Curse

Evilsod · May 05, 2006, 12:20 AM // 00:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek Ravenclaw

Alright, I found it. You know what you were paying for?

"The best and most powerful alliances can venture on Elite Missions, which are designed to be the ultimate challenge for even the most experienced teams."

That's how it is. You got what you paid for.

So when did the words 'best' and 'powerful' actually mean 'we ave loads ov members so we r da pwnz0rs' ?

Gli · May 05, 2006, 12:21 AM // 00:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek Ravenclaw

How so? ArenaNet is highly successful, obviously decisions in the past have worked.

Need I spell it out? You're the poster child for a way of gaming people don't want to involve themselves with. The more you post, the more people will realize this. It may not do anything to ANet, but your posturing reaffirms what a lot of people believe is wrong with the gaming community. The preponderance of complete pricks. One of the reasons many people wouldn't dream of playing in any other way than with a select group of friends: the sheer dread of ending up in a guild with people like you.

You asked for it.

Sir_BlackJack · May 05, 2006, 12:22 AM // 00:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek Ravenclaw

What are you talking about? Seriously, translate the joke into Japanese. The little logic joke that is included in the English version will not translate it unless you force it, which ruins jokes.

Guess I'm not the only elitist in here.

Well done you were able to ignore my remarks and quoted again.

Plus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek Ravenclaw

Guess I'm not the only elitist in here.

Thank you for admiting it. Oh well actually I'm going to a crappy uni but I like it.

Derek Ravenclaw · May 05, 2006, 12:22 AM // 00:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evilsod

So when did the words 'best' and 'powerful' actually mean 'we ave loads ov members so we r da pwnz0rs' ?

It pretty much always has with Guild Wars, to think ArenaNet would change is to be ignorant. As much as Skill > Time Spent has been flaunted by ArenaNet, it always has been Time Spent > Skill. This is another example of that.

Derek Ravenclaw · May 05, 2006, 12:23 AM // 00:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gli

Need I spell it out? You're the poster child for a way of gaming people don't want to involve themselves with. The more you post, the more people will realize this. It may not do anything to ANet, but your posturing reaffirms what a lot of people believe is wrong with the gaming community. The preponderance of complete pricks.

Ad hominem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gli

One of the reasons many people wouldn't dream of playing in any other way than with a select group of friends: the sheer dread of ending up in a guild with people like you.

Elitism.

MelechRic · May 05, 2006, 12:24 AM // 00:24

Here Derek,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_logic

As far as my Japanese friends in the engineering department tell me this stuff holds true whether you speak Japanese, English or Martian.

1 OR 1 = 1

Sir_BlackJack · May 05, 2006, 12:25 AM // 00:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by MelechRic

Here Derek,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_logic

As far as my Japanese friends in the engineering department tell me this stuff holds true whether you speak Japanese, English or Martian.

1 + 1 = 1

Thank you

Derek Ravenclaw · May 05, 2006, 12:25 AM // 00:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by MelechRic

Here Derek,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_logic

As far as my Japanese friends in the engineering department tell me this stuff holds true whether you speak Japanese, English or Martian.

1 + 1 = 1

If you had reading comprehension you'd realize I was saying your joke doesn't translate, not that 1 or 1 = 1 doesn't translate. Also, 1 + 1 doesn't equal 1. What kind of school are you going to again?

Try again.

Evilsod · May 05, 2006, 12:26 AM // 00:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek Ravenclaw

It pretty much always has with Guild Wars, to think ArenaNet would change is to be ignorant. As much as Skill > Time Spent has been flaunted by ArenaNet, it always has been Time Spent > Skill. This is another example of that.

So i'm been ignorant now? Ironic coming from you. I could come online once a week or for 5hours a day and still go to FoW/UW when my region had the favour. Coming online 5hours a day would mean i could play more roles, builds, etc. Coming online once a week would mean i could play a couple of roles, most probably quite well. Would that stop me getting a group because i don't play much? The last time i checked people kick you from 5man teams to FoW for obviously been clueless, not for having a low /age count. The 2 are not 1 and the same.

vtrajan · May 05, 2006, 12:26 AM // 00:26

There is so much emotion and flaws in arguments because of emotion that I am going to cease and desist.
I disagree with most of you and because I tend to take everything with a grain of salt, there are a lot of reasons and significant logic that I can find to side with a.net on their decision on this.

It's not a great mechanic, it has its flaws, and certainly can be exploited in a certain way. But it works, there's a lot of good people at the top of the alliances, and you ARE able to access that content.

Do you have something better? Do you have the code, formulas, and product to present an alternative to them?
Can you do anything but say "this is dumb", "this sucks", "anet is dumb", "bad anet bad", "I won't buy chapter 3", "many won't buy chapter3"?

So far, I haven't seen a good alternative. Instead of arguing and flaming while maintaining some kind of moral or otherwise highground with overly verbose arguments, get together and construct an alternative?
If you can find a mechanic that requires -- even without the code to support it -- skill over time spent, in a WORKING and AGREEABLE method, present it.
I've only seen questionable theories and opinions on how else to do it.

These are my final words on this matter. Cheers all, thanks for your input!

MelechRic · May 05, 2006, 12:26 AM // 00:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek Ravenclaw

If you had reading comprehension you'd realize I was saying your joke doesn't translate, not that 1 or 1 = 1 doesn't translate. Also, 1 + 1 doesn't equal 1. What kind of school are you going to again?

Try again.

I modded the + (which is a symbol commonly used for LOGICAL OR) to the word OR so that you wouldn't be confused.

As for school... that was many moons ago my friend. Since then I've learned that I don't know it all.

Sir_BlackJack · May 05, 2006, 12:26 AM // 00:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek Ravenclaw

If you had reading comprehension you'd realize I was saying your joke doesn't translate, not that 1 or 1 = 1 doesn't translate. Also, 1 + 1 doesn't equal 1. What kind of school are you going to again?

Try again.

1) Not his Joke. Mine.

2) Fancy learning boolean?

3) 1 + 1 = 1 holds true, confused? try 2)

Derek Ravenclaw · May 05, 2006, 12:28 AM // 00:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evilsod

So i'm been ignorant now? Ironic coming from you. I could come online once a week or for 5hours a day and still go to FoW/UW when my region had the favour. Coming online 5hours a day would mean i could play more roles, builds, etc. Coming online once a week would mean i could play a couple of roles, most probably quite well. Would that stop me getting a group because i don't play much? The last time i checked people kick you from 5man teams to FoW for obviously been clueless, not for having a low /age count. The 2 are not 1 and the same.

Look at how /rank is migrating to PvE. Also, if you haven't grinded, chances are you aren't UAX, therefore you're not as valuable as other players who play as often as you. And it probably would dampen your ability to find a good group based on what skills you have, just maybe not in one specific zone, ToA.

Buoyancy · May 05, 2006, 12:29 AM // 00:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek Ravenclaw

Ad hominem.

So what? It's better than you deserve. Why don't you go back to WoW, since it's the kind of place where elitist fanboys like yourself belong.

Gli · May 05, 2006, 12:29 AM // 00:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek Ravenclaw

Ad hominem.

Yes, and totally warranted, because as I stated in the one part of my post that you chose not to quote, "You asked for it." And you did. Literally.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek Ravenclaw

Elitism.

No, not elitism. Cliquism. And again totally warranted. Your existance on this forum affirms all the prejudices that it's based upon.

Iskrah · May 05, 2006, 12:30 AM // 00:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek Ravenclaw

It pretty much always has with Guild Wars, to think ArenaNet would change is to be ignorant. As much as Skill > Time Spent has been flaunted by ArenaNet, it always has been Time Spent > Skill. This is another example of that.

Are you actually saying that ANet DOES lie?
And you still don't get what's the complaining about?

If you're OK with them lying, you should at least be able to understand other's frustration!

MelechRic · May 05, 2006, 12:30 AM // 00:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by vtrajan

There is so much emotion and flaws in arguments because of emotion that I am going to cease and desist.
I disagree with most of you and because I tend to take everything with a grain of salt, there are a lot of reasons and significant logic that I can find to side with a.net on their decision on this.

It's not a great mechanic, it has its flaws, and certainly can be exploited in a certain way.

Do you have something better? Do you have the code, formulas, and product to present an alternative to them?
Can you do anything but say "this is dumb", "this sucks", "anet is dumb", "bad anet bad", "I won't buy chapter 3", "many won't buy chapter3"?

So far, I haven't seen a good alternative. Instead of arguing and flaming while maintaining some kind of moral or otherwise highground with overly verbose arguments, get together and construct an alternative?
If you can find a mechanic that requires -- even without the code to support it -- skill over time spent, in a WORKING and AGREEABLE method, present it.
I've only seen questionable theories and opinions on how else to do it.

Actually you make a few decent points here. You and I are fundamentally opposed on our view of how good/bad this system is. That's fine. What I disagree with in your above statement is that we don't need to present an alternative in order to validate our arguments. We've said why we don't like Alliance control of elite missions and how we feel that it reduces the quality of experience for us. That's sufficient and should be enough for ANet to take notice. They are the gaming company and they are getting paid to develop and maintain the game. It's their job to find viable alternatives to what I consider a broken system because I'm paying them to do that as their customer.

Evilsod · May 05, 2006, 12:31 AM // 00:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir_BlackJack

1) Not his Joke. Mine.

2) Fancy learning boolean?

3) 1 + 1 = 1 holds true, confused? try 2)

If he can't figure that out i'm sure he'd love Maths which he seems so fond of.

Bet he'd have a heart attack when he learns that (2+i)(2-i) = 5 or that 3 + 3 = 0

vtrajan, do you do anything but come in here every other page, make 1 bitchy post about nothing in particular and go? Say something constructive or not at all.

Derek Ravenclaw · May 05, 2006, 12:31 AM // 00:31

Ever use the more commonly used operands, such as ∨? Also, I'm sorry that I use logic in applications such as computer science, where + has a much different meaning. Hell, + also has an implied meaning as AND for Boolean Logic.

Buoyancy · May 05, 2006, 12:31 AM // 00:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by vtrajan

So far, I haven't seen a good alternative.

Yes you have, since it's been posted many times in this thread. A good alternative is to completely remove the barriers to PVE content access that depend on a person being part of any political organization (ie. a guild). Then you remove the barriers to PVE content that are based on your geographic location and the PVP performance of other people. This should be obvious even to the people that can't do math at Anet.