRIND MORE BOOKS instead of getting a retroactive one for the missions they've played?