Curse

Default Name · Mar 27, 2008, 08:49 AM // 08:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by manitoba1073

-whatever-

Where is the vanity bit if every schmuck is running around with a few of those?

Cab Tastic · Mar 27, 2008, 09:47 AM // 09:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHannum

My reason has been repeated again and again and is clearly lost on you: you absolutely, positively, without a doubt do not need more money than just playing the game will net you, full stop. You don't need to farm, you don't need to grind, you just need to actually play the game and get over your insistence that it actually matters if your weapon is collector "junk" or a fabled req 7 elemental sword with perfect mods. Since you don't need any more money than this, anything that alters the amount of free and excess gold serves to devalue the same sorts of epeen bling you're so obsessed with, that or puts Anet in the place of raising the fixed prices to counteract the increase in gold flow. I can already buy a set of elite armor every few weeks just playing the game, I hardly see why it should get any easier if it's to have any sense of accomplishment at all.

We don't need gold either. just give everything to everyone.
We don't need rare weapons. Everyone gets a sword and makes do
We don't need different armour. Everyone get given a set on entering game
We don't need skills. who uses more than eight anyway.
We don't need............

My point is if you take a players ambition out of the game, there isn't much of a game left.

Phaern Majes · Mar 27, 2008, 09:50 AM // 09:50

I said yes, but my God knows how hard it was not to choose "Cake is ****ing delicious." Oh man...

EDIT: spelling/grammer :S

vdz · Mar 27, 2008, 09:53 AM // 09:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by creelie

That's just not true. You have selective memory. All the vigor runes were WAY more expensive way back when. I distinctly remember paying 40k for a superior vigor rune.

like doh, maybe the salvage system changed... nothing to do with the economic situation.

Gli · Mar 27, 2008, 09:59 AM // 09:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cab Tastic

My point is if you take a players ambition out of the game, there isn't much of a game left.

You know, that's an excellent argument in favor of lootscaling. Because there's little that takes ambition out of a game as badly as making things too easy to accomplish.

Default Name · Mar 27, 2008, 10:05 AM // 10:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gli

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cab Tastic

-strawman stuff-

-subtle sarcasm-

FTW.

I suggest adding in the [sarcasm][/sarcasm] tags, unless of course I interpreted your post wrong.

Gli · Mar 27, 2008, 10:15 AM // 10:15

I wasn't being sarcastic.

CHannum · Mar 27, 2008, 12:03 PM // 12:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by manitoba1073

Its even more funnier when people like you claimed the exact opposite before LS was implemented. Now you're here trying to tell people all they need is the necesseties, which even yourself have admitted has changed at all. So then what was the big problem before. Oh thats right. People claimed things that were vanity were to expensive for them to afford.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I think I was pretty clear that the necessities are pretty much 1) all but given to you and 2) minimal. I never said they changed, I never had pre-LS position since I started long after LS was in effect and it is my belief that is 100% a good thing. Hell, I think *everything* should be scaled, no exemptions whatsoever - it should never matter if you play solo or in a party of eight, period.

If you can survive the raptor nest in hard mode by yourself, yippee, here's a imaginary cookie, there's no reason you should get more stuff. Your ability to exploit specific regions of the game is not grounds to exploit the economy. If I ever find myself tempted to join a PUG, I think I'll just ask any prospective teammates if they think LS should be removed. Yes? See you. It's an outlook on gaming that is based in laziness and greed, nothing more. It's ironic that probably most of the "remove LS" yahoos are the same people who think UB needs nerfed/removed. I'd much rather see UB in the game from now until they unplug the last server than removing LS.

tmakinen · Mar 27, 2008, 12:16 PM // 12:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHannum

If you can survive the raptor nest in hard mode by yourself, yippee, here's a imaginary cookie, there's no reason you should get more stuff.

Fundamental question: if company A needs 8 employees to complete a given task in a week but company B can complete the same task in the same amount of time by assigning just one employee to it, should company A be paid 8 times more than company B, just so that every employee would get the same reward regardless of how effective they are?

If you answer 'yes' you are a proponent of the communist economic model, and we all know how well that worked (the only reasonably prosperous communist nation, China, was smart enough to dump the economic model and only kept the political part).

mr_groovy · Mar 27, 2008, 12:17 PM // 12:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cab Tastic

We don't need gold either. just give everything to everyone.
We don't need rare weapons. Everyone gets a sword and makes do
We don't need different armour. Everyone get given a set on entering game
We don't need skills. who uses more than eight anyway.
We don't need............

My point is if you take a players ambition out of the game, there isn't much of a game left.

Do you really think without LS everybody makes a million in a day or something?

It just makes you get money in a 8/8 team and 1/8 team somewhat faster. It's not insta caching. Did you even play before LS was implemented? Do you honestly think that everybody before LS had stacks of ecto's?

Gw pre LS days was fun to make a bit of money either through playing or farming. Then spend it on armor, or other things.
Nowadays you hope to get THE perfect drop , and spend time trying to get noticed in party search to sell it.(Or a couple of days on guru). For me personally it makes the game less & less fun to play. And if LS doesn't have to be in the game, get rid of it.

cebalrai · Mar 27, 2008, 12:30 PM // 12:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gli

You know, that's an excellent argument in favor of lootscaling. Because there's little that takes ambition out of a game as badly as making things too easy to accomplish.

Gli nailed it with this post. In pre-LS days, things were WAY too easy to accomplish, especially over the course of many months/years that many players play GW.

Solas · Mar 27, 2008, 12:31 PM // 12:31

Loot scaling should be removed only in NM
i was raptor fqarming this weekend and i made a nice bit + a good bit of golds.

You only need 8k for skills, 8k for armor and 5k for a green wepon and maybe 7k for runes and insignias. =30k

its not that hard t omake tat over a few days of missions questing.

if it was only in NM, new players would get more money to help them.

not needed at all in HM
went last10 months without it.
/not signed

its a question of Need or greed.
3...2...1.../roll

Gli · Mar 27, 2008, 12:32 PM // 12:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmakinen

Fundamental question: if company A needs 8 employees to complete a given task in a week but company B can complete the same task in the same amount of time by assigning just one employee to it, should company A be paid 8 times more than company B, just so that every employee would get the same reward regardless of how effective they are?

If you answer 'yes' you are a proponent of the communist economic model, and we all know how well that worked (the only reasonably prosperous communist nation, China, was smart enough to dump the economic model and only kept the political part).

China, however, isn't a computer game.

cebalrai · Mar 27, 2008, 12:32 PM // 12:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cab Tastic

We don't need gold either. just give everything to everyone.
We don't need rare weapons. Everyone gets a sword and makes do
We don't need different armour. Everyone get given a set on entering game
We don't need skills. who uses more than eight anyway.
We don't need............

My point is if you take a players ambition out of the game, there isn't much of a game left.

Cab's post fails since there's more than enough ambition in the post LS-era. Period.

Meaningless post.

CHannum · Mar 27, 2008, 12:41 PM // 12:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmakinen

If you answer 'yes' you are a proponent of the communist economic model, and we all know how well that worked (the only reasonably prosperous communist nation, China, was smart enough to dump the economic model and only kept the political part).

Strawman not even worth responding to. It's a game, and the issue is about game balance for the larger player base not the greed of the few players who want to see the economy and loot model catered to them versus how the other 98% of the players play.

Of course, if you are to take your real world comparison to a more logical perspective, it's not a communist versus capitalist argument, but whether or not government regulation is a necessary evil to counteract the unmitigated greed of the asshats in the world. Just because you can make more money firing 7 of your employees and making the one guy do all the work for only moderately increased pay (you still make about double soloing under LS versus a full party) doesn't make it a good idea that should be rewarded.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cab Tastic

We don't need gold either. just give everything to everyone.
We don't need rare weapons. Everyone gets a sword and makes do
We don't need different armour. Everyone get given a set on entering game
We don't need skills. who uses more than eight anyway.
We don't need............

My point is if you take a players ambition out of the game, there isn't much of a game left.

Way to prove my point for me. Enjoyment of life often isn't based in meeting the basic needs but rather achieving/acquiring a bit of luxury above and beyond the bare necessities. Since GW sets the necessity bar so low, almost anything else is luxury and enjoyable. Keeping LS gives more meaning to the ambition of achieving the luxury and purely enjoyable. If it takes someone like me, who gets in, maybe, four hours a day of play, three weeks to make enough extra cash to buy a suit of (non FOW) elite all the while buying whatever runes and skills I see a need for, just how much easier can the second most expensive (fixed price) luxury item be to achieve? Under LS I could already get enough from this amount of play to reduce that amount of time to a less than a week, is this not easy enough?

That's what I really don't get. People keep going about how it's more fun, but, really, it's just easier. I think the real answer is that the people who are the most vocal about getting LS removed just don't much enjoy the game any more, and from Anet's p.o.v. that's probably a good thing. You got your ride on the ferris wheel, time to get off and let someone else have a turn.

mr_groovy · Mar 27, 2008, 12:42 PM // 12:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by cebalrai

Gli nailed it with this post. In pre-LS days, things were WAY too easy to accomplish, especially over the course of many months/years that many players play GW.

Who are you to judge what is easy, and what is not? What is the standard for that?
Hell yeah it was more easy to make money, and was also easier to spend because people had enough of it. Was it way to easy to make? No.
I made money pre - ls, and it took my quit sometime to get my 15K + Obsidian armors. Was it way easy? Heck no.
In my pre-Ls days I did my fair share of gaming, and farming. I was farming for rare skins or rare materials. But unlike nowadays I actually made a bit of money doing so, by merching. These days you hope to get a rare skin (what sells already for almost nothing) and merch for 400gp?
As said before it's not about farmers making more money, it's about the whole community having more money to spend. Yes every "player" sold item is cheaper, but armors + skills are still fixed. And these are still the items the average joe in gw strife for.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHannum

That's what I really don't get. People keep going about how it's more fun, but, really, it's just easier. I think the real answer is that the people who are the most vocal about getting LS removed just don't much enjoy the game any more, and from Anet's p.o.v. that's probably a good thing. You got your ride on the ferris wheel, time to get off and let someone else have a turn.

Wow I hope either Gaile or Andrew picks up on your posts. I think you are on to something. This will boost GW2 sales a lot.

NOT.

tmakinen · Mar 27, 2008, 12:51 PM // 12:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gli

China, however, isn't a computer game.

And cake is still an amazingly delicious option, as far as non sequiturs go.

If there is no greater reward for greater efficiency, there's no incentive to be more efficient. In fact there's an incentive for the exact opposite, and that's why the communist block failed. Not because they were less talented, not because they one day realized 'Zomg! This communist stuff is so ideologically retarded!' It was because their economy crumbled beneath their feet. And that happened because greater effort didn't bring greater rewards.

Gli · Mar 27, 2008, 01:14 PM // 13:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmakinen

And cake is still an amazingly delicious option, as far as non sequiturs go.

Yes, that's quite a non-sequitur.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmakinen

If there is no greater reward for greater efficiency, there's no incentive to be more efficient.

But there still is a greater reward for greater efficiency. It's just not completely linear.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmakinen

In fact there's an incentive for the exact opposite, and that's why the communist block failed.

They took their servers down, huh? Oh wait, I'm confused... are we still talking about lootscaling here? Did the communist block have lootscaling? Remind me, what's a non-sequitur?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmakinen

Not because they were less talented, not because they one day realized 'Zomg! This communist stuff is so ideologically retarded!' It was because their economy crumbled beneath their feet. And that happened because greater effort didn't bring greater rewards.

It's a good thing that's not the case in Guild Wars then, eh? Where despite lootscaling, the enterprising solo player can still make an order of magnitude more gold than the dull communist. Errr.. wait...

CHannum · Mar 27, 2008, 01:15 PM // 13:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr_groovy

Wow I hope either Gaile or Andrew picks up on your posts. I think you are on to something. This will boost GW2 sales a lot.

I'm pretty sure they already are aware of this phenomenon and it's a deliberate reason why they've maintained LS all this time regardless of how big or not RMT and bots are/were. I'm not sure what fantasy land you live in, but they do not have any incentive for pleasing geezers who keep chasing a new armor skin three years after they last paid Anet a dime at the expense of the other 90% of the player base that started in the last six months. Unless these geezers are still bringing in new players, which is unlikely since people don't tend to pimp something they're not excited about, and judging by the intense and never ending melancholic kvetching on this board about how much GW sucks any more, you all aren't very excited, they'd be much better off if you just took a break from the game and bought GW2 when it gets around to shipping (which you will do anyhow).

Games without a sub fee don't have a financial interest in holding your interest indefinitely. Heck, most of the games money is in the console market for which 90% of the games are meant to be flat out done, if you're lucky, after 20-40 hours, and these games cost upwards of $70 a pop! The value intrinsic in the GW series is far beyond anything I've ever encountered in my three decades gaming. Anyone so jaded that they wouldn't buy more GW content based on GW1 "only" giving them a few years of entertainment in a context where the average relationship is a few weeks to a few months for the exact same money is not worth the effort.

tmakinen · Mar 27, 2008, 01:52 PM // 13:52

Since my arguments seem to confuse people, let's take the intellectual level down a notch or two.

Capitalism and communism are both rooted in the very human condition called 'envy'. In a capitalist system, when somebody is richer than you and you feel envious, you are given the opportunity to gain the difference through your own work and become as rich. In a communist system, when somebody is richer than you and you feel envious, you make it illegal to earn more than you happen to earn and everybody becomes equally poor. Now which of these two descriptions more closely resembles loot scaling?