STIHL.2489
-
Posts
2,387 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Articles
Gallery
Posts posted by STIHL.2489
-
-
> @"Cyninja.2954" said:
> > @"STIHL.2489" said:
> > But by all means.. go forth and think this is a new thing and be confused by it.
>
> People are not confused by this, they are unwilling to accept your personalized definition of content, especially since you have shown poor forum and discussion etiquette by misquoting others (which in and of itself is an act since it requires for you to actively change something after pressing the quote button).
>
So like how you snipped my quote?.. funny that, but anyway, let me see if I have this right, what you are saying is that they are just being petty and argumentative.
Thanks for the clarification.
-
> @"Linken.6345" said:
> > @"STIHL.2489" said:
> > > @"Linken.6345" said:
> > > > > @"Linken.6345" said:
> > > > > > @"STIHL.2489" said:
> > > > > > Just in case anyone wants to know what a [Fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies "Fallacy") actually is, here is a list of them. To call something a fallacy, is a [Equivocation ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation "Equivocation ")Fallacy, unless you state which Fallacy is being used. Which also seemed to be the same fallacy the person that bought up fallacies was using in their whole discussion... just saying.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also, I stand by what I said.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Meta Events, World Bosses, DE's, and the like are Social Content, and they build the social value of the game as well.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Raids, Fractals, and Dungeons, are group Events, as they require you to be in a group to interact with other players in that content.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > as some have pointed out (Hence the subject of this topic).. group content is not always good for the social development of a game.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well since I can do dungeons and fractals solo, I guess they are single player content too?
> > > > > As other have stated wb, meta events are group content you dont have to be in a party since the game it self dont restrict you in that way there is no kill stealing etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > Social content would mean I have to communicate with people I dont have to do that at all in open world.
> > > >
> > > > Nope,
> > > >
> > > > You are trying to imply difficulty affects the content type, this is false.
> > > >
> > > > You can do Story Dungeons Solo as well, but if you want to play with another player in that content, you are _required_ to group with them, which makes the content group content, regardless of their difficulty level.
> > > >
> > > > On same token Just like I can solo Dynamic Event, but they are still Social Events as anyone can come join in on the event, participate in it with me, and get rewards as well.
> > > >
> > > > Now if you are going to try and derail this thread with silly semantics, I am going to have to ask you stop.
> > >
> > > Dident say anything about difficulty you said you had to be in a group to do fractals and dungeons.
> > > I dont have to be in a group to do t1-t2 fractals or ascalon dungeon for example so then thats not group content according to your terms.
> > > Edit
> > > Even wierder you would lable that as social content and yea its about as social as me running around doing world bosses, map completing or group dynamic events.
> > > To put it bluntly its zero social.
> >
> > Why do you quote me, yet not read what I said?
> >
> > What do you do? Just make up what you think I said? Just FYI.. that's called a "Strawman" and it's a fallacy.
>
> You mean the exact same thing as you did when you accused me of implying difficulty affects the content type?
>
> Edit
> Your right about me reading it wrong.
> I read it as you had to be in a gorup to play it not that the only way to bring someone with you was being in a group.
> But if I dont have to be in a group to do the content is it still group content?
> If it is then group dynamic events world bosses are group content aswell since you can do the solo sure but its easier with more people.
>
> And since you dont have to socialise with any of the people around you its not social content.
>
> Source
> > @"STIHL.2489" said:
> > > @"zombyturtle.5980" said:
> > > > @"STIHL.2489" said:
> > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:
> > > > > > @"zombyturtle.5980" said:
> > > > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:
> > > > > > > > @"Cattastrophy.2874" said:
> > > > > > > > Don't join groups or play with people who don't want the same things in the game as you do. They won't like you, you won't like them.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's one problem with raid system now. It mixes people with different goals in the same content, while at the same time being demanding enough that even small differences in opinion/behaviour can cause tempers to flare.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think thats a problem with almost every mode. Ticket farmers in PVP and WVW who just want rewards and dont want to enjoy the mode itself clash constantly with the more hardcore players of that mode.
> > > > > Yes, that's true. Basically, it happens every time you create a mode where players need to depend on each other, design it for a specific group of players, and then create rewards aimed at a completely different group of players. The more effort and teamplay the content requires, the more toxicity is going to happen.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > So what exactly is the advantage of making this content then, if it invariably breeds a toxic environment?
> > >
> > > The enjoyment people get out of group content is worth the risk of toxicity from a small number of people. If you remove all group content from an MMO you end up with a single player live service. This is not what gw2 is intended to be.
> > >
> > > Do you really want all dungeons, fractals, raids, wvw, pvp and group events removed from the game?
> >
> > You are confusing social content with group content.
> >
> > Dungeons, Fractals, and Raids, are **group content** as they **require** you to be in a group to play with other people, such they are group based content.
> snip
You are confusing the act of socializing with doing content in a social environment.
Here is a hint: You can be anti-social in a social situation, even in real life.
-
> @"Linken.6345" said:
> > > @"Linken.6345" said:
> > > > @"STIHL.2489" said:
> > > > Just in case anyone wants to know what a [Fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies "Fallacy") actually is, here is a list of them. To call something a fallacy, is a [Equivocation ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation "Equivocation ")Fallacy, unless you state which Fallacy is being used. Which also seemed to be the same fallacy the person that bought up fallacies was using in their whole discussion... just saying.
> > > >
> > > > Also, I stand by what I said.
> > > >
> > > > Meta Events, World Bosses, DE's, and the like are Social Content, and they build the social value of the game as well.
> > > >
> > > > Raids, Fractals, and Dungeons, are group Events, as they require you to be in a group to interact with other players in that content.
> > > >
> > > > as some have pointed out (Hence the subject of this topic).. group content is not always good for the social development of a game.
> > >
> > > Well since I can do dungeons and fractals solo, I guess they are single player content too?
> > > As other have stated wb, meta events are group content you dont have to be in a party since the game it self dont restrict you in that way there is no kill stealing etc.
> > >
> > > Social content would mean I have to communicate with people I dont have to do that at all in open world.
> >
> > Nope,
> >
> > You are trying to imply difficulty affects the content type, this is false.
> >
> > You can do Story Dungeons Solo as well, but if you want to play with another player in that content, you are _required_ to group with them, which makes the content group content, regardless of their difficulty level.
> >
> > On same token Just like I can solo Dynamic Event, but they are still Social Events as anyone can come join in on the event, participate in it with me, and get rewards as well.
> >
> > Now if you are going to try and derail this thread with silly semantics, I am going to have to ask you stop.
>
> Dident say anything about difficulty you said you had to be in a group to do fractals and dungeons.
> I dont have to be in a group to do t1-t2 fractals or ascalon dungeon for example so then thats not group content according to your terms.
> Edit
> Even wierder you would lable that as social content and yea its about as social as me running around doing world bosses, map completing or group dynamic events.
> To put it bluntly its zero social.
Why do you quote me, yet not read what I said?
What do you do? Just make up what you think I said? Just FYI.. that's called a "Strawman" and it's a fallacy.
-
> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:
> > @"ButcherofMalakir.4067" said:
> > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said:
> > > > @"STIHL.2489" said:
> > > > Just in case anyone wants to know what a [Fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies "Fallacy") actually is, here is a list of them. To call something a fallacy, is a [Equivocation ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation "Equivocation ")Fallacy, unless you state which Fallacy is being used. Which also seemed to be the same fallacy the person that bought up fallacies was using in their whole discussion... just saying.
> > > >
> > > > Also, I stand by what I said.
> > > >
> > > > Meta Events, World Bosses, DE's, and the like are Social Content, and they build the social value of the game as well.
> > > >
> > > > Raids, Fractals, and Dungeons, are group Events, as they require you to be in a group to interact with other players in that content.
> > > >
> > > > as some have pointed out (Hence the subject of this topic).. group content is not always good for the social development of a game.
> > >
> > > Quoting partially
> > > Quoting out of context
> > > Modifying the context
> > >
> > > Ermm...I think you are right, it isn't fallacy, not the modifying part. That is called fabricating facts, right? I am not sure if that is any better.
> > >
> > > Lastly, you mentioned "not always good" but that also means "not always bad". It is the same as "half filled" and "half empty", both meant the same. Using that in your argument, doesn't that means you actually acknowledge that group contents are not necessary not social contents as well? However, you don't mean it that way in your other post, are you not getting confused yourself?
> > >
> > > > @"STIHL.2489" said:
> > > > Dungeons, Fractals, and Raids, are group content as they require you to be in a group to play with other people, such they are group based content.
> > > >
> > > > WvW and open world like content IE: World Bosses, Meta Events, Dynamic Events, etc, are Social Content as they have no such requirement to group for anyone to contribute to the completion and receive a reward for doing so.
> > >
> > > This is what you literally wrote. I will highlight keywords.
> > >
> > > **group** content as they **require** you to be in a group to play with other people
> > > are Social Content as they have no such **requirement** to **group** for anyone
> > >
> > > It is completely contradicting to your acknowledgement that group contents are not necessary not social contents.
> > >
> > > I understand what you are trying to say but my point here is your usage on the terms are inappropriate, are wrong. Correct it.
> >
> > Not always good is the same as at least 1 time bad. It can be bad all the time and not always good still holds.
>
> Your first statement and last statement are contradicting each other, you know? If it is bad all the time, then it is simply bad.
>
> People use "not always" because there are certain "conditions" that make it so. For example, "drinking water is not always good". Are that saying drinking water is bad? Of course not, there are certain conditions tied to it. Drinking water can provide a lot of health benefits but you can also end up with water intoxication if drank too much.
>
> He/she by using "not always" means he/she is saying that "group contents" are not "social contents" on certain conditions which also means that "group contents" can be "social contents" on certain conditions. That by itself is contradicting to his/her previous post where he/she defined "Group" and "Social" as distinct terms involving ingame features of party and squad. That again is to say his/her terms are just complete confusing mess which he refuse to admit and correct.
>
> Edit: And to further clarified, he/she did used "social development" but at the same time, he/she did mention "as some have pointed out". I believe in the entire thread, only he used "social content" and "group content" in that definition of his or her. All others are using "social content" as in social sense. It is puzzling how he has no issue understanding what others are talking about if he or she does not acknowledge in the widely known meanings for "social content". It is just rationally difficult to get around it. It is like using the word "boil" as "melt", "When ice boil, it become water". Can you wire your brain to think that way while already having another set of definition? It's difficult. It highly suggest he or she does subconsciously recognize the widely known meaning for "social content" and "group content".
Since you have accused me of inventing terms with "Social Content".. you have openly admitted that you have no basis for what Social Content is, so as far as you go, and others like you, there is no "Wildly Known meaning" for Social Content.
Check yourself before you wreck yourself.
-
I love how people are all of a sudden so insanely confused on the idea of social content. Let me enlighten you all with this, Social Content has been around since MMO's, in fact, Social Content was in fact the FIRST kind of MMO content to ever exist. Hence the very idea of Kill Stealing, where one person could take the kill away from another person, simply by doing more damage to it. It wasn't even group content because in the beginning opposing groups could kill steal each other, in some games they could even flat out kill each other, it was all just open social content, we were all forced to deal with each other, we couldn't go hide away in our private little groups and do our private little group based content and think we were all so special for it, because all of us got a trophy at the end. No, we had to log in and deal with each other, for better and for worse.
But by all means.. go forth and think this is a new thing and be confused by it.
-
> @"Linken.6345" said:
> > @"STIHL.2489" said:
> > Just in case anyone wants to know what a [Fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies "Fallacy") actually is, here is a list of them. To call something a fallacy, is a [Equivocation ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation "Equivocation ")Fallacy, unless you state which Fallacy is being used. Which also seemed to be the same fallacy the person that bought up fallacies was using in their whole discussion... just saying.
> >
> > Also, I stand by what I said.
> >
> > Meta Events, World Bosses, DE's, and the like are Social Content, and they build the social value of the game as well.
> >
> > Raids, Fractals, and Dungeons, are group Events, as they require you to be in a group to interact with other players in that content.
> >
> > as some have pointed out (Hence the subject of this topic).. group content is not always good for the social development of a game.
>
> Well since I can do dungeons and fractals solo, I guess they are single player content too?
> As other have stated wb, meta events are group content you dont have to be in a party since the game it self dont restrict you in that way there is no kill stealing etc.
>
> Social content would mean I have to communicate with people I dont have to do that at all in open world.
Nope,
You are trying to imply difficulty affects the content type, this is false.
You can do Story Dungeons Solo as well, but if you want to play with another player in that content, you are _required_ to group with them, which makes the content group content, regardless of their difficulty level.
On same token Just like I can solo Dynamic Event, but they are still Social Events as anyone can come join in on the event, participate in it with me, and get rewards as well.
Now if you are going to try and derail this thread with silly semantics, I am going to have to ask you stop.
-
Just in case anyone wants to know what a [Fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies "Fallacy") actually is, here is a list of them. To call something a fallacy, is a [Equivocation ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation "Equivocation ")Fallacy, unless you state which Fallacy is being used. Which also seemed to be the same fallacy the person that bought up fallacies was using in their whole discussion... just saying.
Also, I stand by what I said.
Meta Events, World Bosses, DE's, and the like are Social Content, and they build the social value of the game as well.
Raids, Fractals, and Dungeons, are group Events, as they require you to be in a group to interact with other players in that content.
as some have pointed out (Hence the subject of this topic).. group content is not always good for the social development of a game.
-
-
> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:
> > @"STIHL.2489" said:
> > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said:
> > > > @"STIHL.2489" said:
> > > > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said:
> > > > > > @"STIHL.2489" said:
> > > > > > > @"zombyturtle.5980" said:
> > > > > > > > @"STIHL.2489" said:
> > > > > > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:
> > > > > > > > > > @"zombyturtle.5980" said:
> > > > > > > > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:
> > > > > > > > > > > > @"Cattastrophy.2874" said:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Don't join groups or play with people who don't want the same things in the game as you do. They won't like you, you won't like them.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > That's one problem with raid system now. It mixes people with different goals in the same content, while at the same time being demanding enough that even small differences in opinion/behaviour can cause tempers to flare.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I think thats a problem with almost every mode. Ticket farmers in PVP and WVW who just want rewards and dont want to enjoy the mode itself clash constantly with the more hardcore players of that mode.
> > > > > > > > > Yes, that's true. Basically, it happens every time you create a mode where players need to depend on each other, design it for a specific group of players, and then create rewards aimed at a completely different group of players. The more effort and teamplay the content requires, the more toxicity is going to happen.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So what exactly is the advantage of making this content then, if it invariably breeds a toxic environment?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The enjoyment people get out of group content is worth the risk of toxicity from a small number of people. If you remove all group content from an MMO you end up with a single player live service. This is not what gw2 is intended to be.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Do you really want all dungeons, fractals, raids, wvw, pvp and group events removed from the game?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You are confusing social content with group content.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dungeons, Fractals, and Raids, are **group content** as they **require** you to be in a group to play with other people, such they are group based content.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > WvW and open world like content IE: World Bosses, Meta Events, Dynamic Events, etc, are **Social Content** as they have no such requirement to group for anyone to contribute to the completion and receive a reward for doing so.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Spare me the "Oh no it would be a Solo Game without group content" there is only Fractals, Dungeons and Raids that are group content, and there is a huge world of the game that is social content.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > They could get rid of the group content, BDO did, and it;s doing fine.
> > > > >
> > > > > Social and Group content. That's some new terms you got there.
> > > >
> > > > It's called evolving with the times, as games change, so too do the terms to accurately describe what is going on.
> > > >
> > > > Trying to claim a Meta Event and a Fractal are the same, or both group content, is as egregiousness as trying to claim that a private birthday party and a block party are the same because they are both called parties.
> > > >
> > > > at some point.. you're just wrong.
> > >
> > > That's some justification there but you seems to forgotten the importance of defining the terms, just what are "social" and "group"?
> > > Reminder, assumptions caused many conflicts in the world.
> >
> > I defined exactly what each was, in simple words that anyone should have been able to understand the difference.
> >
> > > You are confusing social content with group content.
> > >
> > > Dungeons, Fractals, and Raids, are **group content** as they **require** you to be in a group to play with other people, such they are group based content.
> > >
> > > WvW and open world like content IE: World Bosses, Meta Events, Dynamic Events, etc, are **Social Content** as they have no such requirement to group for anyone to contribute to the completion and receive a reward for doing so.
> >
>
> Yes you did and is hard to get around your definition since you really did invent a new term.
I see that Didn't stop you from trying by playing with worlds.
So at this point you are just arguing for the sake of it.
No matter how you try to twist thing or engage in word play, at the end of things, you would still be wrong.
With that said, Not worth the time.
-
> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:
> > @"STIHL.2489" said:
> > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said:
> > > > @"STIHL.2489" said:
> > > > > @"zombyturtle.5980" said:
> > > > > > @"STIHL.2489" said:
> > > > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:
> > > > > > > > @"zombyturtle.5980" said:
> > > > > > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:
> > > > > > > > > > @"Cattastrophy.2874" said:
> > > > > > > > > > Don't join groups or play with people who don't want the same things in the game as you do. They won't like you, you won't like them.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That's one problem with raid system now. It mixes people with different goals in the same content, while at the same time being demanding enough that even small differences in opinion/behaviour can cause tempers to flare.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think thats a problem with almost every mode. Ticket farmers in PVP and WVW who just want rewards and dont want to enjoy the mode itself clash constantly with the more hardcore players of that mode.
> > > > > > > Yes, that's true. Basically, it happens every time you create a mode where players need to depend on each other, design it for a specific group of players, and then create rewards aimed at a completely different group of players. The more effort and teamplay the content requires, the more toxicity is going to happen.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So what exactly is the advantage of making this content then, if it invariably breeds a toxic environment?
> > > > >
> > > > > The enjoyment people get out of group content is worth the risk of toxicity from a small number of people. If you remove all group content from an MMO you end up with a single player live service. This is not what gw2 is intended to be.
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you really want all dungeons, fractals, raids, wvw, pvp and group events removed from the game?
> > > >
> > > > You are confusing social content with group content.
> > > >
> > > > Dungeons, Fractals, and Raids, are **group content** as they **require** you to be in a group to play with other people, such they are group based content.
> > > >
> > > > WvW and open world like content IE: World Bosses, Meta Events, Dynamic Events, etc, are **Social Content** as they have no such requirement to group for anyone to contribute to the completion and receive a reward for doing so.
> > > >
> > > > Spare me the "Oh no it would be a Solo Game without group content" there is only Fractals, Dungeons and Raids that are group content, and there is a huge world of the game that is social content.
> > > >
> > > > They could get rid of the group content, BDO did, and it;s doing fine.
> > >
> > > Social and Group content. That's some new terms you got there.
> >
> > It's called evolving with the times, as games change, so too do the terms to accurately describe what is going on.
> >
> > Trying to claim a Meta Event and a Fractal are the same, or both group content, is as egregiousness as trying to claim that a private birthday party and a block party are the same because they are both called parties.
> >
> > at some point.. you're just wrong.
>
> That's some justification there but you seems to forgotten the importance of defining the terms, just what are "social" and "group"?
> Reminder, assumptions caused many conflicts in the world.
I defined exactly what each was, in simple words that anyone should have been able to understand the difference.
> You are confusing social content with group content.
>
> Dungeons, Fractals, and Raids, are **group content** as they **require** you to be in a group to play with other people, such they are group based content.
>
> WvW and open world like content IE: World Bosses, Meta Events, Dynamic Events, etc, are **Social Content** as they have no such requirement to group for anyone to contribute to the completion and receive a reward for doing so.
-
> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:
> > @"STIHL.2489" said:
> > > @"zombyturtle.5980" said:
> > > > @"STIHL.2489" said:
> > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:
> > > > > > @"zombyturtle.5980" said:
> > > > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:
> > > > > > > > @"Cattastrophy.2874" said:
> > > > > > > > Don't join groups or play with people who don't want the same things in the game as you do. They won't like you, you won't like them.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's one problem with raid system now. It mixes people with different goals in the same content, while at the same time being demanding enough that even small differences in opinion/behaviour can cause tempers to flare.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think thats a problem with almost every mode. Ticket farmers in PVP and WVW who just want rewards and dont want to enjoy the mode itself clash constantly with the more hardcore players of that mode.
> > > > > Yes, that's true. Basically, it happens every time you create a mode where players need to depend on each other, design it for a specific group of players, and then create rewards aimed at a completely different group of players. The more effort and teamplay the content requires, the more toxicity is going to happen.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > So what exactly is the advantage of making this content then, if it invariably breeds a toxic environment?
> > >
> > > The enjoyment people get out of group content is worth the risk of toxicity from a small number of people. If you remove all group content from an MMO you end up with a single player live service. This is not what gw2 is intended to be.
> > >
> > > Do you really want all dungeons, fractals, raids, wvw, pvp and group events removed from the game?
> >
> > You are confusing social content with group content.
> >
> > Dungeons, Fractals, and Raids, are **group content** as they **require** you to be in a group to play with other people, such they are group based content.
> >
> > WvW and open world like content IE: World Bosses, Meta Events, Dynamic Events, etc, are **Social Content** as they have no such requirement to group for anyone to contribute to the completion and receive a reward for doing so.
> >
> > Spare me the "Oh no it would be a Solo Game without group content" there is only Fractals, Dungeons and Raids that are group content, and there is a huge world of the game that is social content.
> >
> > They could get rid of the group content, BDO did, and it;s doing fine.
>
> Social and Group content. That's some new terms you got there.
It's called evolving with the times, as games change, so too do the terms to accurately describe what is going on.
Trying to claim a Meta Event and a Fractal are the same, or both group content, is as egregiousness as trying to claim that a private birthday party and a block party are the same because they are both called parties.
at some point.. you're just wrong.
-
> @"yann.1946" said:
> On a sidenote do you really think people are arguing against you because they want to argue against you?
>
Absolutely.
> @"yann.1946" said:
> I'm still not sure what the p2w argument of some person on mountgate is relevent to this tho?
Oh .. yah.. that.. well a bit back.. during the idea selling DLC, I made a note that people calling Mountgate P2W made me laugh... and you know.. people just HAD to disagree with me. .. and lo here we are.
Which kinda answers your above question.
-
> @"yann.1946" said:
> > @"STIHL.2489" said:
> > > @"maddoctor.2738" said:
> > > Notice the similarities:
> > > "Are you hardcore? WildStar raids are not for the faint of heart"
> > > "They are 10-player, instanced content that will introduce very challenging bosses, epic encounters, and more!"
> >
> > Yes.. I did notice that.. similarity between Wildstar and HoT.
> >
> > I also noticed Anet going "Oh kitten, we are sorry about that stupid Hardcore thing we tried, silly us,, here is a whole expansion of casual friendly stuff for you to enjoy called PoF, please forgive our stupid mistake"
>
> Cause they aren't developing pvp (2v2) new raids etc. And there where no negative reactions to pof absolutely.
>
> It's easy to miss the things you don't want to see I guess.
Very true, I noticed a lot of people making complainants about PoF, in fact.. maybe more then fussed about HoT, but after HoT their numbers tanked like a lead balloon, and now after PoF the numbers are coming back, as such the people that loved HoT and hated PoF are not really their profit demographic. Sometimes you gotta pick your battles, and when it comes to MMO's, if you want to stay alive, you side with the people that are willing to pay for their hobby.
Keep in mind, Casuals are not going to come to the forms in mass to make demands, they are casual simply because they do not have that kind of time to waste on a game, they will simply quietly stop playing and move on. Anet and many other developers would do well to understand that.
-
> @"maddoctor.2738" said:
> > @"STIHL.2489" said:
> > I also noticed Anet going "Oh kitten, we are sorry about that stupid Hardcore thing we tried, silly us,, here is a whole expansion of casual friendly stuff for you to enjoy called PoF, please forgive our stupid mistake"
>
> Cause they stopped developing Raids... PoF having more casual friend stuff to enjoy is arguable.
Given you think "Housing" is casual content, it's not a discussion I would have with you about what is casual friendly content.
-
> @"yann.1946" said:
> I apparently lost it but how does 1 or 2 people calling mountadoption licenses p2w relate to this topic?
Glad you asked. See, the idea here is "Are Raids Profitable", which is a point regarding their access, and keeping them Niche content.
The thing here is that Anet uses a system where they sell unrelated cosmetic items and various consumables/bank space in the store and then use the sales money from those items to fund development of other parts of the game.
This making it so that is is very hard to track what retains players and keeps sales up. IE: It's near impossible to see what content is in fact profitable.
Now I argued that this is the worst way to fund game development, if they sold additional content individually they would know what sells among their population and could focus on that. To understand this, they already have several existing dungeons in the core game of GW2, all linked to the Personal Story. These would remain free and part of the core game, then they would then make additional Dungeons and sell them Individually. if they sold well enough (IE: Self funded their own development) they would make and sell more of them.
There was a bit of dissent on this topic and mu opponents brought up the outrage regarding Mount Skin, and the like (IE: Players don't like spending money. and wanty everything for free. imagine that).. but, if they sold content directly, they would not need to be as aggressive in how they sold cosmetics in the store, in fact, they could remove store cosmetics from the game overall, and just put them directly in the Content itself, so players could buy say a World Map, or a Dungeon, or Fractal Map, that unlocked a new skin for each mount, or a special custom weapon set, maybe a unique mask style, etc.. Thus making it so players had to play the game for their pretty items, and not just open their wallets.
But.. you know.. if I said anything there are a whole group of people on this forum that would argue and disagree with me no matter what.
-
> @"Cyninja.2954" said:
> > @"STIHL.2489" said:
> > > @"Cyninja.2954" said:
> > > > @"STIHL.2489" said:
> > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said:
> > > > > > @"STIHL.2489" said:
> > > > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said:
> > > > > > > > @"STIHL.2489" said:
> > > > > > > > > @"mortrialus.3062" said:
> > > > > > > > > No one called mount skins P2W. They were called out for being too similar to lootboxes, which have been a hot topic since Overwatch's influence exploded them into more and more games; manipulative RNG pachinko machines. Especially since the specter of spending money on the gem store wanting a specific mount skin, and walking away without wanted felt like it went against everything the gem store stood for by being so much more fair than other F2P games.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is so wrong it;s not even funny.. Not only did they call the Mount Skins P2W, you make it seem like this game didn't have BLC in the game since the start (Which are directly loot boxes, and that is just stating the obvious), Black Lion Weapon Skins, anyone? Not to mention that a vast number of other purely cosmetic stuff in the store is also sold in RNG Loot Box Style, which have been a staple since the Start like Dye Packs, Minis, etc. So, again the ridiculousness of Mount Gate, will never be lost on me, because mount skins were just like the other existing RNG of the Store... and yes.. they called it P2W, I think I i have seen them still cal it P2W.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For some one asking others to refrain from lying often, the amount of stretching you do here to fit your agenda is insane.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mount skins were absolutely NOT called pay to win.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Again.. you seem to forget, that I was there, yes they were, and for quite some time after as well. Reilly showed me how worthless the like P2W had become. in fact Mount gate killed any P2W cries for me.
> > > > >
> > > > > So it's your word against mine and most other peoples who have posted so far since we were "all there".
> > > > >
> > > > > Well that and the logical fallacy that mounts skins have any bearing on any type of "winning" as well as that the, by now remedied, rng acquisition method actually would make sense logically to have aggravated people.
> > > >
> > > > Given that some people have shown to have very tinted glasses in this discussion..
> > > >
> > > > But just so we are clear, they did not change anything, they simply said, "We need to do this to make money,.. how would you like to be fleeced?" and after some consideration, they went with the High Dollar packs with Little to no RNG. Which is what Mount Skins are at now.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > and none of any of that is pay to win.
> >
> > I agree totally.. didn't stop people from calling it such tho.
> >
> > (Which was my whole point. in case you missed that)
>
> Which you have no yet in any way proven, not even by basic logic which I had pointed out.
>
> What did you say earlier?
>
> > @"STIHL.2489" said:
> > Given that some people have shown to have very tinted glasses in this discussion..
>
> That's "the pot calling the kettle black" right there.
This whole topic has been pots and kettles.. did you just get that now?
-
> @"maddoctor.2738" said:
> Notice the similarities:
> "Are you hardcore? WildStar raids are not for the faint of heart"
> "They are 10-player, instanced content that will introduce very challenging bosses, epic encounters, and more!"
Yes.. I did notice that.. similarity between Wildstar and HoT.
I also noticed Anet going "Oh shit, we are sorry about that stupid Hardcore thing we tried, silly us,, here is a whole expansion of casual friendly stuff for you to enjoy called PoF, please forgive our stupid mistake"
-
> @"Cyninja.2954" said:
> > @"STIHL.2489" said:
> > > @"Cyninja.2954" said:
> > > > @"STIHL.2489" said:
> > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said:
> > > > > > @"STIHL.2489" said:
> > > > > > > @"mortrialus.3062" said:
> > > > > > > No one called mount skins P2W. They were called out for being too similar to lootboxes, which have been a hot topic since Overwatch's influence exploded them into more and more games; manipulative RNG pachinko machines. Especially since the specter of spending money on the gem store wanting a specific mount skin, and walking away without wanted felt like it went against everything the gem store stood for by being so much more fair than other F2P games.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is so wrong it;s not even funny.. Not only did they call the Mount Skins P2W, you make it seem like this game didn't have BLC in the game since the start (Which are directly loot boxes, and that is just stating the obvious), Black Lion Weapon Skins, anyone? Not to mention that a vast number of other purely cosmetic stuff in the store is also sold in RNG Loot Box Style, which have been a staple since the Start like Dye Packs, Minis, etc. So, again the ridiculousness of Mount Gate, will never be lost on me, because mount skins were just like the other existing RNG of the Store... and yes.. they called it P2W, I think I i have seen them still cal it P2W.
> > > > >
> > > > > For some one asking others to refrain from lying often, the amount of stretching you do here to fit your agenda is insane.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mount skins were absolutely NOT called pay to win.
> > > >
> > > > Again.. you seem to forget, that I was there, yes they were, and for quite some time after as well. Reilly showed me how worthless the like P2W had become. in fact Mount gate killed any P2W cries for me.
> > >
> > > So it's your word against mine and most other peoples who have posted so far since we were "all there".
> > >
> > > Well that and the logical fallacy that mounts skins have any bearing on any type of "winning" as well as that the, by now remedied, rng acquisition method actually would make sense logically to have aggravated people.
> >
> > Given that some people have shown to have very tinted glasses in this discussion..
> >
> > But just so we are clear, they did not change anything, they simply said, "We need to do this to make money,.. how would you like to be fleeced?" and after some consideration, they went with the High Dollar packs with Little to no RNG. Which is what Mount Skins are at now.
> >
> >
>
> and none of any of that is pay to win.
I agree totally.. didn't stop people from calling it such tho.
(Which was my whole point. in case you missed that)
-
> @"mortrialus.3062" said:
> > @"STIHL.2489" said:
> > > @"Cyninja.2954" said:
> > > > @"STIHL.2489" said:
> > > > > @"mortrialus.3062" said:
> > > > > No one called mount skins P2W. They were called out for being too similar to lootboxes, which have been a hot topic since Overwatch's influence exploded them into more and more games; manipulative RNG pachinko machines. Especially since the specter of spending money on the gem store wanting a specific mount skin, and walking away without wanted felt like it went against everything the gem store stood for by being so much more fair than other F2P games.
> > > >
> > > > This is so wrong it;s not even funny.. Not only did they call the Mount Skins P2W, you make it seem like this game didn't have BLC in the game since the start (Which are directly loot boxes, and that is just stating the obvious), Black Lion Weapon Skins, anyone? Not to mention that a vast number of other purely cosmetic stuff in the store is also sold in RNG Loot Box Style, which have been a staple since the Start like Dye Packs, Minis, etc. So, again the ridiculousness of Mount Gate, will never be lost on me, because mount skins were just like the other existing RNG of the Store... and yes.. they called it P2W, I think I i have seen them still cal it P2W.
> > >
> > > For some one asking others to refrain from lying often, the amount of stretching you do here to fit your agenda is insane.
> > >
> > > Mount skins were absolutely NOT called pay to win.
> >
> > Again.. you seem to forget, that I was there, yes they were, and for quite some time after as well. Reilly showed me how worthless the like P2W had become. in fact Mount gate killed any P2W cries for me.
>
> Pics or it didn't happen
Given @"maddoctor.2738" responses. pics don't work either.
-
> @"Cyninja.2954" said:
> > @"STIHL.2489" said:
> > > @"Cyninja.2954" said:
> > > > @"STIHL.2489" said:
> > > > > @"mortrialus.3062" said:
> > > > > No one called mount skins P2W. They were called out for being too similar to lootboxes, which have been a hot topic since Overwatch's influence exploded them into more and more games; manipulative RNG pachinko machines. Especially since the specter of spending money on the gem store wanting a specific mount skin, and walking away without wanted felt like it went against everything the gem store stood for by being so much more fair than other F2P games.
> > > >
> > > > This is so wrong it;s not even funny.. Not only did they call the Mount Skins P2W, you make it seem like this game didn't have BLC in the game since the start (Which are directly loot boxes, and that is just stating the obvious), Black Lion Weapon Skins, anyone? Not to mention that a vast number of other purely cosmetic stuff in the store is also sold in RNG Loot Box Style, which have been a staple since the Start like Dye Packs, Minis, etc. So, again the ridiculousness of Mount Gate, will never be lost on me, because mount skins were just like the other existing RNG of the Store... and yes.. they called it P2W, I think I i have seen them still cal it P2W.
> > >
> > > For some one asking others to refrain from lying often, the amount of stretching you do here to fit your agenda is insane.
> > >
> > > Mount skins were absolutely NOT called pay to win.
> >
> > Again.. you seem to forget, that I was there, yes they were, and for quite some time after as well. Reilly showed me how worthless the like P2W had become. in fact Mount gate killed any P2W cries for me.
>
> So it's your word against mine and most other peoples who have posted so far since we were "all there".
>
> Well that and the logical fallacy that mounts skins have any bearing on any type of "winning" as well as that the, by now remedied, rng acquisition method actually would make sense logically to have aggravated people.
Given that some people have shown to have very tinted glasses in this discussion..
But just so we are clear, they did not change anything, they simply said, "We need to do this to make money,.. how would you like to be fleeced?" and after some consideration, they went with the High Dollar packs with Little to no RNG. Which is what Mount Skins are at now.
-
> @"maddoctor.2738" said:
> > @"STIHL.2489" said:
> > [Here you go](
"Here you go").>
> I don't see anything in there about marketing the game for hardcore players and raids. So try again.
>
Just so we are clear.. You missed this under the first link: When I said "[Here you Go](
"Here you Go")"You totally did not see the:
> WildStarOnline Published on May 13, 2014
> Are you hardcore? WildStar raids are not for the faint of heart, and we're ready to prove that with this DevSpeak. Mega bosses and hostile environments are ready to destroy you in the most insane raids Nexus has ever known.
Well if you missed that, I don't see a point in trying again, since you turned a total blind eye to what you were given.
-
> @"Cyninja.2954" said:
> > @"STIHL.2489" said:
> > > @"mortrialus.3062" said:
> > > No one called mount skins P2W. They were called out for being too similar to lootboxes, which have been a hot topic since Overwatch's influence exploded them into more and more games; manipulative RNG pachinko machines. Especially since the specter of spending money on the gem store wanting a specific mount skin, and walking away without wanted felt like it went against everything the gem store stood for by being so much more fair than other F2P games.
> >
> > This is so wrong it;s not even funny.. Not only did they call the Mount Skins P2W, you make it seem like this game didn't have BLC in the game since the start (Which are directly loot boxes, and that is just stating the obvious), Black Lion Weapon Skins, anyone? Not to mention that a vast number of other purely cosmetic stuff in the store is also sold in RNG Loot Box Style, which have been a staple since the Start like Dye Packs, Minis, etc. So, again the ridiculousness of Mount Gate, will never be lost on me, because mount skins were just like the other existing RNG of the Store... and yes.. they called it P2W, I think I i have seen them still cal it P2W.
>
> For some one asking others to refrain from lying often, the amount of stretching you do here to fit your agenda is insane.
>
> Mount skins were absolutely NOT called pay to win.
Again.. you seem to forget, that I was there, yes they were, and for quite some time after as well. Reilly showed me how worthless the like P2W had become. in fact Mount gate killed any P2W cries for me.
-
> @"maddoctor.2738" said:
> > @"STIHL.2489" said:
> > Just like now, people thinking that Raids would self fund when another of NcSofts games, Wildstar, which was marketed as a Hardcore raid game, just shut down. Truth is, hard content does not sell, that is why Riaders in this game need casuals to fund their content.
>
> For example, Wildstar had some of the best housing system in an mmorpg. I guess that so much asked for casual feature didn't save the game :(
Nope.. not at all. Giving a bunch of pointless grind content o players that you treat like second class citizens while you dolt upon your raiders the best stuff ever, is not going to endear casuals to your game.
This is a lesson GW2 should pay attention to as well, when it thinks it's putting out "Casual" content.
> Wildstar marketed as a hardcore raid game? Care to provide some advertisement for Wildstar were they ACTUALLY state that?
>
[Here you go](
"Here you go").I hope my My point is made... but even if I posted [other links](
"other links"), I going to guess you will just stick you head in the sand and ignore all that.. because it does not agree with what you want to be true.I can't find too many links.. because you know.. the game that was marketed as Hardcore died.. so they took down their own links. But you know.. i[t was common knowledge that it was a hardcore's game.](https://steamcommunity.com/app/376570/discussions/0/2727382174635335744/ "t was common knowledge that it was a hardcore's game.")
[The fact that you are even questioning this is laughable](
"The fact that you are even questioning this is laughable").And the fact that you think a "House" is casual.. is insulting. I mean like, really, dude, can you show you have no idea what a casual even is when you say things like "Oh it has housing it must be for casuals" like What.. really.. hardcore players don't use housing? Painfully laughable.
-
> @"mortrialus.3062" said:
> No one called mount skins P2W. They were called out for being too similar to lootboxes, which have been a hot topic since Overwatch's influence exploded them into more and more games; manipulative RNG pachinko machines. Especially since the specter of spending money on the gem store wanting a specific mount skin, and walking away without wanted felt like it went against everything the gem store stood for by being so much more fair than other F2P games.
This is so wrong it;s not even funny.. Not only did they call the Mount Skins P2W, you make it seem like this game didn't have BLC in the game since the start (Which are directly loot boxes, and that is just stating the obvious), Black Lion Weapon Skins, anyone? Not to mention that a vast number of other purely cosmetic stuff in the store is also sold in RNG Loot Box Style, which have been a staple since the Start like Dye Packs, Minis, etc. So, again the ridiculousness of Mount Gate, will never be lost on me, because mount skins were just like the other existing RNG of the Store... and yes.. they called it P2W, I think I i have seen them still cal it P2W.
I laughed myself to the high heavens over that, the absurdity of it was hilarious, I still can't help but to laugh now.
Just like now, people thinking that Raids would self fund when another of NcSofts games, Wildstar, which was marketed as a Hardcore raid game, just shut down. Truth is, hard content does not sell, that is why Riaders in this game need casuals to fund their content.
Honestly, I think players would rather just buy more of the content they want to play, then deal with buying cosmetics and seeing their money go into developing content they will never touch and might even hate.
In fact if they took this approach, WvW might get the Dev Time is so desperately needs.
Raiding is on the verge of destroying huge segments of the GW2 community, if it hasn't already
in Instanced Group Content
Posted
> @"rabenpriester.7129" said:
> I don't know how all of you guys in here find the time to write so much but don't find the time to learn raids.
Post from Work.. it's not hard.