Curse

Quaker · Nov 19, 2008, 04:11 PM // 16:11

Blah, blah, blah. Stop your whining kids. Get over it.

Abedeus · Nov 19, 2008, 04:17 PM // 16:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quaker

Blah, blah, blah. Stop your whining kids. Get over it.

I know you have an ugly face.

Am I as mature as you already?

zwei2stein · Nov 19, 2008, 04:26 PM // 16:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abedeus

Most of the abuses were caused by bugs/imbalance. You are asking A.Net to imbalance the game even more for new players?

And it pretty much doesn't matter in PvE - 1 year or 3 years of experience. Even if someone mastered all builds, he MAY make a 20 minute mission into a 15 minute mission, but there are just some things experience can't change.

Also, 3 years ago PvE was harder. We didn't have even half of the elites and normal skills, heroes, henches were even stupider, less chances for max items and armor, PvE consumables and skills... So they have it much easier now than we had during first 2 years of the game.

No, I am just illustrating that we vets had more opportunities on getting near-free stuff, starting with those who were there during trader price reset. Getting book rewards might be right thing to do, but it is hardly necessary or huge concern.

Frozy · Nov 19, 2008, 06:44 PM // 18:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quaker

Blah, blah, blah. Stop your whining kids. Get over it.

While you basically tell us "shut up cuz i don't like you", (again) we give reasons and facts to support our argument.
If you just tell us to stop without anything to support your claim, YOU are the one who's whining, kid.

Fril Estelin · Nov 19, 2008, 11:55 PM // 23:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

What if reverse happened? You needed 18 points to graduate but it was later upped to 21.

Would you expect people to burn their diplomas?

Or do you think that only changes that someone can profit from should be retroactive?

Very good point (like most you've brought so far

). If people really want fairness, they should stop talking only about things that benefit them. It reminds me of these "veteran stories" of the kind "I remember when +30hp sword was 100k", which imply that now people can't get the 95k+ difference and it's unfair to them. Similarly for those that would want to grind through HFFF or any other farm that was nerfed.

It doesn't seem "fair" that people claim that Anet explanation of "retroactive book rewards will screw the economy", while they have no good explanation for this, because they no nothing about the real numbers. You can distrust this explanation, you can ask for a clarification, but claiming it's false is unfair.

Fair is not "good", which is something that everyone can assess relative to itw own situation. Fair is about the greater good, the good of a big group, when a majority feels that something is good. It's never, ever perfect in a world with such diversity.

hallomik · Nov 20, 2008, 03:21 AM // 03:21

What "greater good" comes from not making the books retroactive?

The EotN books were introduced retroactive. Veterans were happy to have been compensated for stuff they had already done. New players were happy to have another way to gain reputation. All the other options getting rep were still on the table. Needless grind was reduced. Anet gained good will by giving people more options and a little recognition at the same time. That was basically a win-win all the way around.

I sort of don't understand the people arguing in favor of what Anet did. In most debates on Guru, there are two sides with arguments for and against a specific thing that has been done. People for loot scaling argue about the effects of gold inflation. People against it complain about how much harder it is to get gold. People arguing against Ursan complain about dumbing down of builds. People arguing for it talk about how it brings players of all skill levels together to have fun in otherwise difficult areas. There are reasonable arguments for and reasonable arguments against.

In this case, there are good arguments against what Anet did. They created a perception of treating different parts of the community differently. They subtracted less grind than the easily could have. They poorly communicated the news in the update notes creating a false impression of a gain that never materialized.

The only good argument for the decision they made was the potential impact on the economy - something Anet easily could have mitigated. Nearly all of the other arguments I've read, I am sorry to say, are ad hominem. They are criticizing the complainers for being ungrateful. That is simply not an argument in support of what Anet has done. It is a personal attack. That isn't to say that the complainers haven't done the same thing, but sprinkled throughout the QQ'ing are valid arguments against.

I wish the "pro" side would offer why what Anet did was a good idea. Saying the complainers are "greedy" or "lazy" or deficient in some other way is getting old.

Cale Roughstar · Nov 20, 2008, 03:59 AM // 03:59

@ hallomik

Very good post, and I agreed with most of what you said. However, I think the one problem in the comparison between the EotN rep books and the new books is that the EotN books were introduced almost immediately, while many people still had a reasonable amount still to be completed, whereas these new books are coming several years later, when almost everyone has completed the requirements.

I would say that the point of the update was to not so much meant to reduce the grind, but more to provide alternatives and new modes in which the grind may be more enjoyable. To make these books retroactive would have been giving a LOT of free points. Handouts were not part of the update.

The idea of not making them retroactive fits the goal of reducing and/or making the grind more enjoyable, while avoiding "freebies".

Hyper Cutter · Nov 20, 2008, 05:09 AM // 05:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cale Roughstar

Very good post, and I agreed with most of what you said. However, I think the one problem in the comparison between the EotN rep books and the new books is that the EotN books were introduced almost immediately, while many people still had a reasonable amount still to be completed, whereas these new books are coming several years later, when almost everyone has completed the requirements.

It's more like when they increased the rewards on the books and gave everyone who'd turned one in already the chance to fill out another (for the usual fee) and turn it in for the new reward. And that's exactly what people expected from these books, I think (I know I was)...

Sjeng · Nov 20, 2008, 06:39 AM // 06:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cale Roughstar

I would say that the point of the update was to not so much meant to reduce the grind...

I was under the impression that was the whole idea...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cale Roughstar

The idea of not making them retroactive fits the goal of reducing and/or making the grind more enjoyable, while avoiding "freebies".

See? you said it yourself! But they havent reduced the grind. They only offered more ways to grind for the titles. Still grind imo.

maraxusofk · Nov 20, 2008, 07:02 AM // 07:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quaker

Blah, blah, blah. Stop your whining kids. Get over it.

whining gets things done. if the americans didnt whine about britian, there would have been no revolution. whining about bush got us obama instead of mccain. whining in a democracy is necessary.

DreamWind · Nov 20, 2008, 07:58 AM // 07:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by hallomik

The only good argument for the decision they made was the potential impact on the economy - something Anet easily could have mitigated. Nearly all of the other arguments I've read, I am sorry to say, are ad hominem. They are criticizing the complainers for being ungrateful. That is simply not an argument in support of what Anet has done. It is a personal attack. That isn't to say that the complainers haven't done the same thing, but sprinkled throughout the QQ'ing are valid arguments against.

Excellent post my friend.

Fril Estelin · Nov 20, 2008, 08:00 AM // 08:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by hallomik

What "greater good" comes from not making the books retroactive?

Simply put, the greater good comes from players not only looking at what benefits them, but what would benefit others. (remember this oldie

) And btw I'm in favor of retroactive books (only if the whole range of rewards is changed so as to not make the gains unbalanced, but we don't have the numbers and Anet should give an explanation on this point), but to talk about fairness without mentioning the tons of things that "veterans" got and that new players will never get is not right.

It's the right of players to come here and complain/criticise, even saying that they don't want to play the game anymore (because they've played it too much before) but still get new rewards (which is the most difficult bit to accept for someone actually playing the game, if they'd be willing to play the game, they'd get the books like everyone else). But I find it much more healthy in a global sense to thank Anet for getting people to play the game again, rather than push the envelope of fairness such that players can do nothing (not play) and still get something (just have to log in to get free faction, which all veterans did but they want more).

As much as I don't want to tell people how to play and have fun, it's difficult to defend a position where you don't want to play but still want cookies for having played (or for the number of months that the command /age returns, which can also be very unfair because many people would have been "veterans" if they knew about GW long before, it's not like veterans have an inner ability that is intrinsically syperior to newer players, whatever veterans/new players means anyway...).

Abedeus · Nov 20, 2008, 08:17 AM // 08:17

NOBODY WANTS THE MONEY
NOBODY WANTS THE MONEY
NOBODY WANTS THE MONEY
NOBODY WANTS THE MONEY
NOBODY WANTS THE MONEY

We want only Faction. Faction doesn't ruin the economy. There is no reason not to give people with Protectors/Guardians Faction, because they did missions + bonuses. Right now people don't need bonus or master to get the book.

We STILL would have done more than they, it would be a bit more fair.

Riot Narita · Nov 20, 2008, 09:06 AM // 09:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sjeng

But they havent reduced the grind. They only offered more ways to grind for the titles

*sigh* They HAVE reduced the grind.

They didn't only offer more ways to grind for the titles: they also offered ways to grind titles that are faster than the previous fastest methods

Faster gains = Less grind

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sjeng

Still grind imo

Yes, if you want max titles, they don't come free - you grind for them. That's never going to change. But you grind less now, and you have more choices.

Pwny Ride · Nov 20, 2008, 09:07 AM // 09:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abedeus

NOBODY WANTS THE MONEY
NOBODY WANTS THE MONEY
NOBODY WANTS THE MONEY
NOBODY WANTS THE MONEY
NOBODY WANTS THE MONEY

I do. Thats the only reason i want retroactivity.

I'm greedy.

Gill Halendt · Nov 20, 2008, 09:20 AM // 09:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

As much as I don't want to tell people how to play and have fun, it's difficult to defend a position where you don't want to play but still want cookies for having played (or for the number of months that the command /age returns, which can also be very unfair because many people would have been "veterans" if they knew about GW long before, it's not like veterans have an inner ability that is intrinsically syperior to newer players, whatever veterans/new players means anyway...).

1 - Sorry, but the book system hasn't brought any "fun" in this game. As Linsey herself said, it was just meant to make "grinding feeling less like grinding", and it failed miserably in the task in my opinion, since rewards are mostly minor and not really worth the time spent doing books over and over. Sure, people might have fun repeating missions hundred of times (I probably will do it myself), but saying this suddenly made the game "fun" again is a bit far-fetched in my opinion.

2 - People are not asking for "cookies". They're asking for the very same reward awarded to new players for doing half the job. Just once, for having played the whole game without the book system - which is easily demonstrated by the progression track in the game, not just Protectors or Guardians titles - , which should have been introduced much earlier to make any sense. BTW, I don't see anyone who wants "free" rewards while not willing to play. I WANT to play. Problem is I've ALSO played a lot before. It's not like people complaining are asking for enough faction to max all the titles. Even if we get a retroactive book, we'll still need to complete a lot more books in most cases.

3 - What's so "unfair" in the response of the /age command? You don't think the age of your account/characters makes them "superior" in any way, do you?

4 - People getting the game now don't have this "superior return" when typing /age, whatever that is (other players can't even see how old your characters are...). Yet they get a much cheaper game, 3 years of bugfixes and updates, improved gameplay. The games have also been tuned to be more welcoming and easier for newcomers. I don't think this is an advantage, but for some new player it is. So they get enough advantages for getting the game so late. Taking care about new players is good, but it's not a good reason to make older players upset tough.

5 - What the heck are you saying? It's not about "superiority", the only one talking about superiority it's YOU, by thinking tha /age makes "veterans" superior in any way, and by saying getting factions could make them feel even more superior than they supposedly are. If we ever get those books retroactive, nobody is gonna notice. So "veterans" have no way to make "new players" feel any superiority thanks to a modest increase in their rep titles. I really hope you were kidding about this...

6 - I'm getting sick of people thinking that older players are unpleasant and greedy. That's a stupid generalization.

BTW... It's actually very simple. Much simpler than this whole "superiority" business.

Requirement for the book reward: doing missions to be recorded in the book.

Anyone playing before 13th November probably fullfills this requirement. Yet Anet made this just a problem of timing. A friend of mine joined my guild yesterday. He got the game almost a month ago. I'm helping him and he's now playing in the Maguuma Jungle. He's a new player. Guess what? He has three or four missions accomplished before the update, which he has to do AGAIN for them to be recorded in the book. Hadn't I helped him to learn the basics, he would have probably been stuck in the pre-searing still. So is it my fault for being an helpful and pleasant "veteran"... and screwing up his first book? See if it's just a matter of age now.

Riot Narita · Nov 20, 2008, 09:38 AM // 09:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gill Halendt

Guess what? He has three or four missions accomplished before the update, which he has to do AGAIN for them to be recorded in the book.

He doesn't have to repeat them if he doesn't want to. A partially complete book still gives a nice benefit that wouldn't exist if A-Net hadn't added the books at all. Of course, if he wants MORE benefit from the book, he can choose to repeat those three of four missions.

Fril Estelin · Nov 20, 2008, 09:41 AM // 09:41

Here is a version of the argument that IMHO better shows the "fair" side of things:

Grind was introduced in the game and many (most?) players don't like it at all. Despite this update slightly reducing grind and/or making it less painful/boring to play the game (depending on your style of play), the Factions Allegiance titles are still very difficult to attain (and it's everyone's right to want to get them). While it may be slightly better now for "newer" player who are not bored of redoing the game's content, there would have been an easy way to simplify it for "older" players who have (possibly extensively) played the game at a time when these titles didn't exist. In effect, retroactively granting protectors/guardians the corresponding NM and HM books without money rewards would put these players back on the track to these titles, which are after all more a matter of time than skill. And because they've spent more time, they should get more progress towards these grindy titles, it's only fair.

(possible consequence: if these retroactive book rewards are granted by Anet, and the sudden increase in players in-game is stopped, the community will have lost an opportunity to get together again, newer and older players alike, pugging to have fun)

fenix · Nov 20, 2008, 09:44 AM // 09:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abedeus

NOBODY WANTS THE MONEY
NOBODY WANTS THE MONEY
NOBODY WANTS THE MONEY
NOBODY WANTS THE MONEY
NOBODY WANTS THE MONEY

We want only Faction. Faction doesn't ruin the economy. There is no reason not to give people with Protectors/Guardians Faction, because they did missions + bonuses. Right now people don't need bonus or master to get the book.

We STILL would have done more than they, it would be a bit more fair.

I ONLY want the money. I couldn't give two shits about faction.

Gill Halendt · Nov 20, 2008, 10:29 AM // 10:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hissy

He doesn't have to repeat them if he doesn't want to. A partially complete book still gives a nice benefit that wouldn't exist if A-Net hadn't added the books at all. Of course, if he wants MORE benefit from the book, he can choose to repeat those three of four missions.

Spot on. But why can't he get full benefit, just for having done a couple of missions two days before the update? Why does he need to do them again to get the full reward?

Don't tell me you wouldn't even care if that happened to you. I won't believe it.