Leo G.4501

> @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > @"sevenDEADLY.5281" said:

> > As Ayakaru said, the demands become more and more until they're unreasonable. Anet already supports this through their content as many have pointed out. Now you're mad because that's not enough and you're demanding they change their logo. Then, if/when that's done, you'll decide that isn't enough and make another demand that's one step up, and so on and so on until it very quickly becomes unreasonable or more likely begins to infringe on another subgroup of people. Does Arenanet have to change their logo for black history month? Do they have to change their logo for jewish american heritage month? What about other places besides the united states? LGBT history month is February in the UK, but oh wait thats black history month is the US. Who gets to decide what anet does with their logo for February? Can't have one without excluding the other. LBGT isn't even the only celebrated group for June, why do they get June and the others are excluded? If you can't see the problem with going down this route, then you really are only making this suggestion to benefit yourself and no one else.

>

> Who is demanding what?

>

> Arenanet decided to do something with their own logo. Are you arguing that they shouldnt be allowed to do what they want with their own property?

>

I'd personally argue that, they can do what they want to with their logo but when someone on the forums goes and stirs the pot and pokes at the hornet's nest, expect people to get silenced and expect people to get mad about not being able to criticise the OP or Anet's choice of support. It's just best not to bring identity politics into the game...but Anet are the catalyst here...

> @"Turin.6921" said:

> 1. Every piece of culture is political. Every expressions is political. Even the stance "i do not care about politics" is a political stance. Politics is just an expression of a viewpoint. And the viewpoint is basically how you view your life and the world, including what entertains you. How could it not, even unconsciously, part of any creative media. Its like asking to breath without oxygen.

>

> 2. The game is already taking a specific stance on the matter based on content. Its the logo that made the difference?

>

> 3. You are missing an option in the poll: I do not even care about a logo- why should I? There are more important things to care about.

1. You, as an individual, are free to take a political stance on a matter but the moment you infringe on that freedom of another individual to express their political view because you don't agree with it or you feel it is hateful or disruptive, you have mutated that notion of freedom and it should be stripped from you all the same. It's easier to just not dwell on politics in an environment that doesn't support free speech/expression.

2. The game is not an individual nor does it encompass the political views of all that fall under its logo. Saying that a game or company is taking a stance can only happen if it infringes on those involved to think and choose for themselves.

3. I agree with that.

> @"joneirikb.7506" said:

> That's long enough...

I will admit that wasn't the answer I was expecting but it was a consideration I have considered (player reception and all). None the less, I appreciate the clarification.

Expanding on tonics, from my personal point of view, is less optimal only because I've literally cared nothing for tonics. Ever. But that only leaves room for improvement can could be something that could indeed be a solution if they improve and expand the tonic system.

As for new races as a whole, I think more rationality on the part of the consumer isn't an unreasonable expectation. You're not wrong in thinking that the playerbase, in part, would respond to a minimalist race addition to the game but would it really cause a backlash if it doesn't detract but only add to the game? IMO, it's similar to the people who complained that the basic mounts in PoF had 1 dye channel and they had to spend money to get better looks. That didn't stop the mount system from being considered one of the better implementations of mounts in an MMORPG by practically everyone. That Anet puts as much effort into their races is why I'd hope they'd expand on that, because its a strength of the game...but instead we're relentlessly given bulky, flashing, animated armor and weapons to further mask the great work they put into the individuality of those races.

I think another missed opportunity could have been having some of the protaganists that accompany the main character could have been something a bit more diverse than just reskinned player characters. They could have had a bizarre skritt with a mutant brain that got dumber with more skritt around instead of smarter being the one in Taimie's place or anything but a pair of humans...

> @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

> > > In other news: what reason is there to propose a minimalist race concept if not to bypass the feasibility issues inherent to a new race? By even considering accepting less from a race, are we not already buying into the feasibility limitations that have been amply discussed elsewhere?

> >

> > That goes without saying. Every addition proposal has feasibility limitations which is why many things that players desire we don't have yet. It's the very same chopping block your armor sets rest on but you consistently see posters requesting more and for outfits to be transformed into armor pieces despite the feasibility being capped by the limitations of how armor is created and maintained.

>

> That goes without saying, also. ;)

>

> I notice you cropped my opinion as to the actual topic, instead focusing on discussing feasibility from a different angle. Was that because once someone has stated their opinion _as their opinion_, there is little or nothing to discuss? Maybe, just maybe, people discuss the feasibility of others' ideas because that's all there is to debate?

>

> Would you accept this approach to a new race or not? might as well be a poll. No, wait, check that thought. I'd rather the OP's approach to polling than the biased phrasing on most of the polls put out.

Well the purpose of the saying (the "goes without saying") is that such an observation is obvious. I replied to it as someone participating in a discussion would want to have their points discussed regardless (I'm assuming. Or would you rather I have not replied to you at all?).

As for cropping your opinion, it was because I have no objection to your opinion. You desire something I don't want and I desire something you don't want. There's no reason to press that any further. I choose to focus on the more objective portion which is pointing out that seeking to bypass limitations to make something more feasible is acknowledging that the feasibility of new races is low. We all acknowledge this.

And would I accept your approach for a new race (literally something new and not the current unavailable races)? It would depend. I wouldn't object to such a thing but I personally would like to finally make my Tengu Necromancer that I have drawn up.

> @"joneirikb.7506" said:

> On the whole, I think it would be more reasonable to look at cosmetic effects, like the Kodan Tonic, or variations of such for most new race needs, if you're going to "limit" the race. I can't imagine many happy posts if they added an "inferior" race to the game. :(

I would ask you to further differentiate the tonic effect from an additional inferior race but I already know the answer, I just don't understand why you don't understand the difference.

I'll paint the picture of my thought process here: So you see it as reasonable to look for battle tonic effects like the Kodan Tonic as an avenue to quell this desire for more races but feel that is *better* to do than adding an "inferior" race that can only wear the outfits and perhaps a few cultural outfits plus have voice acting and a personal story? No need to point out it would likely use variations of animations because a tonic likely does too but I cannot fathom why you would consider the former better than the latter in any conceivable way besides it requiring less time and work...but time and work (on your part) has no baring on if the finished product (not the process to produce it) is better. So can you explain how your reasoning makes sense to me?

> @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

> In other news: what reason is there to propose a minimalist race concept if not to bypass the feasibility issues inherent to a new race? By even considering accepting less from a race, are we not already buying into the feasibility limitations that have been amply discussed elsewhere?

That goes without saying. Every addition proposal has feasibility limitations which is why many things that players desire we don't have yet. It's the very same chopping block your armor sets rest on but you consistently see posters requesting more and for outfits to be transformed into armor pieces despite the feasibility being capped by the limitations of how armor is created and maintained.

> @"Sojourner.4621" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> > > > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > > > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> > > > > People keep coming up with ways to shoehorn new races in by making “second class races” that don’t have all the features of the current races. Considering that according to gw2efficiency the [percent of players that make and play non human races](https://gw2efficiency.com/account/player-statistics) trail behind the human race by a substantial amount, a race that will inevitably be seen as a budget cut race will be played even less, making the new races a loss and the money spent on it would be better spent on other features. A new race that has only a handful of armors will be a race that isn’t played much in a game where the endgame is collecting cosmetics.

> > > >

> > > > And all of players that play non human races still outnumber the players that only play human. Whether an option is considered "second class" or not is beside the point when they are grasping at any opportunity for custom options to even request battle tonics. What you call "shoehorn" others call "brainstorm". Beside the argument that something will be more work, any argument beyond that is merely being averse to work...and unless you want your product to have less work put into it, what's the point of pointing out something will be "more work".

> > > >

> > > > I also find it amusing how people take this whole "the endgame is collecting cosmetics" thing seriously. People only say that to justify GW2 having no endgame. People play the game because its fun, not because of some "endgame". The whole game is "endgame".

> > >

> > > Less say your new race is as popular as the Charr. That’s 12% of characters and 9% of playtime. Or maybe as popular as sylvari. 16% of characters, 15% of playtime. Do you actually think ANet can make money on a feature that attracts so few customers?

> > >

> >

> > Compared to what?

> >

> > I can create a scenario where it can make money off of such a feature. The basis of your argument stems from statistical comparison. Could they make more money from investing in a new race + custom armor and outfits vs making only armor for human models? Or are you asking could they make more money just belting out skins and not trying any other options?

> >

> >

> > > On top of that will be the reaction of the player base that buys a new race then finds out that it’s lesser in what it can do or wear. Do you actually think that the players won’t consider a bare bones race a cash grab and lazy design on ANet’s part? That they won’t complain bitterly about the limitations of their new toy? If you do then you haven’t seen the threads complaining about clipping on Charr armor.

> > >

> >

> > Again, compared to what? Compared to just buying outfits and waiting for armor? Compared to tonics?

> >

> > > “New races! With fewer features than before! 3 whole sets of armor per profession (that’s total armor guys. but don’t worry, you can buy outfits for your new race to wear). No access to personal story. Generic voice acting. Only $X, plus $10 for a new character slot. Buy now!”

> > >

> > > Naw. I’ll pass. Thnks.

> >

> > And this is the same old argument without any actual consideration for what an idea could be. That's pretty typical for posts in these parts, really. I mean, you don't have to like every idea you come across but it's another thing to go out of your way to demean an idea for that reason. At this point in the game's lifecycle, I suppose its to be expected.

> >

>

> Your entire topic has been proposed before. If you don't want people retreading an argument that has been had 100 times, then don't post a counter-proposal that has been made JUST as often. What you seem to be looking for is people shaking your hand and going "great idea" because so far nothing anyone has said has been new, not even what you've posted so far. My answer is no, I only want all the way or nothing at all.

For one, this isn't my thread. And two, I already know the proposal has been posted because I myself have posted it at least 3 times in the past as threads of my own and have responded to numerous more. And three, I never said I don't want people to retread arguments, I just point out when they do. And four, I'm not personally looking for anything as discussion usually never gets very far in these parts.

As for looking for people to affirm the idea, that's missing the point. We already know that people *want* more variety. The question is *how* and at what *cost*. So far, the points to be drawn from are that those that do desire more races desperately enough understand the impracticalities involved and are willing to sacrifice certain things to get something they want and the counterpoint is sacrificing anything will ruin the finished product beyond redeemability. I personally feel such a counterpoint is why adding more to the game, such as weapon types, armor sets, voice customization, animation customization, build customization, etc suffer because players expect more content more frequently for less cost. As a consumer, it's a no-brainer to use that counterpoint to leverage as best a payoff for the buck I spend, but those payoffs have consequences. It's why people no longer care about immersion in the game and only desire more flashy skins...because that's really the only payoff that's cost efficient enough to be viable. Now everything that could be produced has that level of efficacy hanging over it.

I'd like to discuss more but I doubt projecting my assumptions is something most here would care to read. It's easier to just hard pass on things.

> @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> No, I don’t think these new races threads have considered the problems or considered the consequences of the fixes they propose. I don’t think people will be happy with races that (from this or from previous threads) start at max level and can’t be leveled by playing. Don’t have access to story lines. Have minimal cosmetic options. Don’t have a unique voice. Don’t have unique race specific animations, or any other subtractions from current races that they think will fix problems.

>

> People don’t want to buy something that is less than what they’re used to. If they get a new race then they’re going to expect it to be equal to the old races in all its features. A new race that is bare bones will be a disappointment to the average player and will not be worth the costs to produce and the costs to maintain. If it doesn’t share the armor with another race then it will slow down new armor production on top of everything else.

>

> So thanks for the suggestion, but no thanks. I prefer ANet put its money towards features that will benefit a larger proportion of the players.

Other games have introduced races with limitations. But as games vary, so do the choosen limitations.

And the concept of brainstorming and exploring limitations is "considering the problems or consequences". It's extremely baffeling to be accused of not considering something when that is the very definition of what I and the OP are doing.

I'll do you a favor and disregard your claim as a statement for more than yourself, but the limits you brought up to support your claims, while individually not that big of a deal, collectively give your argument strength. But if a new race had everything the current races have except (for example), started at max level, I doubt anyone would care. If a new race had everything except a personal story, again not many would care. If a new race had everything except all the cosmetic options, some might care but it would depend on what cosmetic options were available. If a new race had everything except a unique voice (just borrowed one of the current voice overs), it likely would be jarring for some but people are already used to playing multiple of the same race with the exact same voice anyway so most people likely would manage and just enjoy playing a new PS, the old LW episodes, etc.

I don't think I have to go on. If you want to make a stronger argument, why not focus on the one present in the OP rather than conjuring up tangents? I mean, that's what people trying to solve a problem do. People that prefer to disrupt and destroy ideas are usually ones first willing to railroad discussion off topic.

> @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> > > People keep coming up with ways to shoehorn new races in by making “second class races” that don’t have all the features of the current races. Considering that according to gw2efficiency the [percent of players that make and play non human races](https://gw2efficiency.com/account/player-statistics) trail behind the human race by a substantial amount, a race that will inevitably be seen as a budget cut race will be played even less, making the new races a loss and the money spent on it would be better spent on other features. A new race that has only a handful of armors will be a race that isn’t played much in a game where the endgame is collecting cosmetics.

> >

> > And all of players that play non human races still outnumber the players that only play human. Whether an option is considered "second class" or not is beside the point when they are grasping at any opportunity for custom options to even request battle tonics. What you call "shoehorn" others call "brainstorm". Beside the argument that something will be more work, any argument beyond that is merely being averse to work...and unless you want your product to have less work put into it, what's the point of pointing out something will be "more work".

> >

> > I also find it amusing how people take this whole "the endgame is collecting cosmetics" thing seriously. People only say that to justify GW2 having no endgame. People play the game because its fun, not because of some "endgame". The whole game is "endgame".

>

> Less say your new race is as popular as the Charr. That’s 12% of characters and 9% of playtime. Or maybe as popular as sylvari. 16% of characters, 15% of playtime. Do you actually think ANet can make money on a feature that attracts so few customers?

>

Compared to what?

I can create a scenario where it can make money off of such a feature. The basis of your argument stems from statistical comparison. Could they make more money from investing in a new race + custom armor and outfits vs making only armor for human models? Or are you asking could they make more money just belting out skins and not trying any other options?

> On top of that will be the reaction of the player base that buys a new race then finds out that it’s lesser in what it can do or wear. Do you actually think that the players won’t consider a bare bones race a cash grab and lazy design on ANet’s part? That they won’t complain bitterly about the limitations of their new toy? If you do then you haven’t seen the threads complaining about clipping on Charr armor.

>

Again, compared to what? Compared to just buying outfits and waiting for armor? Compared to tonics?

> “New races! With fewer features than before! 3 whole sets of armor per profession (that’s total armor guys. but don’t worry, you can buy outfits for your new race to wear). No access to personal story. Generic voice acting. Only $X, plus $10 for a new character slot. Buy now!”

>

> Naw. I’ll pass. Thnks.

And this is the same old argument without any actual consideration for what an idea could be. That's pretty typical for posts in these parts, really. I mean, you don't have to like every idea you come across but it's another thing to go out of your way to demean an idea for that reason. At this point in the game's lifecycle, I suppose its to be expected.

> @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> People keep coming up with ways to shoehorn new races in by making “second class races” that don’t have all the features of the current races. Considering that according to gw2efficiency the [percent of players that make and play non human races](https://gw2efficiency.com/account/player-statistics) trail behind the human race by a substantial amount, a race that will inevitably be seen as a budget cut race will be played even less, making the new races a loss and the money spent on it would be better spent on other features. A new race that has only a handful of armors will be a race that isn’t played much in a game where the endgame is collecting cosmetics.

And all of players that play non human races still outnumber the players that only play human. Whether an option is considered "second class" or not is beside the point when they are grasping at any opportunity for custom options to even request battle tonics. What you call "shoehorn" others call "brainstorm". Beside the argument that something will be more work, any argument beyond that is merely being averse to work...and unless you want your product to have less work put into it, what's the point of pointing out something will be "more work".

I also find it amusing how people take this whole "the endgame is collecting cosmetics" thing seriously. People only say that to justify GW2 having no endgame. People play the game because its fun, not because of some "endgame". The whole game is "endgame".

> @"Dantert.1803" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> > > >I'm just saying this if we ever get new races or weapons I'm not saying that we will get them. I heard already the people that think that they prefer not to have a new race or that they think it's too much work for arenanet, thia is not the point of this post, so if that is your reply you can save yourself some time and avoid this thread :D

> > >

> > > If you only want people who agree with you to post then it’s not a discussion but a mutual congratulation society.

> >

> > I'm sure if it were a subject you were defending, you'd probably support the notion of avoiding unnecessary retreading of old arguments (the "beating a dead horse" argument), similar to the very post you present here (because you and I already know the OP has no power to regulate who can or cannot post on the thread but go ahead and retread that old argument).

> >

> > As for the OP, I've presented that avenue for new races, even going so far as to limit them to ONLY outfits upon release until more armor is created for the game going forward. The problem is that no one wants to discuss what compromises they are willing to make for certain content. It's weird, because usually ideas have to have compromises to fit in with the current environment. People will just argue why something won't happen or present their preferred content they want focus on.

>

> Well, you sir are actually adding to the topic, saying that you would be fine even with just outfits.

> Imo just outfits would make the new race feel like being closed behind 2 walls, the first would be buying the expansion that introduces the race and the second wall being the fact that if you don't own many outfits you are very limited.

> I would be fine with 4 or 5 armors to start with though. I think that it would be smart for anet, if they ever implement something like that, to fit all the outfits to the new race, otherwise people will complain about not being able to use the stuff that they paid.

Well, the way I would prefer it, it wouldn't just be 1 race made available but 2-3. If it was a must, I'd definitely see an expansion release with some in-game reward opening up one of the new races to play while the other 1 (2) would be unlocked via purchase in the gem store (or even more outrageously, as an account upgrade only purchasable with cash). The race unlocked in the expansion would be given a handful of armors (likely cultural armor) and an outfit for that race only. IMO, it's not about what walls its closed behind but rather if such a cosmetic option can be monitized to fund its creation. The other (2) race(s) would be the ones mainly blocked into outfits only as its something that is for people who want to spend money on cosmetics.

The other issues crop up when you go beyond the cosmetic aspects of it (IMO, posters overblow the whole part about all the work with the armor and refitting and what not...because they could simply skip that...). I'd personally want to also have a personal story go with a new race (not THE personal story like we have now but race specific ones that act as an intro for that character into Tyria). Voiceover work, I also feel people overblow considering it's usually not writing a new string of dialog but just using a different voice actor. I'm sure all the work involved isn't *nothing* but its hardly the hurdle people paint it to be.

> @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> >I'm just saying this if we ever get new races or weapons I'm not saying that we will get them. I heard already the people that think that they prefer not to have a new race or that they think it's too much work for arenanet, thia is not the point of this post, so if that is your reply you can save yourself some time and avoid this thread :D

>

> If you only want people who agree with you to post then it’s not a discussion but a mutual congratulation society.

I'm sure if it were a subject you were defending, you'd probably support the notion of avoiding unnecessary retreading of old arguments (the "beating a dead horse" argument), similar to the very post you present here (because you and I already know the OP has no power to regulate who can or cannot post on the thread but go ahead and retread that old argument).

As for the OP, I've presented that avenue for new races, even going so far as to limit them to ONLY outfits upon release until more armor is created for the game going forward. The problem is that no one wants to discuss what compromises they are willing to make for certain content. It's weird, because usually ideas have to have compromises to fit in with the current environment. People will just argue why something won't happen or present their preferred content they want focus on.

> @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> > > > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > > > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> > > > > > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > > > > > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> > > > > > > > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > > > > > > > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> > > > > > > > > > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ardenwolfe.8590" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @"wickedkae.4980" If you feel the need to create a name to offend people in a video game, you may also need to rethink your life.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Who's to say the person with the supposed offensive name was *trying* to offend anyone or that the person who is reporting it isn't *trying* to find something to be offended by?

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I find that many times, people report stuff not because they themselves are offended but rather they believe someone else *might* be offend. Worse still is when people intentionally develope thinner skin (or put on an act, at least) so they can be offended on someone else's behalf.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Does it matter. Unless you broadcast that you reported in chat or whisper the person no one, including the guy reported, will ever know. At that point it’s up to ANet. If it breaks ToS then it will get sanctioned. If it doesn’t then it won’t.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > In the context of the quote, it's addressing the double standard. So the people that get offended by letters and names might want to rethink their lives, those intentionally trolling others with inappropriate names and language should rethink their lives and those not actually offended and must play tone police should also likely rethink their lives.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Does it matter? I mean, unless you think advice doesn't matter then yeah, it doesn't.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >I find that many times, people report stuff not because they themselves are offended but rather they believe someone else might be offend.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I actually doubt you know this. You can’t have that many people tell you that they’ve reported someone and that’s the reason.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Okay, then refer to the above: If you get offended by letters and names, you might want to rethink your lives.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I'm not telling anyone how to report or what to report. That's not my place nor my job. But if you're looking logically and realistically at these situations, beyond censoring swear words so kids don't think it's okay to fling them around 800% of the time or inciting violence and harassment, how much of the things reported *actually* cause harm, physically or mentally?

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Just taking the forums as indication, I could get my posts moderated or deleted for simply hurting someone's feelings...and this is only a minute *fraction* of the GW2 community.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > The reason why there are report rules is because the game is a business trying to attract customers and make money. If a game gets a reputation that discourages people from trying it out or if names/chat are bad enough to push new players away then the game loses money, ANet is going to err on the strict side since the game is world wide and has many players with different standards on what is acceptable. It’s better for the game to be too squeaky clean than to be lax and lose customers who are truly offended by offensive chat and names. Just because you or other people aren’t offended and don’t report doesn’t mean that others aren’t offended, for religious reasons or other reasons.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Again, I'm not advising how or what to report. The thing is, people *need* to speak out with this whole politically correct outrage otherwise people think being offended is a protected class.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > And again, what difference does it make?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > To balance all the talk about being offended. If it makes a difference to be offended, it makes a difference to advocate for rising above offensive language.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Let’s me ask you a question then, Let’s say there is a gameA where unnecessary reports are silently filed and which disappear without trace. And there is a gameB which only has necessary reports filed. How would someone playing know which game it is, A or B? What changes are made to a game that has unnecessary, silent reports versus only necessary reports?

> > > >

> > > > Why are you asking me about reporting? I'm not arguing what should or shouldn't be reported or what happens to said reports. I'm saying, creating and maintaining a sterile environment has consequences. The things that were merely filtered and avoided by the past generation becomes taboos to the next generation as the filters compound.

> > >

> > > Everything has consequences. Sterile environments. Filthy environments. Environments in between. You can argue against sterile environments but you can’t argue against human nature. Human nature in this case is some people will find some things worth reporting that you don’t. You’re not going to convince those who are offended that they shouldn’t be offended, especially on the grounds that “it will make the game too sterile” since gw2 being a too sterile game is an impossibility. No game with tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of players from all over and with different standards will ever remotely be sterile as long as ToS is applied fairly.

> >

> > People will be offended by something and that is the end of the story. They rarely reflect on their actions or emotions and assume their perspective is just. I think that's a problem. Even if it's spraying tea in the wind, I don't think it's useless to have expectations of people rather than no expectations at all (or the worse expectations).

>

> My expectations are that most people are reasonable and only report what actually offends them and that others who might report based on what they think offends others are both few and intransigent. The first group doesn’t need to be told who to report or not report and the second group isn’t going to listen anyway. It is spraying tea in the wind to tell the intransigent what to not do. They’ll never hear your words as relevant to them. /shrug. Personally, if I’m going to have a cause I prefer one that has a higher possibility of success. Life is too short to tilt at windmills.

You're not practicing what you preach if you're still replying to me though (in regards to choice of cause or being tilted at windmills). I'm merely being contrarian to the notion that offense is a protected state because it is the accepted stance that if someone is offended, they are a victim. Considering this unequivocally accepted stance is predicated by vocal repetition, I don't feel it's pointless to break that repetition. All it takes is a couple minutes on my phone. Also, you underestimate how many that report on behalf of others perceived offense.

> @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> > > > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > > > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> > > > > > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > > > > > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> > > > > > > > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > > > > > > > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> > > > > > > > > > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @"Ardenwolfe.8590" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @"wickedkae.4980" If you feel the need to create a name to offend people in a video game, you may also need to rethink your life.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Who's to say the person with the supposed offensive name was *trying* to offend anyone or that the person who is reporting it isn't *trying* to find something to be offended by?

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I find that many times, people report stuff not because they themselves are offended but rather they believe someone else *might* be offend. Worse still is when people intentionally develope thinner skin (or put on an act, at least) so they can be offended on someone else's behalf.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Does it matter. Unless you broadcast that you reported in chat or whisper the person no one, including the guy reported, will ever know. At that point it’s up to ANet. If it breaks ToS then it will get sanctioned. If it doesn’t then it won’t.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > In the context of the quote, it's addressing the double standard. So the people that get offended by letters and names might want to rethink their lives, those intentionally trolling others with inappropriate names and language should rethink their lives and those not actually offended and must play tone police should also likely rethink their lives.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Does it matter? I mean, unless you think advice doesn't matter then yeah, it doesn't.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >I find that many times, people report stuff not because they themselves are offended but rather they believe someone else might be offend.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I actually doubt you know this. You can’t have that many people tell you that they’ve reported someone and that’s the reason.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Okay, then refer to the above: If you get offended by letters and names, you might want to rethink your lives.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I'm not telling anyone how to report or what to report. That's not my place nor my job. But if you're looking logically and realistically at these situations, beyond censoring swear words so kids don't think it's okay to fling them around 800% of the time or inciting violence and harassment, how much of the things reported *actually* cause harm, physically or mentally?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Just taking the forums as indication, I could get my posts moderated or deleted for simply hurting someone's feelings...and this is only a minute *fraction* of the GW2 community.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The reason why there are report rules is because the game is a business trying to attract customers and make money. If a game gets a reputation that discourages people from trying it out or if names/chat are bad enough to push new players away then the game loses money, ANet is going to err on the strict side since the game is world wide and has many players with different standards on what is acceptable. It’s better for the game to be too squeaky clean than to be lax and lose customers who are truly offended by offensive chat and names. Just because you or other people aren’t offended and don’t report doesn’t mean that others aren’t offended, for religious reasons or other reasons.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Again, I'm not advising how or what to report. The thing is, people *need* to speak out with this whole politically correct outrage otherwise people think being offended is a protected class.

> > > > >

> > > > > And again, what difference does it make?

> > > >

> > > > To balance all the talk about being offended. If it makes a difference to be offended, it makes a difference to advocate for rising above offensive language.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > Let’s me ask you a question then, Let’s say there is a gameA where unnecessary reports are silently filed and which disappear without trace. And there is a gameB which only has necessary reports filed. How would someone playing know which game it is, A or B? What changes are made to a game that has unnecessary, silent reports versus only necessary reports?

> >

> > Why are you asking me about reporting? I'm not arguing what should or shouldn't be reported or what happens to said reports. I'm saying, creating and maintaining a sterile environment has consequences. The things that were merely filtered and avoided by the past generation becomes taboos to the next generation as the filters compound.

>

> Everything has consequences. Sterile environments. Filthy environments. Environments in between. You can argue against sterile environments but you can’t argue against human nature. Human nature in this case is some people will find some things worth reporting that you don’t. You’re not going to convince those who are offended that they shouldn’t be offended, especially on the grounds that “it will make the game too sterile” since gw2 being a too sterile game is an impossibility. No game with tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of players from all over and with different standards will ever remotely be sterile as long as ToS is applied fairly.

People will be offended by something and that is the end of the story. They rarely reflect on their actions or emotions and assume their perspective is just. I think that's a problem. Even if it's spraying tea in the wind, I don't think it's useless to have expectations of people rather than no expectations at all (or the worse expectations).

> @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:

> > @"Ardenwolfe.8590" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" The point is posters admitted they used those names to bait, troll, and trigger their peers in-game. As far as false positives?

>

> Nope. Someone who is motivated by "humor", or whatever, and does something racist, sexist, homophobic, or whatever, has still done something bad.

>

> You are correct, however, that case-by-case analysis will apply to grey areas, such as a pig named "Donald J Trump", which may or may not be upsetting to people.

>

Didn't someone mention that a rule is in place that reporting a name of a real life person is legitimate? I personally wouldn't be offended but someone who is might want to reflect on some realities.

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > Again, I'm not advising how or what to report.

> Then why are you posting in this thread, in which the OP asked "how to report"?

>

>

>

Scroll back to the post I replied to initially for that answer.

> @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> > > > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > > > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> > > > > > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > > > > > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> > > > > > > > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > > > > > > > @"Ardenwolfe.8590" said:

> > > > > > > > > @"wickedkae.4980" If you feel the need to create a name to offend people in a video game, you may also need to rethink your life.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Who's to say the person with the supposed offensive name was *trying* to offend anyone or that the person who is reporting it isn't *trying* to find something to be offended by?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I find that many times, people report stuff not because they themselves are offended but rather they believe someone else *might* be offend. Worse still is when people intentionally develope thinner skin (or put on an act, at least) so they can be offended on someone else's behalf.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Does it matter. Unless you broadcast that you reported in chat or whisper the person no one, including the guy reported, will ever know. At that point it’s up to ANet. If it breaks ToS then it will get sanctioned. If it doesn’t then it won’t.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > In the context of the quote, it's addressing the double standard. So the people that get offended by letters and names might want to rethink their lives, those intentionally trolling others with inappropriate names and language should rethink their lives and those not actually offended and must play tone police should also likely rethink their lives.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Does it matter? I mean, unless you think advice doesn't matter then yeah, it doesn't.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > >I find that many times, people report stuff not because they themselves are offended but rather they believe someone else might be offend.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I actually doubt you know this. You can’t have that many people tell you that they’ve reported someone and that’s the reason.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Okay, then refer to the above: If you get offended by letters and names, you might want to rethink your lives.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I'm not telling anyone how to report or what to report. That's not my place nor my job. But if you're looking logically and realistically at these situations, beyond censoring swear words so kids don't think it's okay to fling them around 800% of the time or inciting violence and harassment, how much of the things reported *actually* cause harm, physically or mentally?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Just taking the forums as indication, I could get my posts moderated or deleted for simply hurting someone's feelings...and this is only a minute *fraction* of the GW2 community.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > The reason why there are report rules is because the game is a business trying to attract customers and make money. If a game gets a reputation that discourages people from trying it out or if names/chat are bad enough to push new players away then the game loses money, ANet is going to err on the strict side since the game is world wide and has many players with different standards on what is acceptable. It’s better for the game to be too squeaky clean than to be lax and lose customers who are truly offended by offensive chat and names. Just because you or other people aren’t offended and don’t report doesn’t mean that others aren’t offended, for religious reasons or other reasons.

> > > >

> > > > Again, I'm not advising how or what to report. The thing is, people *need* to speak out with this whole politically correct outrage otherwise people think being offended is a protected class.

> > >

> > > And again, what difference does it make?

> >

> > To balance all the talk about being offended. If it makes a difference to be offended, it makes a difference to advocate for rising above offensive language.

> >

> >

>

> Let’s me ask you a question then, Let’s say there is a gameA where unnecessary reports are silently filed and which disappear without trace. And there is a gameB which only has necessary reports filed. How would someone playing know which game it is, A or B? What changes are made to a game that has unnecessary, silent reports versus only necessary reports?

Why are you asking me about reporting? I'm not arguing what should or shouldn't be reported or what happens to said reports. I'm saying, creating and maintaining a sterile environment has consequences. The things that were merely filtered and avoided by the past generation becomes taboos to the next generation as the filters compound.

> @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> > > > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > > > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> > > > > > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > > > > > @"Ardenwolfe.8590" said:

> > > > > > > @"wickedkae.4980" If you feel the need to create a name to offend people in a video game, you may also need to rethink your life.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Who's to say the person with the supposed offensive name was *trying* to offend anyone or that the person who is reporting it isn't *trying* to find something to be offended by?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I find that many times, people report stuff not because they themselves are offended but rather they believe someone else *might* be offend. Worse still is when people intentionally develope thinner skin (or put on an act, at least) so they can be offended on someone else's behalf.

> > > > >

> > > > > Does it matter. Unless you broadcast that you reported in chat or whisper the person no one, including the guy reported, will ever know. At that point it’s up to ANet. If it breaks ToS then it will get sanctioned. If it doesn’t then it won’t.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > In the context of the quote, it's addressing the double standard. So the people that get offended by letters and names might want to rethink their lives, those intentionally trolling others with inappropriate names and language should rethink their lives and those not actually offended and must play tone police should also likely rethink their lives.

> > > >

> > > > Does it matter? I mean, unless you think advice doesn't matter then yeah, it doesn't.

> > > >

> > > > > >I find that many times, people report stuff not because they themselves are offended but rather they believe someone else might be offend.

> > > > >

> > > > > I actually doubt you know this. You can’t have that many people tell you that they’ve reported someone and that’s the reason.

> > > >

> > > > Okay, then refer to the above: If you get offended by letters and names, you might want to rethink your lives.

> > > >

> > > > I'm not telling anyone how to report or what to report. That's not my place nor my job. But if you're looking logically and realistically at these situations, beyond censoring swear words so kids don't think it's okay to fling them around 800% of the time or inciting violence and harassment, how much of the things reported *actually* cause harm, physically or mentally?

> > > >

> > > > Just taking the forums as indication, I could get my posts moderated or deleted for simply hurting someone's feelings...and this is only a minute *fraction* of the GW2 community.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > The reason why there are report rules is because the game is a business trying to attract customers and make money. If a game gets a reputation that discourages people from trying it out or if names/chat are bad enough to push new players away then the game loses money, ANet is going to err on the strict side since the game is world wide and has many players with different standards on what is acceptable. It’s better for the game to be too squeaky clean than to be lax and lose customers who are truly offended by offensive chat and names. Just because you or other people aren’t offended and don’t report doesn’t mean that others aren’t offended, for religious reasons or other reasons.

> >

> > Again, I'm not advising how or what to report. The thing is, people *need* to speak out with this whole politically correct outrage otherwise people think being offended is a protected class.

>

> And again, what difference does it make?

To balance all the talk about being offended. If it makes a difference to be offended, it makes a difference to advocate for rising above offensive language.

> @"Ardenwolfe.8590" said:

> @"Just a flesh wound.3589" Very true. Some of the games I play allow for some very questionable names which I will not say here. If my children were underaged again, I would never let them play those games based on the player names alone. Let's not even talk about some of the chat talk I've seen in global.

The purchasing power of children is low, though. If your children don't play those games, it's likely not a huge hit to the game. Also, I wouldn't let my kids play MMOs at all. Too time consuming. They have better things to do. They can play that stuff when they're older.

> @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> > > > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > > > @"Ardenwolfe.8590" said:

> > > > > @"wickedkae.4980" If you feel the need to create a name to offend people in a video game, you may also need to rethink your life.

> > > >

> > > > Who's to say the person with the supposed offensive name was *trying* to offend anyone or that the person who is reporting it isn't *trying* to find something to be offended by?

> > > >

> > > > I find that many times, people report stuff not because they themselves are offended but rather they believe someone else *might* be offend. Worse still is when people intentionally develope thinner skin (or put on an act, at least) so they can be offended on someone else's behalf.

> > >

> > > Does it matter. Unless you broadcast that you reported in chat or whisper the person no one, including the guy reported, will ever know. At that point it’s up to ANet. If it breaks ToS then it will get sanctioned. If it doesn’t then it won’t.

> > >

> >

> > In the context of the quote, it's addressing the double standard. So the people that get offended by letters and names might want to rethink their lives, those intentionally trolling others with inappropriate names and language should rethink their lives and those not actually offended and must play tone police should also likely rethink their lives.

> >

> > Does it matter? I mean, unless you think advice doesn't matter then yeah, it doesn't.

> >

> > > >I find that many times, people report stuff not because they themselves are offended but rather they believe someone else might be offend.

> > >

> > > I actually doubt you know this. You can’t have that many people tell you that they’ve reported someone and that’s the reason.

> >

> > Okay, then refer to the above: If you get offended by letters and names, you might want to rethink your lives.

> >

> > I'm not telling anyone how to report or what to report. That's not my place nor my job. But if you're looking logically and realistically at these situations, beyond censoring swear words so kids don't think it's okay to fling them around 800% of the time or inciting violence and harassment, how much of the things reported *actually* cause harm, physically or mentally?

> >

> > Just taking the forums as indication, I could get my posts moderated or deleted for simply hurting someone's feelings...and this is only a minute *fraction* of the GW2 community.

> >

> >

>

> The reason why there are report rules is because the game is a business trying to attract customers and make money. If a game gets a reputation that discourages people from trying it out or if names/chat are bad enough to push new players away then the game loses money, ANet is going to err on the strict side since the game is world wide and has many players with different standards on what is acceptable. It’s better for the game to be too squeaky clean than to be lax and lose customers who are truly offended by offensive chat and names. Just because you or other people aren’t offended and don’t report doesn’t mean that others aren’t offended, for religious reasons or other reasons.

Again, I'm not advising how or what to report. The thing is, people *need* to speak out with this whole politically correct outrage otherwise people think being offended is a protected class.

> @"Ardenwolfe.8590" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"Ardenwolfe.8590" said:

> > > @"wickedkae.4980" If you feel the need to create a name to offend people in a video game, you may also need to rethink your life.

> >

> > Who's to say the person with the supposed offensive name was *trying* to offend anyone or that the person who is reporting it isn't *trying* to find something to be offended by?

>

> The multiple admissions in this thread alone kind of prove that point.

It's a thread about reporting inappropriate names. Of course you're going to get a true positive result. That doesn't mean false positives won't get reported or that true negatives won't slip through.

> @"Ardenwolfe.8590" said:

> @"wickedkae.4980" If you feel the need to create a name to offend people in a video game, you may also need to rethink your life.

Who's to say the person with the supposed offensive name was *trying* to offend anyone or that the person who is reporting it isn't *trying* to find something to be offended by?

I find that many times, people report stuff not because they themselves are offended but rather they believe someone else *might* be offend. Worse still is when people intentionally develope thinner skin (or put on an act, at least) so they can be offended on someone else's behalf.

> @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:

> > > > @"Tashigi.3159" said:

> > > > Agreed. If you're going to rework something, at LEAST let the community test it in a PTR of sorts. If you can't do that, then just don't rework classes.

> > > > I've been bummed about the Deadeye rework since day one. You took away the coolest aspect of that spec.

> > >

> > > This is vastly less helpful than you imagine: while it will occasionally turn up bugs before release, it mostly is ineffective as the stuff that doesn't get caught with internal testing is the stuff that doesn't show up until 10,000 people try the thing all at once, because it is a super-rare issue. (...or, honestly, because no matter how silly doing something is, one of 'em is gonna try it, while the developers and beta testers? prolly not.)

> > >

> > > It definitely would not be a "community vote on features and reworks" experience anywhere; that just isn't going to happen. So, while you are clearly and reasonably disappointed by the changes, a play-test realm would not have significantly altered the overall flow of events here.

> >

> > That's the thing about player test servers, it's not a core of beta testers, it's the entire player community that is willing to log into a server that has no link to their main account.

>

> Yes. The WoW developers tell us that the proportion of players who do that is very low. The proportion who do it and report issues is minuscule; most of the people who log in expect fully polished and complete content, and complain if it is not delivered in that form.

>

> > This type of test server also has the benefit of trying more experimental solutions that won't get transferred to the main servers. Things that end up having intruiging results or results that had unintended benefits could be fit into future solutions.

>

> You are absolutely correct in everything you say, other than the assumption that "willing to log into a server..." is a significant enough proportion of the player base to help, or that random players are good at reporting issues they discover there. :)

Well the proportion may be low, but what about the count? I figure, it has to be better than a hired core of beta testers. And I'm sure quality would be the cost for the quantity but it wouldn't be the sole source of freedback and reporting.

I think the question would be, if such a change were put into their pool of options, how much more resources would it incur?

> @"Specialka.7290" said:

> You do not need to have a great build for Open world.

>

> I do not understand what ppl finds fun in a one button build. I tried it for a few hours, but it is even more boring than the malice system with rifle before the patch.

Happiness in simplicity is a reality. While complexity can provide challenge, it can also increase stress. Players play the game for many different reasons, some to challenge themselves, some to meet new people, others to talk and spend time with friends, and others still to relax from the stressors of their busy lives.

To be unable to understand this is to lack empathy. You don't have to enjoy what others enjoy, but being unable to comprehend why someone might enjoy sitting on their porch drinking tea or going out on a boat with a case of beer and a fishing rod or sitting in a cozy chair and reading a book...I may not enjoy all those things but I can emphathize how they can be enjoyable and relaxing.

FYI, the reason I enjoy the occasional P/P thief is because Equilibrium (not the trait, the movie).

> @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:

> > @"Tashigi.3159" said:

> > Agreed. If you're going to rework something, at LEAST let the community test it in a PTR of sorts. If you can't do that, then just don't rework classes.

> > I've been bummed about the Deadeye rework since day one. You took away the coolest aspect of that spec.

>

> This is vastly less helpful than you imagine: while it will occasionally turn up bugs before release, it mostly is ineffective as the stuff that doesn't get caught with internal testing is the stuff that doesn't show up until 10,000 people try the thing all at once, because it is a super-rare issue. (...or, honestly, because no matter how silly doing something is, one of 'em is gonna try it, while the developers and beta testers? prolly not.)

>

> It definitely would not be a "community vote on features and reworks" experience anywhere; that just isn't going to happen. So, while you are clearly and reasonably disappointed by the changes, a play-test realm would not have significantly altered the overall flow of events here.

That's the thing about player test servers, it's not a core of beta testers, it's the entire player community that is willing to log into a server that has no link to their main account. This type of test server also has the benefit of trying more experimental solutions that won't get transferred to the main servers. Things that end up having intruiging results or results that had unintended benefits could be fit into future solutions.