Curse

Ctb · Nov 22, 2008, 12:32 AM // 00:32

Quote:

I won't even start to discuss the notion of economic model behind a distributed/online game and how you plan resources for making sure you can still make GW1 live with a few interesting updates for 12 to 18 months...

They don't have and either can't afford, or won't purchase, a few hard drives to store a new two-column database table. That's all I commented on, but your reply seems to have little do with that. Do you, or do you not, have anything to say about that subject? Because I have my opinions on the merits of the update too, I just don't care to discuss them here, which is why I didn't bring them up.

Quote:

I am happy with the explanations - they are the ones with the server information in front of them after all - not anyone thats posting here that seem to think they know better.

Some of us know how much a 500 gig hard drive costs, and some of us know what database normalization is. Either they're lying about the storage space, they're so low on funds they can't afford a few cheap hard disks, or they're not lying about being short on budgeted storage, and they just don't care.

Quote:

I'm guessing that you've never worked in an IT organization

You guessed horribly wrong. That's all the more of your post I read and all I'll ever read from you because you're on ignore now. Few things irritate me like anonymous poster on the internet who don't know me telling me what I do or don't know. Maybe you'd like to tell me what I want for dinner tonight since you're able to divine so much about me by analyzing my posts on a video game forum?

Quote:

Why did noone tell use these last 3 years that space was getting tight?

I doubt it's really that tight, otherwise there'd be some serious concern about new players. Granted, there can't be many new people signing up now, but there's probably still space budgeted. More likely, they have that space budgeted already and don't feel like buying a few new disks to add a new slot.

Free to play MMO was a dumb idea and this is why. You can't keep churning out new content without new revenue while also paying maintenance on your architecture.

I can't really hold this against ANET specifically. I'm beginning to think that F2P MMOs just aren't sustainable for any reasonable length of time know matter who does it.

The Meth · Nov 22, 2008, 12:46 AM // 00:46

The problem was that players EXPECTED content updates, and even more so that Anet MADE large content updates earlier in GW history. If it had been firmly planted in players minds that GW was an online only diablo with an emphasis on PvP instead of an MMO things would have been much better. Then you wouldn't get players complaining all the time about how they aren't getting a free lunch every other weekend. Well, you would still get a few but they would be laughed out of the forums along with the people wanting to raise the level cap.

Why don't they just make the mission marked as uncompleted after turning in a book? Assuming the player's mission completion title is permanent (like how after dieing you don't lose your survivor rank), I see no reason why they can't just unflag all mission completions and then then give you a reward when x number of missions are completed again. No need for a book at all. Then any complaints about lack of server space would be voided since the needed information (mission completion) is already stored. It would require quite a bit of work to overhaul a system they JUST put in though.

kostolomac · Nov 22, 2008, 12:55 AM // 00:55

I kinda understand why A.net didn't made the books retroactive. The thing that interested me the most was the talk about a separate storage space for books.

Fay Vert · Nov 22, 2008, 01:43 AM // 01:43

Shadow Form says "I'm why you don't get retro books :P"

Smile Like Umean It · Nov 22, 2008, 01:51 AM // 01:51

Quote:

Storybook Storage

The addition of seven new Storybooks is putting a lot of pressure on player inventories.

We are aware that inventory space was already at a premium and that the new Storybooks only add to this issue. Prior to adding this feature, we did look into adding a Storybook tab to the Xunlai storage boxes. However, when we looked at available server space, we found that this was not feasible. To increase player storage by adding new tabs, we would have needed to expand our existing server space or purchase additional servers. We are actively exploring alternative ways to relieve inventory pressure and would like to reassure players that this is an issue very much on our minds.

When I read this the Fireworks Crate popped into my head.
Make a crate or box or something that holds a slot for each book. It frees up what, six slots? More if they add all books to it. Double clicking the box pops up a list of books and when you click on one you proceed as you normally do now.
Is this not something feasible?

As far as the Retroactivity goes I think the idea of charging a total of between half to equal the of the reward is quite a good idea.

And the Luxon/Kurzick thing. Kind of sucks that we're getting screwed over by someone's foresight, but oh well.

MsMassacre · Nov 22, 2008, 01:51 AM // 01:51

Economy eshmonomy. I make more money now just from xunlai predictions than I ever did in 3 years of active play. And it's not like there's even anything to buy unless they add some new armor.

Why not simply make it cost the same amount to retroactively buy a book page as you would get from turning it in? I've never used that feature in EOTN except when they first added the books.

Couldn't care less about the luxon pts I lost while turning in all my free kurzick pts. It's not like progressing in both titles is useful, and the only other uses for faction can all be bought elsewhere with my free but useless xunlai lottery money.

Server space solutions: Delete characters after a set period of inactivity proportional to their level and automatically delete characters on perma-banned accounts. IE a lvl 20 takes a year to delete, but a level 5 takes only a month. I have like 6 characters on temp accounts from preview events that I can't log in to delete.

DreamWind · Nov 22, 2008, 03:24 AM // 03:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Risky Ranger

Would you really have been happy with anything other than what you wanted? Thsy explained their situation and if you didn't believe them then that is your perogative. It's just that I feel I should always give anyone the benefit of the doubt that I may be having. Maybe it's my age but call me crazy, I have an inherent trust for what I feel I am being told.

I would have been happier with a better explanation. They didn't even address the biggest point of all (retroactive faction books) and their not enough space and economy statements are odd at best and hypocritical at worst. I'd be surprised if anybody could walk away with a satisfied feeling from this "update on the update", but so be it.

Yang Whirlwind · Nov 22, 2008, 03:47 AM // 03:47

I feel fine about this!

I agree: 60K pr. account with HM completed, would have affected the economy greatly. Not to mention, that it just would have put more money in the the "fat cats" purses (me included).
I can also clearly see, that the extra storage tab would have added extra strain to servers Anet really do not want to spend money on expanding at this time.
I'm guessing every dime is being spend developing a new game,- to keep people playing and employees working another 3 glorious years. (hopefully)

Nothing to rock my boat. But very nice, to actually get the feedback (and the concession about the faction loss

).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ctb

bla bla bla

Go outside, smell the air, watch the sky. When you're feeling more relaxed, you will realize: it's just a game!

It's been said before, but here it is again:
3 years with unlimited access for 240$ (estimated from buying all 3 games (Special Edition) + GW:EN, in Denmark at the time of release.
Compared, WoW would have set you back an estimated 540$ in 3 years, if you subscribed in Denmark,- not counting buying the actual games and expansions.)
If you don't think, you've got your money's worth,- you've either not been playing enough or you demand much more than I do!

Quote:

Originally Posted by MsMassacre

It's not like progressing in both titles is useful

Speak for yourself,- I'm not going to get 35 maxed titles if I don't work both!

pumpkin pie · Nov 22, 2008, 04:07 AM // 04:07

what the hell has shadow form got to do with the book not being retroactive?

i understand not wanting to get more server space for more storage, everyone wants to make money from their business, after all this is a pay for the game, and use our server for free for ever business. So as much as I like to have more storage anytime! I like the game being free to play forever more.

So, how about this Arena Net, Take the book out of the storage and put them elsewhere. Problem solve, hopefully.

and you know, you could put alot of things in here then in the storage.

for instant crafting materials it could be just a numbers recorded in the players account. this way you clear the material storage and turn the server space into Armor storage! or Pet Storage!

Unless off course, putting things in the progression bar is the same as putting things in storage.... then whatever

hahahaha

Luminarus · Nov 22, 2008, 04:33 AM // 04:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

what the hell has shadow form got to do with the book not being retroactive?

The reason supplied for not making books retroactive was that it would ruin the economy. People are arguing that perma shadow form is worse for the economy.

ffs people, you can get 100k a month (give or take) from logging in once a month. If you really need the money, spend 2 or 3 hours and farm.

As to the server space issue... 1 tab for one person isnt much, but it would need to be probably character specific, and one per account. That would be alot of space.
Think about it... atm the number of items available to exist ingame is number accounts* (20 + 20 * average number of campaigns owned (assuming 1.5) (ignoring eotn), + 45*each character slot (say an average of 8 per account)). Approximately 390 slots per account (on average). If you add another 20... thats a 5% increase in storage capacity on the guild wars servers, may not seem much but since its free to play, and has been out for 3 yrs its fair to assume they are nearly at capacity... a 5% increase is definately plausible as being too much.

Also... seriously. You merch after each mission, if 1 slot is gonna hurt ur drops that bad get over it. Stop hoarding useless crap, sell all those stupid r13 weapons ur never gonna use. Dont bother holding onto the inscriptions that noone buys and even you arent going to use. I never have storage problems, and I have atleast 16 different armor sets on my account.

Shadowmoon · Nov 22, 2008, 04:41 AM // 04:41

Like what was said when players wanted a way to lock there characters to prevent them from being delited if their account were hacked. Gaile basically said that it was fiancially feasable to get this feature.
Personally i think anet need to actually use it cash shop, and get features like character locking and extra storage in there. These wouldn't effect actual game play, just add useful features to the game that normally couldn't be added because of the game beign f2p.

Clone · Nov 22, 2008, 06:57 AM // 06:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arkantos

I honestly thought you weren't going to address this at all. You admitted you guys made a mistake, and there's nothing that can be done now. While that does suck, thank you for admitting your mistake.

Well said. I appreciate and respect honesty, even if it isn't always good news. The spin is usually way too overdone. Thanks Anet for being up front about this one.

Also good to see that inventory is on the mind. Then again, there's no way I'd be crazy enough to fill out the 80 Shiro's hard mode books for the title anyway, so I don't really care. Too much grind is too much grind.

Valcion · Nov 22, 2008, 06:57 AM // 06:57

^trust me, people will complain even more if a cash shop is added. I've played my fair share of "f2p but with cash shop MMOs" to know.

Fril Estelin · Nov 22, 2008, 08:07 AM // 08:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ctb

Do you, or do you not, have anything to say about that subject?

I did, but you ignored completely the content of my message. You've obviously never looked at how online games are managed, you simply don't go "let's grab a 1To HDD and plug-in a DB" (or grab 10 500Go HDDs), because you don't do that at all. You buy all these resources (HDD AND bandwidth/latency/availability) to storage providers all over the world, because you have customers all over the world. Thus you need synchronisation between all these remote places, which costs you money and efforts too.

This is what I meant by "economic model" and I've only described it in very simple terms, sketching the surface of the problem. Anet has done a feat to keep the servers going on with no monthly fee, and I guess they've also done some planning on how make sure that they don't run out of money before GW2 comes out. And this means that I have to manage my books, either using a mule or making sure I'm not working on too many of them at the same time, that's fine by me.

(funny fact: the best illustration of this fact is youtube, which I studied for my research; youtube actually doesn't store anything at all, they pay around 10millions$ a month to store TB of data and most importantly ensure that the data is available at all times and at a decent speed)

(and btw, as someone mentioned before, server don't manage HDDs like on PCs, they use racks which cost more)

Quote:

Few things irritate me like anonymous poster on the internet who don't know me telling me what I do or don't know.

I agree, but at the same time you have to realise that you don't know how GW1 was programmed and managed (neither do I but it seems that I have a better understanding of it). It's like if someone came here and said that hardware controllers are like any piece of software code.

Quote:

I doubt it's really that tight, otherwise there'd be some serious concern about new players. Granted, there can't be many new people signing up now, but there's probably still space budgeted. More likely, they have that space budgeted already and don't feel like buying a few new disks to add a new slot.

It's basic business sense: if you use this space to implement Xunlai storage space, that means less space for people to create their chars, including for new customers. You have to look at the problem not only at a given point in time, but over the period of years.

Quote:

Free to play MMO was a dumb idea and this is why. You can't keep churning out new content without new revenue while also paying maintenance on your architecture.

I think the commercial success of GW1, and how Jeff Strain and Patrick Wyatt climbed to the top of the newly createrd NC West proves that they were right. And I'm not very surprised, given how good the 3 guys that created Anet are. They created a niche market and did an excellent job. Of course this doesn't show in the microcosm of Guru, which is a different beast.

Quote:

I can't really hold this against ANET specifically. I'm beginning to think that F2P MMOs just aren't sustainable for any reasonable length of time know matter who does it.

Casual players love it. Of course, for a serious gamer, it's a different story, but I agree that F2P online games are not for everyone. Nevertheless, I appreciate that Anet has given us the opportunity not to be cash cows (just a little bit of provocation here

).

Red Sonya · Nov 22, 2008, 08:08 AM // 08:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shadowmoon

Like what was said when players wanted a way to lock there characters to prevent them from being delited if their account were hacked. Gaile basically said that it was fiancially feasable to get this feature.
Personally i think anet need to actually use it cash shop, and get features like character locking and extra storage in there. These wouldn't effect actual game play, just add useful features to the game that normally couldn't be added because of the game beign f2p.

Anet has already done this as many people buy more characters for STORAGE mules. All the extra characters I buy are PVP only storage mules. I use them for PVP, but, they are all FULL of items from PVE as well. I only play a handful of characters in PVE anymore as PVE has become boring and dull and not fun to run differenct characters through the same content. I never could do that with offline rpgs and I certainly don't feel or want to do it in an online only game.
Also at the igmo who said get rid of your r13 items blah blah doesn't realize everyone isn't rich and those r13 work just fine in heroes hands. As well as the different mods that pvp players won't use, but, heroes gladly enjoy them and use them well. I run 13>50 on some items I give to heroes because a flippin point or two is not going to make enough difference in the already easy PVE game.

upier · Nov 22, 2008, 08:19 AM // 08:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Sonya

Anet has already done this as many people buy more characters for STORAGE mules. All the extra characters I buy are PVP only storage mules. I use them for PVP, but, they are all FULL of items from PVE as well. I only play a handful of characters in PVE anymore as PVE has become boring and dull and not fun to run differenct characters through the same content. I never could do that with offline rpgs and I certainly don't feel or want to do it in an online only game.
Also at the igmo who said get rid of your r13 items blah blah doesn't realize everyone isn't rich and those r13 work just fine in heroes hands. As well as the different mods that pvp players won't use, but, heroes gladly enjoy them and use them well. I run 13>50 on some items I give to heroes because a flippin point or two is not going to make enough difference in the already easy PVE game.

You do know that you don't need to take the weapons off heroes after you stop using the guys?
You only play a few characters in PvE, yet you keep hoarding stuff for them?
Yes, crap is good enough for PvE - but you can dump the crap onto it's designated location.

Yes, more storage would be good - but saying that you need it because you decide to keep every piece of crap you find is just a bit out there.

BoredJoe · Nov 22, 2008, 08:37 AM // 08:37

Haven't read through all of the pages here, but some way to get rid of mini-pets would help me a bit. Maybe an npc like the festival hat trader, or a trader with a similar mechanism to the celestial pig to get rid of unwated pets, e.g exchange 5 whites for a purple pet or such.

Makkert · Nov 22, 2008, 09:18 AM // 09:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abedeus

It just doesn't make ANY sense. They made Luxon/Kurzick faction retroactive, yet left the Book faction NON retroactive.

What's the difference between Faction A and Faction A'?

Oh please.
This is like asking
"what is the difference between Apples and Pears, they are all fruit aren't they?"

bad arguments are the juice of the internetz.

makosi · Nov 22, 2008, 09:50 AM // 09:50

Like others have said, I don't mind about the gold rewards from a retroactive book. Hell, I wouldn't mind paying for the pages to fill a one-time retroactive book so I can reap the faction rewards.

Although the new faction earning methods are a major improvement, it is still unreasonable to expect players to fill around 90 Shiro's Return books to max the title.

Secksy · Nov 22, 2008, 10:07 AM // 10:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by makosi

Like others have said, I don't mind about the gold rewards from a retroactive book. Hell, I wouldn't mind paying for the pages to fill a one-time retroactive book so I can reap the faction rewards.

Although the new faction earning methods are a major improvement, it is still unreasonable to expect players to fill around 90 Shiro's Return books to max the title.

I'd rather do 90 Books than have to do thousands of HFFFing. It's much quicker no matter how you look at it.

It's not unreasonable as books are not the only means of obtaining the faction.