Curse

Nude Nira · Apr 07, 2008, 01:28 AM // 01:28

Quote:

Anet wanted to put some boundaries on solo playing style. They did a good job IMO.

If Anet wanted to put boundries on solo playing, why did they add heroes? Heroes increased the amount of solo playing, because technically, you're playing by yourself...

I love how Anet wanted to decrease solo playing by adding loot scaling, yet added a bunch of heroes at the same time which increased solo play.

and to the loot scale question, /signed.

Loot scaling was added to help stop the amount of bots farming/limit solo play, if i remember correctaly. All i remember it doing was increasing the cost of gold on ebay. People still farmed just as much as they did now, obviouslly not making as much, but they did. There really was no point to LS then, and it's even more pointless now. I miss being able to farm multiple 15k sets in a day. =/

cebalrai · Apr 07, 2008, 01:39 AM // 01:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nude Nira

If Anet wanted to put boundries on solo playing, why did they add heroes? Heroes increased the amount of solo playing, because technically, you're playing by yourself...

I love how Anet wanted to decrease solo playing by adding loot scaling, yet added a bunch of heroes at the same time which increased solo play.

and to the loot scale question, /signed.

Loot scaling was added to help stop the amount of bots farming/limit solo play, if i remember correctaly. All i remember it doing was increasing the cost of gold on ebay. People still farmed just as much as they did now, obviouslly not making as much, but they did. There really was no point to LS then, and it's even more pointless now. I miss being able to farm multiple 15k sets in a day. =/

I don't think you're understanding the concept of solo playing...

There's a huge difference between playing with heroes and playing alone. For one, heroes take a share of loot, just like real players.

Anet never said they wanted to decrease the frequency of solo playing (with heroes or without). Ever. You just made that up.

Limiting bots was ONE of MULTIPLE reasons LS was introduced. And LS did a lot more than increasing gold on ebay. People on both sides of the debate will tell you that. I don't know... you say a bunch of ignorant things and then /sign. This is why a poll is dumb. Uninformed, ignorant people (on both sides) shouldn't have a voice in game design.

Nude Nira · Apr 07, 2008, 03:40 AM // 03:40

Quote:

I don't think you're understanding the concept of solo playing...There's a huge difference between playing with heroes and playing alone. For one, heroes take a share of loot, just like real players.

Uhh I do understand the concept of solo playing. What I said was that, even though you're playing with heroes, they are computers, they may share loot like real players, however, are not real players. And playing with heroes is TECHNICALLY playing solo, you're not playing with real people, therefore, you are solo, alone.

Quote:

Anet never said they wanted to decrease the frequency of solo playing (with heroes or without). Ever. You just made that up.

Yes, they may not have officaly said it, that would have removed a majority of their player base. But when you add something into a game that greatly reduces your drops while playing alone, that kind of makes people get into the mindset of, "If I'm not getting very many drops, (drops=money) why should I farm?"

Quote:

Limiting bots was ONE of MULTIPLE reasons LS was introduced. And LS did a lot more than increasing gold on ebay. People on both sides of the debate will tell you that.

I know there are multiple reasons to LS, and that one of those reasons was to decrease the amount of bots, but it didn't really do that very well, I don't know why Anet didnt just add the RTM from the beginning? And do I really need to go into what LS has done, when people have done that already? I just stated one of the things it did.

Quote:

I don't know... you say a bunch of ignorant things and then /sign. This is why a poll is dumb. Uninformed, ignorant people (on both sides) shouldn't have a voice in game design.

I don't think any post is ignorant on this topic, because, everyone here does know something about it, because they encounter LS every time they play. And since when did a poll ever hurt anything? However "ignorant or uninformed" people may be, they still have an opinion, and a right to voice that opinion.

Oh and, did I ever say that people should have a voice in game design? No. Stop making things up.

I love how this topic has turned into, someone makes a post, stating how they feel on the topic, and the people that like to flex their e-peen, (just a select few) bash their opinion. Go troll elsewhere, theres better places to do it.

SEMI-WALL OF TEXT FTL.

Creeping Carl · Apr 07, 2008, 07:30 AM // 07:30

Hi ANET. Just wanted to let you know that LS is just fine (but you already knew that) and that not every player is completely ignorant as the ones calling for it's removal. I hope that LS will remain in GW2 as well. Thanks.

Fay Vert · Apr 07, 2008, 08:01 AM // 08:01

Crikey, can the pro-LS continent come up with any argument other than "the other side is ignorant" or some other insult?

Have they really lost the debate that badly?

Seems so, but then, when the facts are against you, and you are flat wrong, I guess insulting, trolling and general flame abuse is all you have left.

Can we PLEASE stick to the debates and at least acknowledge that people we disagree with are worth of debating with? (otherwise, why are you even here?)

Gli · Apr 07, 2008, 08:25 AM // 08:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fay Vert

Crikey, can the pro-LS continent come up with any argument other than "the other side is ignorant" or some other insult?

Well, if you ignore anything other than the insults...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fay Vert

Have they really lost the debate that badly?

Not really, you just chose to ignore good points we make.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fay Vert

Seems so, but then, when the facts are against you, and you are flat wrong, I guess insulting, trolling and general flame abuse is all you have left.

Not really, but it might seem so if you go on ignoring actual points we try to make.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fay Vert

Can we PLEASE stick to the debates and at least acknowledge that people we disagree with are worth of debating with? (otherwise, why are you even here?)

I agree, It's hard to have a debate if the other party ignores your arguments.

Here's an actual point I made 1 page ago. You'll ignore it again of course, because it doesn't fit your agenda.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gli

Lootscaling was introduced along with Hard Mode. Have you given any thought to the notion that the inflation it's supposed to prevent might not be existing inflation, but inflation that would result from Hard Mode farming with full drops? For example, without loot scaling, all those hordes of people doing raptor runs would add 50k+ gold per hour to the economy just selling junk to the merchant.

Empraim Wainwright · Apr 07, 2008, 09:16 AM // 09:16

I don't farm much so Lootscaling (good or bad) haven't hit me in a way I've noticed.
...but I think in the eyes of anet this dead horse have been beaten plenty.
I'm not saying I'm for or against it (I simply don't know enough about it), but I doubt it'll happen.

T1Cybernetic · Apr 07, 2008, 09:52 AM // 09:52

Quote:

Cake is ****ing delicious.

Yeah yeah everyone loves cake!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
But the loot scaling sucks, Remove it...

tmakinen · Apr 07, 2008, 10:16 AM // 10:16

It would be beneficial for the discussion if people would keep in mind that there are three different markets in the game, each having a different relation to loot scaling.

1. The fixed price market. Removing loot scaling would only have positive or neutral consequences depending on play style. This also gives an absolute worth to the currency.

2. The low end player-to-player market (including trader NPCs). This is the area where LS has its largest effect. Remember that LS controls the ratio of inflow of items to currency. Arguably the market is currently flooded to the rim with items since taking a look at the search list shows that there are anywhere between 10 and 20 times more sellers of items than there are buyers. It is even not a price issue any more, there is just too large an influx of items.

3. The high end market. It is effectively decoupled from gold as a currency, and LS or not, it is out of reach of any casual player, so it shouldn't affect the decision either way.

The middle economy is almost dead, and it will only get worse as the game matures and most people have what they want, item wise, and some remaining objectives require silly amounts of money that players are supposed to gather from each other by selling items, but nobody's buying anything when they already have it. The current model is as stable as a pyramid scheme and it will collapse as the number of new players entering the game grinds to a halt. Even the removal of LS would not prevent it, only soften somewhat.

Also, removal of LS would not cause a runaway inflation, rather a point devaluation of currency, like its introduction caused a point revaluation of currency. The main effect of LS is to control the Gini coefficient of the in-game economy, and it's a matter of opinion, not of hard facts, whether GW should be a socialist (with LS) or capitalist (no LS) economy.

Creeping Carl · Apr 07, 2008, 10:29 AM // 10:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fay Vert

Crikey, can the pro-LS continent come up with any argument other than "the other side is ignorant" or some other insult?

Have they really lost the debate that badly?

Seems so, but then, when the facts are against you, and you are flat wrong, I guess insulting, trolling and general flame abuse is all you have left.

Can we PLEASE stick to the debates and at least acknowledge that people we disagree with are worth of debating with? (otherwise, why are you even here?)

As Gli said, there really is nothing left to debate when you're ignoring any good points people are making. It's hard to reason with people who stick their fingers in their ears and deny deny deny. Inflation doesnt and never existed in GW? If people are going to delude themselves I can't call it anything but willful ignorance.

tracco · Apr 07, 2008, 10:50 AM // 10:50

Greed.
Loot scaling slows the game down a bit. I say keep it.

Sjeng · Apr 07, 2008, 11:16 AM // 11:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Creeping Carl

As Gli said, there really is nothing left to debate when you're ignoring any good points people are making.

Oh, and I suppose this is an excellent point you made then?:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Creeping Carl

Hi ANET. Just wanted to let you know that LS is just fine (but you already knew that) and that not every player is completely ignorant as the ones calling for it's removal. I hope that LS will remain in GW2 as well. Thanks.

*slaps forehead* Hey look, I can do that too

Hi ANET. Just wanted to let you know that LS sucks (but you already knew that) and that players calling for it's removal have a right to do so. The anti-farming code was a much better solution. LS is just plain unfair for actual players. There are better ways to discourage bots, without discourageing actual players as you do so often. I hope that you'll do a better job in GW2 from the start, so threads like these can belong to the past. Thanks.

@Carl: I deeply resent your insult. FYI: Calling people with a different view than yours ignorant is pretty ignorant.

Gli · Apr 07, 2008, 11:27 AM // 11:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sjeng

The anti-farming code was a much better solution. LS is just plain unfair for actual players. There are better ways to discourage bots, without discourageing actual players as you do so often.

You have it completely backwards. The old anti-farm code screwed actual players while not hurting bots at all. The old code degraded the quality of the drops, not the quantity. Botters weren't bothered by that, while plenty of real players were. Bots just dump their stuff at the merchant for their RMT-able gold anyway, and don't bother spending time to market their special drops.

cebalrai · Apr 07, 2008, 11:56 AM // 11:56

You guys still ignore points like these too:

1) Zones with an 8 character limit were intended for a large party. It's poor game design to allow them to be cleared with one. Anet has a right to make sure their original vision is adhered to - or at least limit the incentive to work around their vision. They chose to continue to allow some solo play while making it less of an exploit.

2) People are still making plenty of money.

http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...php?t=10173135

See this thread? People are doing just fine. AFAIK, nobody on the LS-removal side of the debate has addressed this point. Why?

Fay Vert · Apr 07, 2008, 12:16 PM // 12:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gli

Here's an actual point I made 1 page ago. You'll ignore it again of course, because it doesn't fit your agenda.

Sorry, I didn't get around to this (I meant to) but I was finding it hard to wade through 3 pages of insults. This is a recently added point, and also one that hasn't been picked up and supported by other pro-loot nerfers (probably too busy insulting, I don't include you in this Gli).

I actually agree with you here, I do thing one of the main drivers for the loot nerf was that ANet feared what might be when HM was introduced. AI and mob construction being what it was then there is a possibility that there would be a small number of areas that would be easily exploitable by bots or human farmers. This was never quoted by ANet as a reason, but I agree with you that it was a significant concern. This doesn't explain why we have the nerf in normal mode.

Question is, was the loot nerf a good way to deal with this problem? I personally think a much better way to handle this type of problem would be to turn up the heat on the anti farming code. Under the old system, you could do about a dozen runs (it varied between areas from what I observed) unaffected and then the anti-farming code would kick in. You would then get reduced drops for a similar number of runs before the full anti-farming code would kick in and give you very little. I would have liked to see that become something like 3-5 runs and the anti-farming code in that zone becomes absolute. This would be far more targetted at farmers and bots and only affecting that behaviour or repeatedly zoning in, killing the first few mobs and repeating. It would certainly kill the easy exploitable places like the Raptor Nestlings. To farm, you would have to be very diverse, needing more zones, and need to farm larger portions of the map to avoid these effects.

Instead, we had the loot nerf which bulldozed over a massive aspect of the game and gameplay. Part of that problem has now gone with ANet taking other actions (anti-bot reporting/RMT actions etc), something that the loot nerf never addressed (in fact, bots increase in the initial months after the loot nerf until /report was added).

So in short, remover the loot nerf, reinstate anti-farming code*10 and let players play the sort of game they used to enjoy for two years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gli

You have it completely backwards. The old anti-farm code screwed actual players while not hurting bots at all. The old code degraded the quality of the drops, not the quantity. Botters weren't bothered by that, while plenty of real players were. Bots just dump their stuff at the merchant for their RMT-able gold anyway, and don't bother spending time to market their special drops.

I completely disagree with you here.

MithranArkanere · Apr 07, 2008, 12:55 PM // 12:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cab Tastic

This is getting really silly.

anti LS give plenty of evidence to support the removal of said LS. i.e. inflation never existing

pro LS: your wrong, so there!

Such evidence does not exist.
Before LS and inscriptions, some weapons, too many weapons had prices over 100k. A price never intended in GW, as the 100k gold limit in trades suggest.

On top of that, Anet and only anet can have real data about how many people has how much gold, and prices in traders are not enough to state inflation.

reetkever · Apr 07, 2008, 01:09 PM // 13:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by MithranArkanere

Such evidence does not exist.
Before LS and inscriptions, some weapons, too many weapons had prices over 100k. A price never intended in GW, as the 100k gold limit in trades suggest.

Again, since people never seem to listen... PRICES DID NOT LOWER AT ALL AFTER LOOT SCALING! Prices now are about just as low as just prior to the Loot Scaling.

Sure, if you go WAY back, the prices were higher because of the drop rates and sucky salvage system, but this had NOTHING to do with LS.

LS caused these prices to go UP! When LS was implented, prices were raising like mad. That's why the exemption list was added. If things were going according to A-Net's plan, even 10 Piles of Glittering Dust would've been 100K now cause nobody can farm them and the supply is close to 0.

The exemption list caused the stability of prices (Once again, prices of most stuff are just as low NOW as BEFORE the LS. Only things like Sup Vigor is worth a bit less because of the new Salvage system which was added a bit earlier). LS only makes prices go up.

As for weapons... This is all the fault of the BUYER. If no1 buys weapons for 100K + ecto, no1 will sell them for that price. Oh, and without LS, more people farm so more goldies enter the market, lowering the price. Besides, weapons were NEVER expensive, either. It was easy to find ANY kind of weapon for less than 10K. (Except of course Dwarven Axes, Crystalline Swords etc)

MithranArkanere · Apr 07, 2008, 03:32 PM // 15:32

Yeah, the fault was of the buyer, but the buyer that pays more, and the buyer that paid more before LS was the one that farmed or bought to gold-sellers, not the one that played without farming.

LS AND inscriptions made those prices to go down. Farmers do not get such much money, so they cannot pay so much, so the sellers had to decrease prices to get the items sold.

Remember that HM was added along some other stuff. And with new armors requiring materials that were not used so much, it was normal to get those prices up.

Now that the income is similar, you don't get such prices. Again, LS proves itself to work.

LS only decrease the difference between playing with farming and without farming.

And since farming is not the way intended to get the cash, and it NEVER was. LS is good.

LS affects everyone, it's not like some people can get more than others.
Onlythose that waste time trading get extra cash, but they have to spend time spamming or posting and waiting for buyers in outposts and things like that to compensate a little bit. They are paid for the communication effort.

If you play normally, it doesn't affect you.
If you farm solo or in reduced parties, you have nothing to complain about, since that is not supported, like running or rushing missions.

Is it really that hard to understand?

Nude Nira · Apr 07, 2008, 04:08 PM // 16:08

Quote:

I agree, It's hard to have a debate if the other party ignores your arguments.

Umm, we don't ignore your arguments, however, 75% of the time, insults/you are ignorant makes up most of the post, soo when we see you flame us, we have to defend our opinion, thus creating the flame circle going on here. And like I said in my last post, if you play Guild Wars, which most people do, they encounter the effects of loot scaling, which makes your "you are so ignorant" posts stupid because, they are somewhat educated on the issue.

MithranArkanere: you are really the only pro-LS (minus a few others) here that actually knows how to debate without adding ignorant/you're uninformed in your post.

Zahr Dalsk · Apr 07, 2008, 04:12 PM // 16:12

Maybe we could have an account setting, Loot Scaling On or Loot Scaling Off. You may only choose this once. After that, all people are separated based on which they chose. Still the same district setting but they can't trade between the two player groups, they can't enter explorable areas with members of the other group, etc. And we'll leave it like that for about a month. Then we'll take note of which group is happier.

(Personally, I'd be very happy with having my trading and partying rights removed if it would get Loot Scaling turned off for me. And without anti-farm code returned or any other such grind-enhancing mechanic.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by tracco

Greed.
Loot scaling slows the game down a bit. I say keep it.

You must be a WoW fan. Guild Wars is supposed to be about fun, not about trying to maximize the amount of work needed. I'd rather a fun, fast-paced game than a grind-heavy WoW clone.