Curse

tmakinen · Apr 08, 2008, 04:12 PM // 16:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gli

What are you trying to say? Vanity items don't count when considering the economy?

Vanity items shouldn't count when considering LS, since LS was implemented to benefit casual gamers, and casual gamers have no need whatsoever for vanity items.

tmakinen · Apr 08, 2008, 04:19 PM // 16:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esan

If the argument of LS haters is that they are able to make only a million a week from farming, then I have to say that they have even fewer legs to stand on than I initially thought.

I don't hate LS, it doesn't have anything to do with my income. I'm just here to helpfully analyse the situation. In fact I'm supporting LS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esan

Plus, if it is chump change, I am sure you won't mind donating a million or two to a good and charitable cause known as Buying Esan Booze For His Drunkard Title.

Sorry, I have a strict policy of donating only to alliance members, least I get banned as a RMT representative (but I am often called a pretty generous person by those that know me)

MithranArkanere · Apr 08, 2008, 04:30 PM // 16:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmakinen

Vanity items shouldn't count when considering LS, since LS was implemented to benefit casual gamers, and casual gamers have no need whatsoever for vanity items.

No, no.

LS was added to REPLACE the antifarm code. And more than to benefit casual players is in DETRIMENT of those that solo farmed too much.

That is bots and players with bot behavior.

It's not comunist. Comunist would be to forcefully set the daily income regardless of what a player does.

This is a closed system in its own reality. It's better not to compare it to alien concepts.

Phineas · Apr 08, 2008, 04:36 PM // 16:36

From what I've read, it seems to me that the 'casual' player actually stands outside of the economy and would not be impacted either way by LS.

If the truly casual player does not subscribe to vanity items then they have actual no need to interact with the rest of GW society (just the NPCs) in order to evolve a fully max'ed out character and could do so quite comfortably with the gold and drops that they receive in their casual play time.

Therefore, the economy only consists of non-casual players. In which case, it still doesn't matter whether LS is removed or not, because all the non-casuals are still on an equal footing either way.

Bryant Again · Apr 08, 2008, 04:49 PM // 16:49

The "casual player" is an incredibly hard thing to define, especially in this case. One of the arguments for loot-scaling are that it makes all more in reach of the casual player's hands, but an argument against it is that it's highly likely that a casual player would care less about what they're able to get their hands on.

Loviatar · Apr 08, 2008, 04:57 PM // 16:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmakinen

Vanity items shouldn't count when considering LS, since LS was implemented to benefit casual gamers, and casual gamers have no need whatsoever for vanity items.

sorry to rain on your totally elitest look at my shineys and admire me mindset (not really i am very happy to do it)

ARENA NET has shown by their player logs that your mindset is a tiny splinter group in relation to the playerbase.

every move they have made has been to make the *SHINEYS* available to the casual player which is their playerbase not you.

if you want the *SHINEYS* work for 6-10 hours a day like i do or you just dont deserve anything nice you undedicated lazy noob is dead

ANET has voted by their actions against that mindset without one single exception.
deal with the fact that casual players will continue to get nicer stuff and more of that nicer stuff while your profits drop like a SUP ABSORB

Gli · Apr 08, 2008, 05:06 PM // 17:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmakinen

Vanity items shouldn't count when considering LS, since LS was implemented to benefit casual gamers, and casual gamers have no need whatsoever for vanity items.

You're putting the bar lower than most people for an item to be considered vanity.

Also, the question shouldn't be whether anyone needs anything, but whether they want something. 'Needs' are taken care of regardless of loot scaling. 'Wants' are what makes an interesting economy a necessity. And casual players do 'want'.

cebalrai · Apr 08, 2008, 05:09 PM // 17:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmakinen

In other words, you're poor. A million is chump change, my weekly income is about that much and even I am pretty poor, but as said, my needs are few.

I haven't assumed anything. I pointed out that the desire to prevent others from getting richer than you through an artificial upper cap to income is a hallmark of communism, and since you don't seem to be able to address the point you resort to name calling? Who's the one losing credibility here?

If your weekly income is about 1 million gold, I'm going to take this space to dismiss your entire position as pure, unadulterated, greed. You make that much and you want more? You make that much and yet your side of the argument claims that there's no good way to make money in this game.

So.... which is it? You can make a million gold per week or you can't make any money?

cebalrai · Apr 08, 2008, 05:13 PM // 17:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmakinen

In other words, you're poor. A million is chump change, my weekly income is about that much and even I am pretty poor.

Why do you insist on defining the player base by your own personal position in the game? It's all relative. Some people in the game feel rich when they have 10k saved up. Others define poor as having "only" 1.25 million in the bank. It's all relative to each player's personal position.

See how self-centered you are? The world doesn't revolve around you, does it?

cebalrai · Apr 08, 2008, 05:21 PM // 17:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

The "casual player" is an incredibly hard thing to define, especially in this case. One of the arguments for loot-scaling are that it makes all more in reach of the casual player's hands, but an argument against it is that it's highly likely that a casual player would care less about what they're able to get their hands on.

Why should the "casual player" care about rampant armbrace duping? Therefore the casual player should have nothing to say about it right?

That logic is terrible.

tmakinen · Apr 08, 2008, 05:29 PM // 17:29

Ok, let's see if I can pull a grand unified summary once and for all.

First, remember that there are opinions and then there are rational choices. If two sheep argue over whether to choose grass or rocks for dinner, there is a rational choice to be made, but if a wolf and a sheep argue over whether to choose grass or lamb for dinner, each of them has a rational opinion but there isn't any rational choice. Now, with Loot Scaling we have a wolf-and-sheep situation where there are both positive and negative effects for those involved depending on different factors. There are no easy answers - even methods to weight the factors to find an 'optimal' solution are hotly contested.

There are three different markets and three respective populations. The low end market consists mostly of the fixed market and it is populated by the most casual portion of the player base. The middle market is mainly populated by the middle class of players, and the high end market is the domain of the exclusive few.

LS controls the absolute influx of currency into the game economy and its distribution to the different subpopulations. LS doesn't affect the low end market since most of the prices are fixed and the influx to the casual population stays the same regardless. LS affects directly the middle market because the respective population would gain most by the removal of LS. LS doesn't directly affect the high end market because it is effectively decoupled from the currency based economy and pure money farming is not a particularly effective means to gain access to the high end market. So, we have two essentially fixed domains, the low and high end markets, and somewhere in between the middle market whose median is close to the low end market with LS and moves closer to the high end market if LS is removed.

Now, which is the rational choice for each subpopulation if everybody is acting with their best interest in mind? Casual players should want to keep LS for an easier transition to the middle market. The middle class of players should want to remove LS for an economic gain in the low end market and an easier transition to the high end market. Finally, the top dogs should either support LS if they are mainly acquirers of wealth, to keep their exclusivity, or not support LS if they are mainly providers, to get a larger demand for their goods.

If we try to find just one choice, the size of the top end is so small and its interests conflicted that it can be ignored. If we go by the number of accounts, the casual population probably wins and LS should stay. If we go by total playtime the middle class migh well win and LS should be removed. In any case the end of the world is nigh.

The current poll just shows that the largest subpopulation doesn't even vote here, so it is not wonder that the results are what they are.

cebalrai · Apr 08, 2008, 05:30 PM // 17:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmakinen

Um. Are you sure you understood what I wrote, since your reply suggests that you didn't?

Nowhere did I call anybody communist. I pointed out that a particular argument people are using to defent their point is a communist ideal. It is a statement of fact. I rather believe that the people in question are not communist, and it makes their arguments all the more amusing.

You don't understand communism. At all. Here are key features of it:

1) Classless society. Nobody is proposing that, anywhere.

2) Lack of social mobility. Nobody is proposing that, anywhere.

3) Common ownership of goods. See? You don't know what you're talking about in the least bit...

Tossing around a term like communist is a big deal, because it's extreme relative to how a MMO economy works. If you're actually thinking that the pro-LS folks are thinking in such extreme terms, then you misunderstand us profoundly.

tmakinen · Apr 08, 2008, 05:34 PM // 17:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loviatar

random rant

I said that vanity items are not needed. Which part of this simple fact you don't understand (hey it's just the definition of 'vanity' that you're contesting)?

Maximumraver · Apr 08, 2008, 05:36 PM // 17:36

/signed
/signed
/thankyou

tmakinen · Apr 08, 2008, 05:43 PM // 17:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by cebalrai

You don't understand communism. (... snip snip snip ...)
3) Common ownership of goods. See? You don't know what you're talking about in the least bit...

If you had a shred of competence to discuss the issue you'd know that it's common ownership of means of production. Since every player owns all the necessary means of production (a character and its equipment), you conclusively fail.

MithranArkanere · Apr 08, 2008, 05:53 PM // 17:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmakinen

If you had a shred of competence to discuss the issue you'd know that it's common ownership of means of production. Since every player owns all the necessary means of production (a character and its equipment), you conclusively fail.

That is not importat.
Call it cheese, comunism or orthodontic.
That doesn't matter.
Only things that matters here is design and system of the game.

Anyways, the means of producion in GW is not the drop. The means are the SKILLS. The drops re the result. Like the fruits of the trees.

And you have to get those.

Creeping Carl · Apr 08, 2008, 05:56 PM // 17:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmakinen

In other words, you're poor. A million is chump change, my weekly income is about that much and even I am pretty poor, but as said, my needs are few.

As I've and others have been saying, the motivation for wanting LS removed is purely insane greed and selfishness.

A million per week is chump change and still you demand more? How is that by any stretch of the imagination, reasonable at all? Any argument that you had is definately not for the good of the playerbase but rather just to line your own pockets.

A million per week and you want that increased? And you honestly dont think that would cause inflation? And you're here crying about how LS is making you poor? Give me an F-in break.

I really don't know what to say that won't sound like flaming you to hell. Not that you don't deserve it because these anti-LS arguments are beyond ridiculous.

But you and others carry on, crying about how you're only making a million a week and how ANET is hindering your playstyle and how others are oppressing you. It's all BS.

Loviatar · Apr 08, 2008, 06:22 PM // 18:22

[QUOTE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Creeping Carl

As I've and others have been saying, the motivation for wanting LS removed is purely insane greed and selfishness.

A million per week is chump change and still you demand more? How is that by any stretch of the imagination, reasonable at all? Any argument that you had is definately not for the good of the playerbase but rather just to line your own pockets.

hi Carl

DONT FORGET THIS

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmakinen

In other words, you're poor. A million is chump change, my weekly income is about that much and even I am pretty poor, but as said, my needs are few.

a million a week is CURRENT income not counting the super hoard of wealth already accumulated over the years from all those farming exploits before Anet started closing them.

as i said it is a totally money/greed MINDSET that does not even recognize it is a complete abnormalityfrom the supermajority playerbase who bought a GAME and are playing it for fun not GW:TYCOON

MithranArkanere · Apr 08, 2008, 06:22 PM // 18:22

Isn't a million enough to get an obsidian set?

Shouldn't that take 3 months or so?

reetkever · Apr 08, 2008, 06:28 PM // 18:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by MithranArkanere

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.

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

These ways of hardcore farming make WAY more cash than casual farming could ever make. Farming hasn't been more profitable than now. It's just that only the rich and people with ALOT of time can farm these days.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MithranArkanere

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.

Ok, maybe A-Net doesn't support farming, but they aren't against it either. If they were against people making alot of money, they'd un-nerf the casual farming and nerf the farm runs of these days like Ursan Run stuff, UW, FoW, Glacial Stones etc.

As for Ursan, Ursan Blessing is only for the MOST hardcore of players. Nobody that plays on a regular time base is able to obtain rank 10 in Ursan without spending months in EotN. And as far as I see in outposts, only high ranks are wanted for the farm runs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MithranArkanere

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.

You are wrong here, cause casual farming isn't that profitable. If you want to prevent people from making REAL cash, nerf the current hardcore farmruns.