Curse

tmakinen · Apr 08, 2008, 03:08 AM // 03:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by cebalrai

What I want to know is why aren't people proposing that my playing style be rewarded? What makes you anti-LS people so damn special? Why should your playing style get INSANE rewards while mine keeps me poor? You guys sound like supreme elitists.

And this, right here, reveals the pathological side of communism in a very succint way. If I'm not earning insane amounts of money then nobody else should either. Down with the choice! Down with opportunities! Down with capitalist elitist pigs! Down with wealth, make everybody as poor as I am.

It always amazes me that when there's a choice of advancing opportunities and wealth, or repression and poverty, there's a substantial number of people who choose the latter.

manitoba1073 · Apr 08, 2008, 04:54 AM // 04:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by cebalrai

Sure you do. You ignore points right and left. Like this one, that you refuse to address, over and over:

" 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?"

Because to the clueless they had been answered 1000's of times before. But since you seem to have missed it this is the last time I'll reiterate it jsut for you.

1.) If Anet had intended you to go out in zones the would have put a restriction on the minimum number allowed to leave the outposts. Instead Anet left it up to the players to decide how they wanted to play the game giving them the options. Nice try on you claim on that one.

2.) Yeap do you realize what it takes to actually make what they are making in that thread. Also goes to show that the so called gap that some of you are trying to say is closing really isnt. But let me put it to you in this way. If I wasnt working on another game. YES ACTUALLY WORKING ON A GAME. I would have cleared about 3 million over the weekend. What about you. I guarantee you there is no way in hell the gap is closing between me(hardcore farmer type) and people that are causual. With LS in place it will never happen. So much for that theory too about closing the gap between hardcore and causual players huh.

And those hoping and wishing for LS to be in GW2 are gonna be in for a major rude awaking cause its not gonna happen, considering the system of play is going to be similar to WoW. But the best thing Anet could do to fix the whole problem of people whinning about how "FLEA MARKET ITEMS WHERE AND ARE EXPENSIVE" is also the best way to end bots and gold selling, to bad anet wont be smart enough to do it. REMOVE THE ABILITY TO TRADE WITH OTHER PLAYERS PERMANTLY. Remove LS leave out AFC stop all player trading. END OF BOTS and GOLD SELLING.

Nude Nira · Apr 08, 2008, 05:24 AM // 05:24

Quote:

I prefer playing in groups of 8.

Ok, even if LS was removed you're still going to get the same amount of drops you are getting now, since LS doesn't affect partys of 8...With LS removed you can get your drops in partys of 8 and while people who enjoy farming can get their drops in partys of 1. Think about it, not every zone can be farmed, which means the farmers are tied to specific zones with specific drops, while someone in a party of 8 is not tied to X farming zones, and has access to basically any loot they like.

Creeping Carl · Apr 08, 2008, 06:42 AM // 06:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmakinen

And this, right here, reveals the pathological side of communism in a very succint way. If I'm not earning insane amounts of money then nobody else should either. Down with the choice! Down with opportunities! Down with capitalist elitist pigs! Down with wealth, make everybody as poor as I am.

It always amazes me that when there's a choice of advancing opportunities and wealth, or repression and poverty, there's a substantial number of people who choose the latter.

Holy cow. You have it completely backwards.

Removing LS will remove choices. It will force the poor and average players who don't farm to having to farm just to keep up with inflation, whereas the current LS system, you don't have to farm and still make decent wealth. I'm one example of this.

Why should people be forced to play a playstyle that they don't want? With LS, people don't have to farm but farmers can STILL farm and make money. Anyone claiming that they can't earn a living from farming under LS is a big fat liar.

LS isnt about forcing poverty on people, it's keeping the hardcore wealthy farmers in check. That bull claiming that LS is there to keep everyone poor is idiotic. Obviously, farmers are STILL making more wealth than non farming average joes.

Now stop playing the victim. It's a lie and it's pathetic.

manitoba1073 · Apr 08, 2008, 06:51 AM // 06:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Creeping Carl

Holy cow. You have it completely backwards.

Removing LS will remove choices. It will force the poor and average players who don't farm to having to farm just to keep up with inflation, whereas the current LS system, you don't have to farm and still make decent wealth. I'm one example of this.

Why should people be forced to play a playstyle that they don't want? With LS, people don't have to farm but farmers can STILL farm and make money. Anyone claiming that they can't earn a living from farming under LS is a big fat liar.

LS isnt about forcing poverty on people, it's keeping the hardcore wealthy farmers in check. That bull claiming that LS is there to keep everyone poor is idiotic. Obviously, farmers are STILL making more wealth than non farming average joes.

Now stop playing the victim. It's a lie and it's pathetic.

You're still claiming inflation on flea market items. You were never forced to pay those prices. Heres a little something I picked up 6 months into GW for 7k ( minus the sundering mod)

and now lets see what I picked up just prior to NF for 5k each(except the crystalinne sword that cost me a whole 30k)

that doesnt include the odd 6 or 7 I have given to friends.

Yeap everything was so outrageous

ANd the ones that are trying to play victims are you and others like you. and your right its pathetic

Gli · Apr 08, 2008, 07:06 AM // 07:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmakinen

And this, right here, reveals the pathological side of communism in a very succint way. If I'm not earning insane amounts of money then nobody else should either. Down with the choice! Down with opportunities! Down with capitalist elitist pigs! Down with wealth, make everybody as poor as I am.

It always amazes me that when there's a choice of advancing opportunities and wealth, or repression and poverty, there's a substantial number of people who choose the latter.

In a model where "advancing opportunities and wealth" is the equivalent of printing more money, and "repression and poverty" is the equivalent of not allowing everyone to own their own money printing press, I think chosing "repression and poverty" is the sensible choice.

tmakinen · Apr 08, 2008, 07:21 AM // 07:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Creeping Carl

Removing LS will remove choices. ( ... snip snip snip ... ) LS isnt about forcing poverty on people, it's keeping the hardcore wealthy farmers in check.

Do you see how you contradict yourself there? Without LS you have the choice of (1) either playing 'normally' and easily getting everything that you need to complete a campaign, or (2) farming or (3) trading for better income to get some vanity items. LS makes farming a non-option, ergo, it removes choice. Removing LS wouldn't force anybody to farm gold to be able to complete the game, claiming that is just silly. It would force people to do some work for vanity items, though. You don't want people to have a choice of doing something more profitable than you do, and that's fine and dandy. Just be aware what it is called.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Creeping Carl

Now stop playing the victim. It's a lie and it's pathetic.

Victim? Who, me? Did you even read what I wrote? My current - sustainable - average income is a bit over 100k per day, thank you very much, and it is fully sufficient for what I want to do before GW2 comes out. Loot Scaling doesn't have any effect on my game experience, so your weak attempt at dismissing my point not only misses the mark, it never even finds the general direction

I'm not whining. I'm not demanding that LS should be removed. I'm just pointing out inconsistencies and odd ideological constructs that people use to forward their agenda.

tmakinen · Apr 08, 2008, 07:29 AM // 07:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gli

In a model where "advancing opportunities and wealth" is the equivalent of printing more money, and "repression and poverty" is the equivalent of not allowing everyone to own their own money printing press, I think chosing "repression and poverty" is the sensible choice.

You're forgetting something critical: unlike in the real world, in the game world there's a fixed price market with unlimited supply of commodities. Thus your conclusion fails

wilderness · Apr 08, 2008, 07:43 AM // 07:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmakinen

Do you see how you contradict yourself there? Without LS you have the choice of (1) either playing 'normally' and easily getting everything that you need to complete a campaign, or (2) farming or (3) trading for better income to get some vanity items. LS makes farming a non-option, ergo, it removes choice. Removing LS wouldn't force anybody to farm gold to be able to complete the game, claiming that is just silly. It would force people to do some work for vanity items, though. You don't want people to have a choice of doing something more profitable than you do, and that's fine and dandy. Just be aware what it is called.

Quoted. For emphasis.

Gli · Apr 08, 2008, 07:45 AM // 07:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmakinen

You're forgetting something critical: unlike in the real world, in the game world there's a fixed price market with unlimited supply of commodities. Thus your conclusion fails

It would fail if there were only fixed prices and only unlimited commodities, but since there aren't, it doesn't fail.

tmakinen · Apr 08, 2008, 08:15 AM // 08:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gli

It would fail if there were only fixed prices and only unlimited commodities, but since there aren't, it doesn't fail.

The fixed price market provides everything that is essential for the completion of the game. The price of a mini polar bear has absolutely zero relevance to the gaming experience of a casual player.

You would only have a case if skills, armor and weapons bought from NPCs would be priced to reflect the current total amount of wealth in the game. Since this is not the case, your logic fails. Also remember that LS makes it harder to obtain collector armor and weapons which should be the first choice of any mendicant hero wannabe.

AshenX · Apr 08, 2008, 08:26 AM // 08:26

Please remember that LS does not affect prices. Attitude affects prices. If the members of a market allow themselves to be influenced into believing that they need a certain item in order to be happy, cool, leet, whatever then the sellers will be able to charge whatever they want.

If the members of the same market choose not to pay 100k+xxxe then the sellers will not charge that much. We are talking about non-necessities here and so all market power lies with the buyer unless the buyer base allows their attitudes to be manipulated. I was offered 100k+200 ectos for my req 9 silverwing recurve bow...I laughed. Nothing in this game is worth the time required to accumulate that much "wealth".

If you let others tell you what you should have or must have to be happy/cool/etc. then you will have surrendered a degree of control over yourself that is just plain wrong.

Or at least thats my opinion.

tmakinen · Apr 08, 2008, 09:08 AM // 09:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by AshenX

Attitude affects prices.

True, to an extent. That is the 'demand' part of the much talked about 'supply and demand' economic theory.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AshenX

If the members of the same market choose not to pay 100k+xxxe then the sellers will not charge that much.

That sounds good in theory but in practice there is a phenomenon called 'Tragedy of the Commons'. Whenever there is a limited supply of a commodity, the rational path of action for any individual is to act selfishly. If there are not enough commodities for everybody inclined to obtain one, your best bet for a successful purchase will be to offer more than others are offering. This process will escalate until the average desire to get the item will meet the average willingness to part with currency and a balance is established.

MithranArkanere · Apr 08, 2008, 10:56 AM // 10:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by reetkever

You mean like DoA farming, UW/FoW runs, Raptor farming, Glacial Stones runs- all the other farm runs of these days?

Uhu, better check out the current situation of the game. It's funny that you said it this way, cause casual farming IS something that can be done by ANY profession, by ANY casual player, at ANY time, while all farm-runs of nowadays fullfill your exact description.

No. It is allowed, permitted, but not supported. Just like running and rushing missions.
They are neither against neither in favour of farming. But will never make anything to make it easier, only harder when it is too much profitable, like they made in some farming spots. You know which ones.

If they supported farming, monsters would be in rows, had 1HP and run directly to you without attacking to die one by one.

And for all those other places where professions had advantage... well... Ursan Blessing says hello.

Inscriptions, that where added a bit before hard mode and LS. Affected prices quite much making many of them much closer to the intended prices: 1..100k.
Anyone against LS just want more cash at the expense of those that do not farm. That is, forcing other to do something they are not supposed to do.

Sometimes the gree... ahem, I mean the trees do not let you see the forest.

cebalrai · Apr 08, 2008, 11:45 AM // 11:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmakinen

And this, right here, reveals the pathological side of communism in a very succint way. If I'm not earning insane amounts of money then nobody else should either. Down with the choice! Down with opportunities! Down with capitalist elitist pigs! Down with wealth, make everybody as poor as I am.

It always amazes me that when there's a choice of advancing opportunities and wealth, or repression and poverty, there's a substantial number of people who choose the latter.

I have well over a million gold in the bank, half a dozen sets of 15k armor, and a lot of other swank loot.

And I've never solo farmed a day in my life.

See how utterly ignorant you look when you assume things? You lost all your credit right there IMO.

cebalrai · Apr 08, 2008, 11:52 AM // 11:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by manitoba1073

Because to the clueless they had been answered 1000's of times before. But since you seem to have missed it this is the last time I'll reiterate it jsut for you.

1.) If Anet had intended you to go out in zones the would have put a restriction on the minimum number allowed to leave the outposts. Instead Anet left it up to the players to decide how they wanted to play the game giving them the options. Nice try on you claim on that one.

2.) Yeap do you realize what it takes to actually make what they are making in that thread. Also goes to show that the so called gap that some of you are trying to say is closing really isnt. But let me put it to you in this way. If I wasnt working on another game. YES ACTUALLY WORKING ON A GAME. I would have cleared about 3 million over the weekend. What about you. I guarantee you there is no way in hell the gap is closing between me(hardcore farmer type) and people that are causual. With LS in place it will never happen. So much for that theory too about closing the gap between hardcore and causual players huh.

And those hoping and wishing for LS to be in GW2 are gonna be in for a major rude awaking cause its not gonna happen, considering the system of play is going to be similar to WoW.

1) Of course Anet allowed fewer than 8 players in a zone. That doesn't mean then they were designing Fissure of Woe that they were intending it be be runnable by a single medic. Stop suggesting that Anet designed their game to be solo'd. Your logic fails at every turn. They're perfectly justified in closing the loophole in their game (or partially closing it as they did).

They listened to what players liked, and compromised on it by creating LS. You all would rather keep exploiting their game rather than have any kind of compromise. And here you are over a year later STILL unable to accept it.

2) Huh? Everyone can make nice money nowadays. Some people on that thread posted crazy amounts, but I'm mostly referring to the folks that are making 15k-25k per hour CURRENTLY. So you see? With this kind of income there's no need to remove, LS.

And holy crap, you say you could have made 3 MILLION this weekend? And you still want LS removed? You completely just killed your own argument, lol.

3) You merely speculate about what will be in GW2. My speculation is that they will make multi-character zones challenging enough to require multiple characters. I guarantee you they're not designing the game right now thinking "hmm... let's make this elite area REALLY hard - unless someone brings this one build then they can destroy everything in sight and get rich insanely quick".

The Arching Healer · Apr 08, 2008, 11:56 AM // 11:56

gogo delete loot scalling

/signed

cebalrai · Apr 08, 2008, 12:01 PM // 12:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nude Nira

Ok, even if LS was removed you're still going to get the same amount of drops you are getting now, since LS doesn't affect partys of 8...With LS removed you can get your drops in partys of 8 and while people who enjoy farming can get their drops in partys of 1. Think about it, not every zone can be farmed, which means the farmers are tied to specific zones with specific drops, while someone in a party of 8 is not tied to X farming zones, and has access to basically any loot they like.

This is my point entirely. Without LS, YOUR playing style gives your EIGHT times the amount of income as mine.

This would impact non-solo farmers in huge ways. We wouldn't be able to afford nice things, while the solo farmer class would have access to almost anything they want. We have to play eight hours for every one you play in order to get nice armor, etc. Solo farmers get nice stuff, and trade that stuff to only other solo farmers because they're the only ones who can afford it.

An what they heck do you think makes you so special that your playing style should be rewarded and not mine? Who do you think you are to deserve special treatment? You're not playing any harder than me. You're not more dedicated.

Do you know how elitist and snobbish you sound when you say, "you can still go about your way of playing and be poor as hell while my way of playing makes me richer than you can ever hope to be."?

Geez, listen to yourself.

And on top of it, you're telling me that I should be happy that farmers are somewhat limited to specific drops? Soooooo elitist. We both know that the uber-richness you'd get solo farming means you could buy anything you want that I'm likely to find in an 8-man team.

Who do you think you're kidding with comments like that?

Gli · Apr 08, 2008, 12:43 PM // 12:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmakinen

The fixed price market provides everything that is essential for the completion of the game.

Indeed, but the presence of these essential items is completely immaterial to the notion of wealth accumulation, because the need for them is minimal, and anyone can have all he ever needs without participating in any economic process other than picking up loot, then cashing in and spending it at merchants. Adding money to the economy won't have an effect on the consumation of essential items. People won't consume more of them if they get more gold. They're practically subsidized; you get these essentials just for showing up and playing leisurely. (Reetkever will disagree of course, but he's a lonely voice in the night.) Essentials, and the gold spent on them can be eliminated from their respective sides of the equation. What's left after that is where the active economy starts, the non-static market.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmakinen

The price of a mini polar bear has absolutely zero relevance to the gaming experience of a casual player.

Referring to marginal and extreme examples to prove a point doesn't make for a convincing argument, and this particular extreme is off the scale: the absolute minimum in utility coupled with the absolute maximum in price. I wish people would stop obfuscating this issue by bringing up the super-high-end minipets.

Wonder instead about the relevance of the price of perfect mods/inscriptions, low/mid-priced minipets, destroyer cores/glacial stones, dyes, ectoplasm, etc. The low-to-mid-end shinies, some of which can actually be considered essentials, like runes, insignias and greens and/or perfect mods for people wanting to PvP on their PvE characters. (Which incidentally also refutes the point that all essentials bear a fixed pricetag, without even trying.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmakinen

You would only have a case if skills, armor and weapons bought from NPCs would be priced to reflect the current total amount of wealth in the game. Since this is not the case, your logic fails.

Since the basic influx of gold for active players meets and exceeds the need for these NPC-bought skills, armors and weapons, they play no significant role in the part of the economy affected by lootscaling, so my point stands. No one in practice even considers having many of these armors and weapons a mark of wealth. They're more often considered a mark of shame.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmakinen

Also remember that LS makes it harder to obtain collector armor and weapons which should be the first choice of any mendicant hero wannabe.

It makes it harder when you're solo farming for them now compared to when you were solo farming before lootscaling. Which isn't and never has been how most people go about acquiring them. In fact, when you're at the point that you can solo farm for them, you're very likely beyond the point that you have any need for them.

For all practical intents and purposes, farming without lootscaling would be equivalent to printing money. With lootscaling, farmers are mostly 'producing goods' (which a flourishing economy needs), while still 'printing' more money than non-farmers. A greater effort is still met with a greater reward of plain old gold, just not on a lineair scale. The only aspect of the economy that's stiffled by loot scaling is the ability to 'print money', and that's perfectly fine in my book.

CassiusDrehyg · Apr 08, 2008, 12:47 PM // 12:47

/Notsigned.

Simply because it makes PvE noobs cry. To me, that's all the reason needed to keep Loot Scaling.