Curse

Gli · Mar 25, 2011, 03:34 AM // 03:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golgotha

You guys are really reaching.

No, we're just having a difference of opinion.

I think it's perfectly fine to have non-gamebreaking new options for sale in the online store, separate from new campaigns.

You think it's not, for reasons I consider arbitrary.

But that's fine, opinions don't need a logical basis. That's why they're opinions. There's no logic, rhyme, or reason to be expected in any of this.

Improvavel · Mar 25, 2011, 03:36 AM // 03:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saint Scarlet

That update was released due to the fact there was a huge discussion on GW2Guru and other sites about Transmutation Stones, and how they seemed to be paid for advantages. Anet even had to add as an afterthought that they would try to somehow add them as in-game drops, so that people didn't have to pay to have decent stats on their gear.

So from that they had already planned to have purchasable upgrades that gave people an advantage over others. And only then from the reaction of the community did they rethink their plans and add it as a drop too.

This only strengthens the argument about paid for advantages being the new business model.

If I need to pay for items that are more powerful that those obtained in game then that is a game I won't be playing.

But since they are getting rid of the great party composition of Guild Wars, it will probably be just another MMORPG and I have no interest in those.

EDIT: Went googling for Transmutation stones

Quote:

Q: What exactly are transmutation stones and how do they work?

Eric: Transmutation stones are really about taking the appearance of an item you love and making a new similar item you find look the way you want it to look. Transmutation stones are consumable items with a single charge that allow you to take two weapons or armor pieces and create a new piece of equipment that combines the look and stats that you want from each piece. If you really like the look of a particular shortbow, for example, but you’ve acquired another short bow with better stats, you can use a transmutation stone to merge the look of your old bow with the stats of the new weapon.

Transmutation stones have nothing to do with finding max stat gear. All weapons and items will be available through normal play over the course of the game.

Seems like an aesthetically thing.

X Dr Pepper X · Mar 25, 2011, 03:42 AM // 03:42

At least this is better than our previous discussions.

And as for:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gli

This 'original philosophy' promised us new chapters. The extra options such as heroes and insanely overpowered consumables that came packaged with them where never an outspoken part of that philosophy, and as such can't be fairly assumed to be included in it. 'Options that come packaged with campaigns are alright' is something you've made up all by yourselves. I reject that distinction, shortening it to 'options are alright'.

But they are comparable to the options packaged with new campaigns, so I don't see why they shouldn't be added to the game for a fee, just as the options that came packaged with campaigns thrown in are bought for a fee.

If everyone who owns all chapters bought them, would you still be calling them extraneous?

You missed the point multiple times and instead decided to attempt to pick apart my post for some unknown reason.

How can you compare Mercs to campaigns and justify that they should be included?

I gave multiple examples of why campaigns are the common denominator between players and how microtransactions aren't.

Campaigns are the metagame vs. microtransactions merely being extensions to the metagame.

Improvavel · Mar 25, 2011, 03:47 AM // 03:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by X Dr Pepper X

Campaigns are the metagame vs. microtransactions merely being extensions to the metagame.

But since campaigns are officially terminated, why can't updates and microtransactions fill that role?

Or what you're saying is that the ideal metagame should be the one existent right after GWEN?

Saint Scarlet · Mar 25, 2011, 03:53 AM // 03:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Improvavel

Seems like an aesthetically thing.

Except for the fact that originally they were a cash shop item only, so having to pay to have something you like and decent stats. If they weren't there it would be either you have a good looking item with useless stats or have great stats on a fugly item. Pay for the privilege of having both is not what GW was founded on.

Ghost Dog · Mar 25, 2011, 03:58 AM // 03:58

I would be perfectly fine with costumes or exclusive mounts and the like, but I know better, it never stops there.

Improvavel · Mar 25, 2011, 03:58 AM // 03:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saint Scarlet

Except for the fact that originally they were a cash shop item only, so having to pay to have something you like and decent stats. If they weren't there it would be either you have a good looking item with useless stats or have great stats on a fugly item. Pay for the privilege of having both is not what GW was founded on.

Good thing it isn't Guild Wars.

Although, I can't exactly see how people know beautiful items will have crappy stats and ugly items will have godly stats.

Gli · Mar 25, 2011, 04:05 AM // 04:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by X Dr Pepper X

How can you compare Mercs to campaigns and justify that they should be included?

I gave multiple examples of why campaigns are the common denominator between players and how microtransactions aren't.

Campaigns are the metagame vs. microtransactions merely being extensions to the metagame.

They are comparable in the sense that they offer similar kinds of new options to the game, the only difference being that campaigns add a little more substance. That difference doesn't tell me the mercs are a bad thing, it only tells me that campaigns have better value for money.

Why would the mercs have to conform to that common denominator? I find the advantage they offer to be very slight, and certainly not game-breaking. Their effect on the metagame will be negligable, because their advantage won't even come into play when people meet up. As a purely solo advantage, the worst they can do is have an ever so slight effect on an economy that is far too large to be seriously impacted by the small cadre of elite players who can make optimal use of mercs to shave a few minutes of a run.

In other words, much ado about nothing.

Saint Scarlet · Mar 25, 2011, 04:12 AM // 04:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Improvavel

Good thing it isn't Guild Wars.

Although, I can't exactly see how people know beautiful items will have crappy stats and ugly items will have godly stats.

No it's about Anet the company, and their business model seeing as thats what others started to say as an argument against paid for advantages being in the game. So quit switching tacks to suit your purposes.

And really?? you have always had perfect max items drop. Wow you really are the luckiest person going seeing as everyone else gets items with crap stats 9:10 times. And before you switch tacks again and say we don't know about GW2 drops.... erm we do from the demos and what they have told us.

Provide a coherent argument don't keep trying to pick holes in what others are saying by changing tack.

Improvavel · Mar 25, 2011, 04:24 AM // 04:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saint Scarlet

No it's about Anet the company, and their business model seeing as thats what others started to say as an argument against paid for advantages being in the game. So quit switching tacks to suit your purposes.

And really?? you have always had perfect max items drop. Wow you really are the luckiest person going seeing as everyone else gets items with crap stats 9:10 times. And before you switch tacks again and say we don't know about GW2 drops.... erm we do from the demos and what they have told us.

Provide a coherent argument don't keep trying to pick holes in what others are saying by changing tack.

I though this was about selling gameplay advantages that put those that don't buy them at a disadvantage?

Having a pretty weapon or a ugly weapon when both deal the same damage doesn't seem to provide any gameplay advantage.

Really pretty/ugly is a question of taste, or for those that have no taste, a question of the most expensive/harder to obtain is prettiest.

Anyway, are you telling me you never got a max weapon, can pay a weaponsmith to get one or get one from collectors?

Actually, I would like very much if all campaigns adopted the inscription system - getting gold weapons that have decent skins and useless mods is so yaaaaaawn.

Just to finish if I find holes on someone else argument then that is because the argument isn't coherent.

If people aren't providing coherent arguments, why do I have to be the one providing them?

And I've provided some by the way as did some others, even those that I disagree with but are basing them on starting points that are debatable and a question of opinion.

Essence Snow · Mar 25, 2011, 05:14 AM // 05:14

I was under the impression that it was about the impact they had. The impact they had one me was/is that I am now very concerned where Anet/NcSoft are going with the GW/GW2 franchises.

From the release of Prophs they said they would make their money off the intial purchases and save using their server architecture model to minimizing the bandwidth costs associated with maintaining game servers.

Since then we have seen the campaigns/expansions come, but not nearly at the rate of 2 per year. The purpose of the stand alone campaigns were to draw us back in to GW...since they were supposively not gonna "milk us" in between them. Now we have seen the introduction of microtransactions and dlc. Since the microtransactions started they have become more frequent. I don't think anyone can deny that. I feel that these are ways of "milking us" in between expansions/campaigns. If not getting it via fees they will get it via microtransactions and dlc.

Now atm it's not that bad...BUT I'm more concerned about whats to come. If following the current trend, there will be more and more microtransactions and dlc. Since they have shown the willingness to provide these in manners which effect game-play, there is no reason that they won't continue doing so in the future. So in turn chances are that more cash shop options will be available more frequently that will effect the community. While one purchase standing alone might not cross that line....the sum of all of them will.

What's to say campaigns won't get smaller and dlc won't get bigger? Buy the campaign...and then dlc comes out that is about the same size as the campaign. Then more dlc comes out and more and more....All the while microtransactions are comming out faster and faster. All of a sudden the microtransactions and the dlc are larger than the campaigns themselves.

I'm not saying that all this will happen. I am merely pointing out that is where the trend is leading and this is why I have an issue with it.

Saint Scarlet · Mar 25, 2011, 05:20 AM // 05:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Improvavel

I though this was about selling gameplay advantages that put those that don't buy them at a disadvantage?

Having a pretty weapon or a ugly weapon when both deal the same damage doesn't seem to provide any gameplay advantage.

Really pretty/ugly is a question of taste, or for those that have no taste, a question of the most expensive/harder to obtain is prettiest.

Anyway, are you telling me you never got a max weapon, can pay a weaponsmith to get one or get one from collectors?

Actually, I would like very much if all campaigns adopted the inscription system - getting gold weapons that have decent skins and useless mods is so yaaaaaawn.

Just to finish if I find holes on someone else argument then that is because the argument isn't coherent.

If people aren't providing coherent arguments, why do I have to be the one providing them?

And I've provided some by the way as did some others, even those that I disagree with but are basing them on starting points that are debatable and a question of opinion.

Sigh... This is about selling gameplay advantages but i was answering the point about Anet's philosophy changing.

No the skin of a weapon is immaterial unless you like the looks of the game more than just steamrolling through it. But allowing it so that the way someone can get a good weapon with decent stats it to pay RL money thats a problem.

Pretty versus fugly is actually important to some people, same as having decent stats.

If you actually read my post. You would see what i said was most people get rubbish 9 out of 10 times with weapon drops. And yes thankyou i have plenty of decent max weapons(if you really want to know 8 storage chars full of decent skin max weps), so don't try to get me upset/angry with your little dig.

I prefer the way it was before NF came out and inscriptions were inherent, but that is personal opinion.

No you do not you focus on one part of what someone says ignoring the whole of their statements so as to make yourself look oh so superior to them. Well i've known alot of people like you and what can i say...(nothing that wouldn't lower me to your level). If you actually read everything and take it in then you would find that it all makes sense, but that wouldn't satisfy you need to feel better than everyone.

I did not say everyone was providing coherent arguments but i was replying to you specifically at that point so yes i would expect a coherent reply. But maybe i'm just hoping for too much from someone who seems to think they are better than everyone.

To finish i really don't understand why you want to try and turn a simple debate/discussion into this argument. You have always won your debates by bullying the other person into submission because they give up the will to actually carry on with the discourse.

So please stay on track and stop trying to be the winner, this is a debate not a competition!

Krill · Mar 25, 2011, 06:02 AM // 06:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Essence Snow

...If following the current trend, there will be more and more microtransactions and dlc. Since they have shown the willingness to provide these in manners which effect game-play, there is no reason that they won't continue doing so in the future.

Like it not this is where online gaming has been headed for years. The devs have always defended it as either a fiscal necessity and / or "it's what the players want" and they are right. If the game doesn't produce revenue there's little reason to maintain it (promises != squat) and if the players really didn't want DLC and microtransactions they wouldn't buy it, but they do and it's very high margin. It's now getting to the point where games, particularly MMOs are little more than vehicles for such content.

DokkyDok · Mar 25, 2011, 06:12 AM // 06:12

What kind of impact have you personally seen or felt stemming from the introduction of Mercenary Heroes?
Nothing really. I don't see it impacting me in any way. Everything I want to do in this game I can do with the existing heroes (I suppose Foundry HM would be a bit easier with an extra mesmer, though), and the game economy is governed by bots.
Do you consider the introduction of Mercenary Heroes to be an unfair game advantage for those with excess real-life money or an aesthetic fan-service that benefits many of the game's players (or both)? Explain.
More of a fan service, as it's no secret that this has been requested for years. That said, those who buy these extra heroes will have, depending on their goals in the game, some advantages.
Are teams consisting of 7 heroes of the same profession consistent with the game's themes and/or felt values? Why or why not?
Irrelevant imo
Do you believe that this is a "trend" that the Live Team and Anet may continue to follow in the future? In your opinion, is that a good or bad thing?
It's pretty obvious that there have been more and more things added to the in-game store over a shorter period of time. I guess it's a good thing for people who want whatever's being offered...
Profit is obviously always a concern for any for-profit business. However, over the years many game companies have added features to games specifically for the benefit of their fans, whether for monetary gain or not. What do you believe is the primary motivation for the addition of Mercenary Heroes - profit, fan service, or a mixture of both?
The chief motivation is obviously profit, but at least they decided to add something that the fans wanted. This doesn't bother me. I'd rather have some fans buy stuff that is(in my opinion) a waste of money than have to pay a monthly fee.
Does the addition of Mercenary Heroes change your opinion on the direction of the future of the company; namely - Guild Wars 2? If so, in a positive or negative way?
No

An in-game advantage that has not attracted as much attention is the availability of the fire imp and bonus weapons in pre-searing. You pretty much double your firepower and gain a tank with the imp. Sure, only a minority of the GW community regularly plays in pre-searing, but this is far more of in-game advantage than the merc hero update.

Dafad Dhu · Mar 25, 2011, 09:05 AM // 09:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dzjudz

This is pretty much the stupid old "lolwhocaresaboutPvE" argument.

What on earth makes you think that I don't care about PvE?

Quote:

Same could be said for a 100000-100000 holy damage jesus sword that is PvE only: you can kill anything in one hit (special function: can damage Vengeful Aatxes) and clear any area in minutes.
What does it matter that you can do this, it's only PvE.

If I use my mercs to farm a Xunlai chest full of ectos to buy my Jesus sword and the "totally impenatrable, you will never die" armour, (given the fact that I'm not a RL-money gold seller) what advantages will this get me other than epeen?

Quote:

In the end, it's all for cosmetic titles and cosmetic rewards. There is no actual advantage to having 1000k over 1k. Ridiculous argument.

Yes, it IS just about cosmetics.
I currently have only 72K in the bank, and no ectos or armbraces.
My main character has max armour (a mix of Ascalon and Shing Jea which was chosen for the look.) How would having vast amounts of money improve this characters survivability?
The character has max weapons. How would having vast amounts of money improve her damage-dealing?
(All this equipment was obtained long before mercs were available)

Give me a concrete example of how how me having mercs could make my main "better" than your main, in anything other than a cosmetic sense.

Swingline · Mar 25, 2011, 09:07 AM // 09:07

Quote:

[*]Do you consider the introduction of Mercenary Heroes to be an unfair game advantage for those with excess real-life money or an aesthetic fan-service that benefits many of the game's players (or both)? Explain.
More of a fan service, as it's no secret that this has been requested for years. That said, those who buy these extra heroes will have, depending on their goals in the game, some advantages.

I never played with or seen anyone request mercs. Pretty much sums it up here, players who buy it will get some advantages.

Quote:

[*]Are teams consisting of 7 heroes of the same profession consistent with the game's themes and/or felt values? Why or why not?
Irrelevant imo

lolwut? wtb balance between professions

Quote:

[*]Do you believe that this is a "trend" that the Live Team and Anet may continue to follow in the future? In your opinion, is that a good or bad thing?
It's pretty obvious that there have been more and more things added to the in-game store over a shorter period of time. I guess it's a good thing for people who want whatever's being offered...

avoiding the word yes much?

Quote:

[*]Profit is obviously always a concern for any for-profit business. However, over the years many game companies have added features to games specifically for the benefit of their fans, whether for monetary gain or not. What do you believe is the primary motivation for the addition of Mercenary Heroes - profit, fan service, or a mixture of both?
The chief motivation is obviously profit, but at least they decided to add something that the fans wanted. This doesn't bother me. I'd rather have some fans buy stuff that is(in my opinion) a waste of money than have to pay a monthly fee.

Profit is always important but so is the customer and it's obvious many of them don't like this one bit. On the monthly fees, yea most people don't like them but they pay for many things. One thing WoW subs pay for is great servers, I hardly ever lagged, and when I got hacked all my stuff was restored. Last time I checked GW servers cant handle an event very well and when you get hacked your SoL and have to start all over.

Quote:

[*] Does the addition of Mercenary Heroes change your opinion on the direction of the future of the company; namely - Guild Wars 2? If so, in a positive or negative way?
No

and even more ?????. Leaves me to wonder what his current opinion is...

Quote:

An in-game advantage that has not attracted as much attention is the availability of the fire imp and bonus weapons in pre-searing. You pretty much double your firepower and gain a tank with the imp. Sure, only a minority of the GW community regularly plays in pre-searing, but this is far more of in-game advantage than the merc hero update.

Pre is an enclosed area with very little to do. No one cared much about the bonus weapons/summon since you can just leave and get them in post. I have to agree though it was a good covert move to see if the so called "fans" noticed. Also that's hardly an in game advantage in pre compared to merc heroes in post. Post is the real game, not pre

Lasai · Mar 25, 2011, 10:48 AM // 10:48

I have 15 char slots. Paid for. This gives me the opportunity to run 7 more sets of Z quests per day.. and my ability to gain z coins is far greater because of that. I am able to purchase elite tomes and equipment packs faster than a person with 8 default slots. This is a flat advantage not based on loot rolls, clear times or hypothetical rewards.. repeatable quests for a known value.

So.. why no hype regarding char slots. Why the focus on Mercs. This is what I fail to understand.

There were no repeatable z quests when I bought my slots. The financial advantage in earning z coins is a byproduct of another game mechanic, repeatable daily quests for items of value. It is not a financial advantage inherent to the character slot and had nothing to do with buying the slot. Anet certainly did not offer the slot as a means to farm z quests.

I see the Merc the same. There is no inherent advantage beyond cosmetic, only a percieved advantage because of another game mechanic..certain professions deemed to be more powerful and others less. That is a balance issue, and a farming issue.. not a Merc issue. Removing Merc heroes from the game would not remove the perceived superiority of single profession-heavy teams. Removing Mercs would not allow a ranger or Ele to Buy a slot in a team looking for another Mesmer.

Not much different than the Ursan days, people didnt buy EoTN for Ursan Form, but, it became a req because of mechanics. Ultimately, the mechanics were addressed and having Ursan form became no advantage.

This supposed merc advantage is not exclusive or inherent to mercs. It could be changed at any time in the future, much like gimmickway builds have in the past. It is a group balance issue.. if it is an issue, and is part of the game with or without Merc heroes. You have to look at WHY there is a perceived advantage.

If Anet somehow managed to wave a magic balance wand and balanced teams became the "WAY" to speed clear, the supposed advantage of Mercs would evaporate overnight.. leaving the only true inherent value of the purchase.. Cosmetic.

ensoriki · Mar 25, 2011, 11:34 AM // 11:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Essence Snow

What's to say campaigns won't get smaller and dlc won't get bigger? Buy the campaign...and then dlc comes out that is about the same size as the campaign. Then more dlc comes out and more and more....All the while microtransactions are comming out faster and faster. All of a sudden the microtransactions and the dlc are larger than the campaigns themselves.

I'm not saying that all this will happen. I am merely pointing out that is where the trend is leading and this is why I have an issue with it.

There are no more incoming campaigns in Guild Wars, so they can't get smaller.

Swingline · Mar 25, 2011, 11:42 AM // 11:42

Quote:

I have 15 char slots. Paid for. This gives me the opportunity to run 7 more sets of Z quests per day.. and my ability to gain z coins is far greater because of that. I am able to purchase elite tomes and equipment packs faster than a person with less accts. This is a flat advantage not based on loot rolls, clear times or hypothetical rewards.. repeatable quests for a known value.

So.. why no hype regarding char slots. Why the focus on Mercs. This is what I fail to understand.

There were no repeatable z quests when I bought my slots. The financial advantage in earning z coins is a byproduct of another game mechanic, repeatable daily quests for items of value. It is not a financial advantage inherent to the character slot and had nothing to do with buying the slot. Anet certainly did not offer the slot as a means to farm z quests.

I see the Merc the same. There is no inherent advantage beyond cosmetic, only a percieved advantage because of another game mechanic..certain professions deemed to be more powerful and others less. That is a balance issue, and a farming issue.. not a Merc issue. Removing Merc heroes from the game would not remove the perceived superiority of single profession-heavy teams. Removing Mercs would not allow a ranger or Ele to Buy a slot in a team looking for another Mesmer.

Not much different than the Ursan days, people didnt buy EoTN for Ursan Form, but, it became a req because of mechanics. Ultimately, the mechanics were addressed and having Ursan form became no advantage.

This supposed merc advantage is not exclusive or inherent to mercs. It could be changed at any time in the future, much like gimmickway builds have in the past. It is a group balance issue.. if it is an issue, and is part of the game with or without Merc heroes. You have to look at WHY there is a perceived advantage.

I think it is because ANet made a bold move. One of the concerns is where NCS is heading because of this. The character slots came long before zquests and it was just a content update to keep players busy while ANet is working on GW2. ANet has created big hype for GW2 and it would just be a total gunshot in the balls if they abandoned their main philosophies and added clear in game advantages in the GW2 store, using GW as a sort of beta testing for advantageous micro transactions. Many of us have grown quite attached to this game and are awaiting GW2 and we really dont want our hearts broken because this game company hooked us with good philosophies and ethics and later abandoned them by slowly doing so without telling us to our faces.

Lasai · Mar 25, 2011, 11:57 AM // 11:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swingline

I think it is because ANet made a bold move. One of the concerns is where NCS is heading because of this. The character slots came long before zquests and it was just a content update to keep players busy while ANet is working on GW2. ANet has created big hype for GW2 and it would just be a total gunshot in the balls if they abandoned their main philosophies and added clear in game advantages in the GW2 store, using GW as a sort of beta testing for advantageous micro transactions. Many of us have grown quite attached to this game and are awaiting GW2 and we really dont want our hearts broken because this game company hooked us with good philosophies and ethics and later abandoned them by slowly doing so without telling us to our faces.

What an utterly disappointing response from someone who seems to understand the profession balance issues in game. The advantage of Mercs is totally reliant upon broken profession balance..and I don't personally see ANET offering them as a means for players to exploit that imbalance.

No slippery slope in my opinion. All I see is player exploitation of a cosmetic option based on profession balance. As with many things in gaming, the intended use of something can be radically altered by player use of that thing.