sigur.9453

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > @"sigur.9453" said:

> > > @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > > > @"sigur.9453" said:

> > > > > @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > > > > I have yet to see a poll on these forums that isn't inherently biased. I really wish polls were not an option.

> > > >

> > > > hyperbole, but sure, thanks for sharing your opinion with us.

> > >

> > > That's not what hyperbole means.

> >

> > ok, so all polls on these forums are biased, got it.

>

> A hyperbolic statement is an exaggeration of fact that is not meant to be taken seriously (look it up). I offered my opinion on the polls that I have seen, not each and every poll on the forum. That is not hyperbole, nor is it a statement intended to include all polls. It is an opinion.

"Hyperbole, from a Greek word meaning "excess," is a figure of speech that uses extreme exaggeration to make a point or show emphasis. It is the opposite of understatement."

Your definition of "hyperbolic statmen"t is also correct though.

Since its not my native language i need to trust you on this (its translated to exaggeration in my language)

So my posting should have been

Ty for your anectotical obervation (i looked it up to make sure) then.

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > @"sigur.9453" said:

> > > @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > > I have yet to see a poll on these forums that isn't inherently biased. I really wish polls were not an option.

> >

> > hyperbole, but sure, thanks for sharing your opinion with us.

>

> That's not what hyperbole means.

ok, so all polls on these forums are biased, got it.

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> I have yet to see a poll on these forums that isn't inherently biased. I really wish polls were not an option.

hyperbole, but sure, thanks for sharing your opinion with us.

What a horrible poll.

„Choose A or suffer“

After derailing this threat with the „what does meta actually mean“ debate....

Could we derail further and stop calling damage dealers (ddˋs) damage per seconds (dps). Much appreciated!

> @"SeikeNz.3526" said:

> > @"Nephalem.8921" said:

> > > @"ArtSpace.7326" said:

> > > From my experience, people with 250KP are pathetic. New fractal came out, we were trying to do CM for more than 4 hours! They could not sustain themselves, learn how to dodge etc. Most of them had fractal titles (champion, savant and even god). Since I have never played shattered CM and had no KPs, it was both a pleasure and disgust watching those people fail over and over again. Now I`m making my own groups with DwD requirement, which worked so far great. Usually, we kill on 1-2 attempts.

> > >

> > > Yes, I`m a bit salty since I know I am better than most of those high KP people, but artificial gates prevents me from doing some of stuff (I came back to game long after shattered CM so I could not accumulate decent amount of KPs)

> >

> > From my experience, people with no prior cm knowledge have no idea how to burst, do 1-2k dps and then brag about being the last person alive even if the boss would take 30min with a party full of such players.

> > Most high kp groups do the fractal already without any heal saving 5-6min compared to the average party. How do you filter out people that are not used to play without a dedicated healer?

>

> so you saying the guy that did 2k dps stayed alive while your KP players died and it's his fault? O - M - G

Yes, since in „those groups“ the consent of people that play is:

Kill the target as fast as possible before it kills you.

If there is someone lacking on dps, the whole scenario falls apart, and often enough the last one standing is in fact the reason the other 4 players died.

Im not saying this is valid for all groups, but this is the most common tactic used.

But you would need to have enough exp in this content/playstyle to understand that.

> @"Tyson.5160" said:

> > @"sigur.9453" said:

> > > @"Tyson.5160" said:

> > > > @"sigur.9453" said:

> > > > > @"Dadnir.5038" said:

> > > > > I'm pretty sure asking for "kill proof" is a kind of discrimination and ANet do not support discriminations. Whether players use "kill proof" on a regular basis since years or not, probably don't change the position of the devveloppers on that point.

> > > > >

> > > > > Thus they probably won't satisfy the OP's plea.

> > > >

> > > > Its not discrimination. Its not Inclusive at best.

> > > > Please dont Overuse words like harresment, discimination, etc. because they already lost enough meaning and Thats hurting the „real fight“

> > >

> > > Yes, but even Anet is calling it discriminatory, their words not mine.

> >

> > Yet the dictionary disagrees.

> >

> > Did they make a statement, or was that an individual on a livestream? Source?

>

> Cameron Rich, the Fractal and Raids guy, on the livestream made that statement near the end of the stream.

>

> 1:27:27 mark

>

>

Ty for the mark :)

"kind of discriminate...."

Vague statement as I suspected.

He also talks about ppl should still be able to make sure they get the right experienced level of fellow party members.

"there are better ways then kps" - > "titles, going through gear (?)"

> @"Tyson.5160" said:

> > @"sigur.9453" said:

> > > @"Dadnir.5038" said:

> > > I'm pretty sure asking for "kill proof" is a kind of discrimination and ANet do not support discriminations. Whether players use "kill proof" on a regular basis since years or not, probably don't change the position of the devveloppers on that point.

> > >

> > > Thus they probably won't satisfy the OP's plea.

> >

> > Its not discrimination. Its not Inclusive at best.

> > Please dont Overuse words like harresment, discimination, etc. because they already lost enough meaning and Thats hurting the „real fight“

>

> Yes, but even Anet is calling it discriminatory, their words not mine.

Yet the dictionary disagrees.

Did they make a statement, or was that an individual on a livestream? Source?

> @"Dadnir.5038" said:

> > @"sigur.9453" said:

> > > @"Dadnir.5038" said:

> > > I'm pretty sure asking for "kill proof" is a kind of discrimination and ANet do not support discriminations. Whether players use "kill proof" on a regular basis since years or not, probably don't change the position of the devveloppers on that point.

> > >

> > > Thus they probably won't satisfy the OP's plea.

> >

> > Its not discrimination. Its not Inclusive at best.

> > Please dont Overuse words like harresment, discimination, etc. because they already lost enough meaning and Thats hurting the „real fight“

>

> I'm sorry but whether you like it or not it's a factor of discrimination.

> > Discrimination is also prejudice against people and a refusal to give them their rights. _cambridge dictionnary_

>

Being able to choose who I want to play with based on a (not perfect) variable (kp,etc) has nothing to do with discrimination.

IF I would not want to play with you because you are a women, gay, Australian,.... would be, but that’s not for debate. And putting it on, even just verbally the same status like the others is borderline insulting to people facing „real discrimination“.

> The right of each player in the game is to be able to play whatever they want through the whole content (after all they've paid for it). Asking for "kill proof" or "meta builds" in order to allow someone into a group/raid go against those rights and thus is a form of discrimination.

>

> Understand that if you let slide discrimination in a game because it's convenient, nothing will prevent from doing the same in real life. Harrasment in game exist and I garanty you that it's not an overused word, it probably is even be underused. And discrimination from players to players are everywhere. You're already willing to let it slide by understating it, what's next? Will you deny a job irl to a potentially very qualified person because he got tatoos and say that "it's not discrimination, at best it's just non inclusive"? You sure will have your mind free of guilt because it doesn't "hurt the real fight".

>

I understand that you want define what those words mean by yourself, but i would prefer to base it on the Dictionary meaning, WITHOUT interpreting it in you own way aswell.

Otherwise a discussion without a common ground is useless. Sry

You making the assumption that me, who „does not allow everyone in my party“ is also likely be part in one of your scenarios, is ironically, prejudice itself.

> It's a mistake to think that focusing on a single kind of discrimination you'll fix it. To fix discriminations you have to make people have the habit to not discriminate against anything. You have to make people be open minded in any situation and in front of anyone. Asking for kill proof here just make you suspicious of the player's capacities, your approach of the player isn't openminded, it's narrow minded and, well, exclusive. You are judging the player at what it can show you, in short, it's look.

>

I agree on the first part, but as said above. I’d rather focus on the real world problems, than „these 9 people do not want to play with me“, which again, does not have anything to to with discrimination.

It’s look? Is this a desperate attempt To make it look like discrimination?

I „judge“ on proof of experience. By your definition every cv would be a judge on look. Again, I stick with the deictonary definition.

> For all those reasons, It's not to ANet's ethic benefits to help players show "kill proofs". The only result that it can lead to is some players being shuned for lack of "proofs". Which often lead to a post in this forum asking if it's really ok to have been kicked out of a group, refused based on profession played... etc.

For the rest pretty much what @"maddoctor.2738" already said.

> @"Dadnir.5038" said:

> I'm pretty sure asking for "kill proof" is a kind of discrimination and ANet do not support discriminations. Whether players use "kill proof" on a regular basis since years or not, probably don't change the position of the devveloppers on that point.

>

> Thus they probably won't satisfy the OP's plea.

Its not discrimination. Its not Inclusive at best.

Please dont Overuse words like harresment, discimination, etc. because they already lost enough meaning and Thats hurting the „real fight“

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > @"sigur.9453" said:

> > > @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > > > @"castlemanic.3198" said:

> > > > > @"kratan.4619" said:

> > > > > Nothing said on this forum is going to be taken into account when the nanny state will decide for us if they are illegal or not.

> > > >

> > > > It's not a 'nanny state', it's a government body looking out for its citizens. It's their job to make sure that gambling isn't in video games that are easily accessible to children. Nothing 'nanny state' about it.

> > >

> > > I disagree.

> > >

> > > [nanny state](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/nanny-state)

> > > noun

> > > a government perceived as authoritarian, interfering, or overprotective.

> > >

> > > Parents should be responsible for their children. Not the government.

> >

> > Parents ARE still responsible for their children.

> > Gov. Just makes the guidelines.

> >

> > Alcohol laws.

> > Tabac laws.

> > Minimum driving ages.

> > Sexual consent minimum age.

> > Generell abuse/beating

> And yet, despite those laws, these things happen anyway. A deviant person will, by definition, go against his/her society's morals and rules. Fortunately, for many societies, these deviants represent a very small minority. Should those societies continue to make rules and laws that oppress the majority's freedoms while the deviants would continue to go against them anyway?

>

Yes, they do, but are ILLEGAL because of those laws, and can be proseccuted = good thing in my opinion

And please do not ignore that those laws are not only valid for privat persons, they also count for companys which some are already operating without ethics. Only Profit counts.

Where am i am opressed when im not allowed to sell a minor a pack of Cigaretts? Where am i opressed that my child can´t legally gamble? Where am i opressed that i cant beat someone else? That has nothing to do with your so called freedom.

Do you feel opressed because there are so strict securtiy protocols on many airports? As you said, only a tiny minority is responsible for those. You ok with that?

> > Would you prefer to live without them since it’s parents job anyway?

> I would prefer that society agree on a set of morals and/or laws and then punish those who decide to oppose them. Parents ought to be a child's first arbiter of moral and ethical guidelines. Sadly, many parents lack in this responsibility.

>

Again, you are not getting the point.

Look on all those parents feeding their childen with absolutly sugar infestet shit. Its unhealty but legal so companies target especially children with it. Congrats for beeing the most obese, sry, i mean free country!

You can look up how advertisement works on children/teenagers. There is a reason why there ary psychologists working in marketing companies. (im not even touching the subject with which techniques adults are targetet)

And you have advertisements literally everywhere in this age.

> > Without these laws some companies would sell a minor alcohol/tabac... no questions asked, without legal consequences.

> Again, laws that are for the benefit of the majority of the society in which they are written should be enforced.

>

> > You can’t Lock up your kids at home till they are 18/21, neither should you.

> I never suggested that kids be locked up. I am advocating for parents to take their responsibilities seriously and teach right and wrong and to know and understand what their children are doing. If their kids are deviating from what should be expected of them, then the parents should be the first ones to discipline them and not abdicate that responsibility to the government.

>

You forget that everyone has his own definition of right or wrong, thats why we need a common ground (law).

The goverment DOES NOT disipline the children!

It protects the childen legally that others who are trying to make the child do/take/whatever something that is beside this goverments society norm are punished.

In those cases the PARENTS or OTHER ADULTS/COMPANIES are the ones dicsiplined.

> > **** These laws are rather „I will protect your children from....“ then „you have to protect your children from...“ ****

> Sorry, i'm not understanding what you're trying to say here.

>

You still seam to think that laws are telling you how to raise children and are dictating your children what to do and whats not to do

My simple line was there to signal you that those laws are there to ptotect your children from outside sources like other adults and companies.

> > Your nanny state opinion always baffles me, and I am really wondering where it’s coming from. In EU you would be quite the minority, and I never spoke to someone with that mindset, so it would be really interesting to hear.

> I'm not so sure that I have had a "nanny state" opinion? As for where my opinion does derive, it is based on the freedom that all persons were given at creation. The rules, morals, ethics, laws ... whatever one wants to call them should be established by the majority of the society in which they are founded. You and I certainly have a different take on what this means; many EU countries appear to be more socialist driven than here in the US. It may be that you are more used to stricter laws and governmental control over your decisions and actions than I am.

Yes, those rules are in fact established by the majority by electing (literally called) Lawmakers.

Again, wrong definition from your side.

I have the same controll over my life in my socialist country than you, BUT im also more protected in some ways from companies that might wan´t to harm me to make more profits.

Stricter Gambling laws

Strict food related laws (ingridient list)

Strict pricing laws (xx€/kg, for comparission in the supermarket)

In "compensation" we got:

Legal drinking age is 16 same as tabacco

Drug possesion might get you a fine

Gay marriage

Abortion

Tip whatever you like

Almost like Freedom

> @"Sifu.9745" said:

> It's hard to stay casual in a game that favorises only pro players with super fast fingers. Game is just way too difficult for any kind of casual playstyle with exception of open world, which is irrelevant.

your "exeption" is 90% of this games content if we include the story aswell, which is so casual that is almost an interactive novel/movie.

nothing in gw2 is irrelevant (or relevant, depends on how you see it)

same rewards for people autoatacking and people with super fast fingers.

Just type -sell -whatever to filter it yourself. Popupblock activated

Not saying it’s generally speaking a bad idea, but an easy instant fix.

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > @"castlemanic.3198" said:

> > > @"kratan.4619" said:

> > > Nothing said on this forum is going to be taken into account when the nanny state will decide for us if they are illegal or not.

> >

> > It's not a 'nanny state', it's a government body looking out for its citizens. It's their job to make sure that gambling isn't in video games that are easily accessible to children. Nothing 'nanny state' about it.

>

> I disagree.

>

> [nanny state](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/nanny-state)

> noun

> a government perceived as authoritarian, interfering, or overprotective.

>

> Parents should be responsible for their children. Not the government.

Parents ARE still responsible for their children.

Gov. Just makes the guidelines.

Alcohol laws.

Tabac laws.

Minimum driving ages.

Sexual consent minimum age.

Generell abuse/beating

Would you prefer to live without them since it’s parents job anyway?

Without these laws some companies would sell a minor alcohol/tabac... no questions asked, without legal consequences.

You can’t Lock up your kids at home till they are 18/21, neither should you.

**** These laws are rather „I will protect your children from....“ then „you have to protect your children from...“ ****

Your nanny state opinion always baffles me, and I am really wondering where it’s coming from. In EU you would be quite the minority, and I never spoke to someone with that mindset, so it would be really interesting to hear.

The title could also be a big fat red hering. Do not overthink this to much.

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > @"sigur.9453" said:

> > > @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > > > @"Taril.8619" said:

> > >

> > > > No, with the sub model you're being asked to pay for access to the game. Which includes EVERYTHING in the game. Including any new stuff they release (Besides Expansions, but that's another topic).

> > >

> > > For GW2, however, you are more than welcome to subscribe to it. Just buy $10-$20USD in gems every months and I'm sure that you'll be able to afford any cosmetic item in the gem shop that you would want. There is nothing preventing players from subscribing on their own in this manner.

> >

> > Paying 10 € per Month in a non sub based game does Not offer the Same experience like a sub based Game.

> > This argument, no matter hoW often it is braught up makes no Sense. Those 2 different models have very different design philosphies. Some good, Some Bad. Not judging what model you prefer, But please consider your pov on this.

>

> Really? How is it different? GW2 is free to play. You get all of the core content for free. Spending some amount each month (like a subscription) would allow players to unlock DLC (heck, log in to the already free game on content release and you even get the additional content for free). It would also allow for the purchase of items from the gem store, which incidentally aren't required to play the game.

>

> Yes, the design philosophies, as you put it, are inherently different; however, the end result is pretty much the same. If you want content outside of core/basic content, then you'll pay for it either via subscription or voluntary monthly payment for gems. What many of us don't want is for GW2 to change to a subscription (plus microtransaction) model like practically every other MMO. Some of us don't play other MMOs specifically for this reason.

>

> GW2 already offers a lot of content and value for next to nothing. It is up to the players to decide if they want something from the gem store badly enough to pay for it, and even then they can play the game (which, by the way, is still free) to earn gold to convert to gems. What other free to play games offer such a deal?

>

> The gemshop is one of (if not the one) the most lucrative ways for the studio to make money so that they can continue to create content. A subscription model is not needed when there already exists a way for players to emulate a monthly sub fee should they desire to do so.

The whole reward system is different. Excluding gold grind, beeing a part of every Game. The feeling getting a reward in Most sub based games is very different to f2p Games imo. The endresult may be the Same, But the „emotional connection“ to said reward is very different.

I understand you point, But i don‘t just seE the product (content) i See the fun/Not Fun i have With it.

Argee, gw2 gemshop isnt as bad as others, But still designed with impulse purchases, lootboxes, qol features (=make base game more umpleasent) in mind.

The shop dictates the Game the Same was a sub (make Things take a Long time) dictates a Game.

Gold2gem is a winwin for players and the company (double tax) and nothing new. Runes of Magic had a similar design, as some Other Hard pay to win Games Aswell. (Im Not saying gw is in any form p2w)

Never Said that gemshop makes them less money than a possible sub. I Said That you Cant say „just pay 10€ each month and Boom you are Playing a sub Fee Game.“

Ist works for eso, since it was designed as a sub Fee Game but would be a horrible idea for gw2 since the game is designed around the gemshop.

To put it harshly:

Sub Games try to hold back your progress with Hugh timewastes to extend your time till you reach your goal (longer subbed) wouldn’t be suprised if alghorithms dictated when a new expansion should launch.

Gemstore games try to make you as unconfortabe as possible, hide the shienies in the shop, and are trying to release as much short bits of content as possible to expose the shop as much as possible.

So If someone says that s/he Would prefer gw2 to be a sub game, doesnt mean s/he wants to simply pay xx€/month for the same content plus some extra shop items.

TLDR: paying a monthly amount doesnt make A game a (good )sub fee game. Would be horrible for gw2, yet I would have enjoyed gw2 more if it would have been designed as one. (This is no attack on people That think otherwise and are clearly the majority in this game,)

Sry for errors, cant figure out how to turn of autocorrect to another language.

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > @"Taril.8619" said:

>

> > No, with the sub model you're being asked to pay for access to the game. Which includes EVERYTHING in the game. Including any new stuff they release (Besides Expansions, but that's another topic).

>

> For GW2, however, you are more than welcome to subscribe to it. Just buy $10-$20USD in gems every months and I'm sure that you'll be able to afford any cosmetic item in the gem shop that you would want. There is nothing preventing players from subscribing on their own in this manner.

Paying 10 € per Month in a non sub based game does Not offer the Same experience like a sub based Game.

This argument, no matter hoW often it is braught up makes no Sense. Those 2 different models have very different design philosphies. Some good, Some Bad. Not judging what model you prefer, But please consider your pov on this.

> @"Grintch.6172" said:

> Your site "refuses to connect" when clicked on.

This is a 2017 Post.

Check www.snowcrows.com for PVE builds

> @"Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582" said:

> > @"coso.9173" said:

> > > @"Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582" said:

> > > > @"coso.9173" said:

> > > > I don't think that even in that case, it wouldn't be considered gambling.

> > > > Because what is the spirit of the law? People would still be buying the boxes in hopes of the special items, not because of the statuettes.

> > > > That like saying that each time you bid in a casino you get 1 dollar back. It would still be considered gambling.

> > >

> > > It's not like saying that at all.

> > > It's like a finance company letting someone save up to buy a car by purchasing gift cards, once they buy enough cards, they can exchange them for a car of their choice. But, on the back of the gift card, there is a scratchy that also has a chance to win you other prizes along the way.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > no, that won't do. if everyone buys the gift cards in hopes to get the special prizes, it's still considered gambling. If they ever really start going after lootboxes, I can assure you that statuettes won't save their kitten. it's how it's working in some countries already. what matters it's the spirit of the law, not a dumb loophole.

>

> No, it's not. Because _by definition_ gambling has the possibility that you lose. It's a risk. But if value is added in the form of progress towards a goal, there is no chance of not getting it. It's a win-win. There is zero risk. You can see at the merchant that there is a price for an item and from that, you know how many chests you need to buy to get it.

>

> If you went to the electronics store to pay some money into your new laptop layby/lay-away and as part of a promotion they gave you a raffle ticket and you won a prize, it's not gambling. This is in essence what you'll be doing if all items are available. Sure, you can keep going back and paying off that layby/lay-away in the hopes you win something extra, but in the end, you get exactly what you paid for regardless of getting anything additional.

>

> > @"sigur.9453" said:

> > > @"Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582" said:

> > > > @"sigur.9453" said:

> > > > > @"Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582" said:

> > > > > > @"coso.9173" said:

> > > > > > Getting a statuette doesn't automatically make it non gambling. The law surely considers those cases too as a cheap loophole.

> > > > >

> > > > > If all the items were purchasable with Statuettes, it would be. Then any uncommon item you get is pure bonus. You're buying it for the Statuette to work towards your end goal. Like a layaway/layby system with tokens.

> > > >

> > > > nope, since the "bonus" items each represent a different "value". (= literally gambling) they could bypass this by making EVERY items cost the same amount of statuettes, so technically all items would be valued the same.

> > >

> > > That would be stupid. You can't have a Black Lion Bank Access contract cost the same as a dye kit for example.

> > >

> > > With ALL the items purchasable with Statuettes, you are literally just buying one item to exhange for another, there is zero gambling involved. Plus, as a bonus you have the chance to get rare items anyway.

> >

> > Nope, look at your wording. "chance to get rate items" it's still literally gambling. Doesn't matter if you will be able to buy the item you want with 100+ statuettes. That Rare item has a value you roll on with you real money.

> > I could open up a lottery otherwise:

> > 10€/ticket for a chance to win 100€

> > If you collect 1000tickets you get 100€ in return. By your logic that also wouldn't classify as gambling since you have a quarantied return after a while.

>

> The chance to get the rare item is separate from the transaction. Read what I wrote to old mate above because you're not getting it. There are no additional costs or problems there because you can see _exactly_ how much you need to spend to get what you want.

>

> Here's how it would work with your example. You buy lotto tickets for $10 each with the chance to win $1000. But you can also turn in 100 tickets and get $1000. So if you spend $1000, you get $1000. But you also have the _chance_ of getting it sooner. You cannot lose, so there is no risk, so it's not gambling.

You are incorrect, But i do Not think we will get on the Same Page on this Topic since the grounds of our logical thinking is so far apart. No Hard feelings.

Lawmakers will decide anyway.

> @"Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582" said:

> > @"sigur.9453" said:

> > > @"Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582" said:

> > > > @"coso.9173" said:

> > > > Getting a statuette doesn't automatically make it non gambling. The law surely considers those cases too as a cheap loophole.

> > >

> > > If all the items were purchasable with Statuettes, it would be. Then any uncommon item you get is pure bonus. You're buying it for the Statuette to work towards your end goal. Like a layaway/layby system with tokens.

> >

> > nope, since the "bonus" items each represent a different "value". (= literally gambling) they could bypass this by making EVERY items cost the same amount of statuettes, so technically all items would be valued the same.

>

> That would be stupid. You can't have a Black Lion Bank Access contract cost the same as a dye kit for example.

>

> With ALL the items purchasable with Statuettes, you are literally just buying one item to exhange for another, there is zero gambling involved. Plus, as a bonus you have the chance to get rare items anyway.

Nope, look at your wording. "chance to get rate items" it's still literally gambling. Doesn't matter if you will be able to buy the item you want with 100+ statuettes. That Rare item has a value you roll on with you real money.

I could open up a lottery otherwise:

10€/ticket for a chance to win 100€

If you collect 1000tickets you get 100€ in return. By your logic that also wouldn't classify as gambling since you have a quarantied return after a while.

> @"coso.9173" said:

> > @"sigur.9453" said:

> > > @"Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582" said:

> > > > @"coso.9173" said:

> > > > Getting a statuette doesn't automatically make it non gambling. The law surely considers those cases too as a cheap loophole.

> > >

> > > If all the items were purchasable with Statuettes, it would be. Then any uncommon item you get is pure bonus. You're buying it for the Statuette to work towards your end goal. Like a layaway/layby system with tokens.

> >

> > nope, since the "bonus" items each represent a different "value". (= literally gambling) they could bypass this by making EVERY items cost the same amount of statuettes, so technically all items would be valued the same.

>

> I don't think that even in that case, it wouldn't be considered gambling.

> Because what is the spirit of the law? People would still be buying the boxes in hopes of the special items, not because of the statuettes.

> That like saying that each time you bid in a casino you get 1 dollar back. It would still be considered gambling.

i fully agree.

there would be still some steps missing. same dropchance for each item, the ability sell items for the full statuet price (which would make the whole bypass useless), etc.

i was prepeared to make the same casino argument, if op OP would dismiss my views :)

> @"Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582" said:

> > @"coso.9173" said:

> > Getting a statuette doesn't automatically make it non gambling. The law surely considers those cases too as a cheap loophole.

>

> If all the items were purchasable with Statuettes, it would be. Then any uncommon item you get is pure bonus. You're buying it for the Statuette to work towards your end goal. Like a layaway/layby system with tokens.

nope, since the "bonus" items each represent a different "value". (= literally gambling) they could bypass this by making EVERY items cost the same amount of statuettes, so technically all items would be valued the same.

> @"Virdo.1540" said:

> is the game already close to death? I hope it wont go to steam anywhere soon

>

beause more players = bad for you?

please explain

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> AoC is dead on arrival - it has a $15 a month subscription fee. Will probably get a large following the first couple of months due to hype true, then it'll die out within 6 months. GW2 really isnt its competition there, WoW is and yeah... you know... like trying to topple a building with your face. Even if its an *incredibly* good game, the sub fee will instantly stop it going viral, sort of speak.

>

we will see. while also beeing sceptic, i don´t have the audacity to predict the future, especially whit "online products".

if they deliver on promised features AND the gameplay will be fun there is probaply a good market with dissatisfied mmo-players (like myself)

it also will not have no box price. which is in my optinion a good marketing/buisness strat. 15€ to try a game for a month is quite a good deal.

im really looking forward to a sub game, can´t stand these cash shop games that try every aspect of psychology to make you spend (more)money anymore.

yes, while beeing "not that bad", gw2 does this aswell.

Is this the bargaining Phase?