Einlanzer.1627
-
Posts
1,016 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Articles
Gallery
Posts posted by Einlanzer.1627
-
-
> @"Ashen.2907" said:
> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:
> > No, but posts like that get removed all the time
>
> Good.
>
> Going onto someone else's property and comparing them to mass murderers...
>
> Yeah, its removing posts of that sort that is the problem. /s
No, you're wrong. Hyperbole is used to make points on message boards all the time. The problem was that Gaile read and responded to that post as if it was a personal attack when it wasn't. That's the entire reason there's an issue with how these boards are moderated that players are largely united in criticizing here.
It's not an appropriate way to moderate boards. End of discussion.
Also - "Someone else's property"? Lol, the players fund these boards, just like they fund the game. What a silly remark.
-
> @"Mewcifer.5198" said:
> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:
> > > @"Mewcifer.5198" said:
> > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:
> > > > > @"Mewcifer.5198" said:
> > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:
> > > > > > > @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:
> > > > > > > > @"Ashen.2907" said:
> > > > > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:
> > > > > > > > > My biggest issue is how direct criticism of Anet or developer handling of something carries significant risk of quick censorship, _often to a higher degree than comments directed toward other players_. As if this is North Korea or something. I get it if you're directly attacking individuals whether they be other posters or Anet employees, but making generalized comments that are critical of dev actions should not receive censorship and infractions.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On some occasions I've challenged them and basically been met with defensiveness in the form of "no I found it offensive and I have the authority to censor you so lalalalala".
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It will usually drive me off the boards for a while.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Now that is funny.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Comparing moderation on a game forum to a totalitarian regime that tortures and kills its own people.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I want to point out that we're trying very hard to leave all posts in place, but some of them truly are unacceptable. Referring to the moderation team in a pejorative way isn't necessary, and comparing them to North Korea is inexplicable. I see this a lot in appeals: "You guys are all commies," or "The mods are fascists," or the almost-inevitable reference to certain horrible political parties from WWII (which I can't say expressly because the word is rightfully filtered on the forums).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Our message remains: **Argue with / debate an opinion, a position, a decision, an idea, but don't make it personal.**
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Oh, come on. It should be quite clear that was tongue-in-cheek. And, more importantly, it was also just a generalized comment. This post from from Gaile is actually a precise example of the sort of thing I'm talking about, and several posters other than Ashen replied to mine with insightful comments that were ignored in favor of this one.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The thing that's interesting is that this is not applied to players. Typically, only direct attacks that denigrate specific players are targeted for moderation, but generalized non-polite criticism of Anet is not tolerated because, it seems, that at least some moderators take personal offense to it and then decide it needs to be censored. I would consider this to be an inappropriate overreach of forum moderation. You can't force people to always be friendly. All you can do is stop them from harassing individuals.
> > > > >
> > > > > You literally compared the forums to North Korea. You can claim it is "tongue in cheek" all you want but you still made the statement. Even if it was exaggerated for effect it was still said and that still implies that it is meant at least a little bit.
> > > > >
> > > > > If I was to make a similar "tongue in cheek" comparison of you to something similar it would be removed from the forums, and rightly so.
> > > >
> > > > That's not the point. The point is that it's inappropriate for Gaile or any moderator to use their personal offense meter as a barometer for deciding what deserves to be censored.
> > > >
> > > > I didn't say anything that objectively warranted censorship.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Except she didn't remove your post. She disagreed with what you said and expressed that it is comments they have to hear all the time with varying levels of serious intent involved from the people saying them. You weren't 'censored' so what is your argument here?
> >
> > No, but posts like that get removed all the time, and she made it clear she wanted to and probably would under normal circumstances. My opinion is that she needs to check herself a little bit.
>
> [citation needed]
No, it actually isn't. It's a common experience on this board, which is why this topic took off the way it did. I could provide examples from my own post history but there's no point.
-
> @"Mewcifer.5198" said:
> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:
> > > @"Mewcifer.5198" said:
> > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:
> > > > > @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:
> > > > > > @"Ashen.2907" said:
> > > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:
> > > > > > > My biggest issue is how direct criticism of Anet or developer handling of something carries significant risk of quick censorship, _often to a higher degree than comments directed toward other players_. As if this is North Korea or something. I get it if you're directly attacking individuals whether they be other posters or Anet employees, but making generalized comments that are critical of dev actions should not receive censorship and infractions.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On some occasions I've challenged them and basically been met with defensiveness in the form of "no I found it offensive and I have the authority to censor you so lalalalala".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It will usually drive me off the boards for a while.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now that is funny.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Comparing moderation on a game forum to a totalitarian regime that tortures and kills its own people.
> > > > >
> > > > > I want to point out that we're trying very hard to leave all posts in place, but some of them truly are unacceptable. Referring to the moderation team in a pejorative way isn't necessary, and comparing them to North Korea is inexplicable. I see this a lot in appeals: "You guys are all commies," or "The mods are fascists," or the almost-inevitable reference to certain horrible political parties from WWII (which I can't say expressly because the word is rightfully filtered on the forums).
> > > > >
> > > > > Our message remains: **Argue with / debate an opinion, a position, a decision, an idea, but don't make it personal.**
> > > >
> > > > Oh, come on. It should be quite clear that was tongue-in-cheek. And, more importantly, it was also just a generalized comment. This post from from Gaile is actually a precise example of the sort of thing I'm talking about, and several posters other than Ashen replied to mine with insightful comments that were ignored in favor of this one.
> > > >
> > > > The thing that's interesting is that this is not applied to players. Typically, only direct attacks that denigrate specific players are targeted for moderation, but generalized non-polite criticism of Anet is not tolerated because, it seems, that at least some moderators take personal offense to it and then decide it needs to be censored. I would consider this to be an inappropriate overreach of forum moderation. You can't force people to always be friendly. All you can do is stop them from harassing individuals.
> > >
> > > You literally compared the forums to North Korea. You can claim it is "tongue in cheek" all you want but you still made the statement. Even if it was exaggerated for effect it was still said and that still implies that it is meant at least a little bit.
> > >
> > > If I was to make a similar "tongue in cheek" comparison of you to something similar it would be removed from the forums, and rightly so.
> >
> > That's not the point. The point is that it's inappropriate for Gaile or any moderator to use their personal offense meter as a barometer for deciding what deserves to be censored.
> >
> > I didn't say anything that objectively warranted censorship.
> >
>
> Except she didn't remove your post. She disagreed with what you said and expressed that it is comments they have to hear all the time with varying levels of serious intent involved from the people saying them. You weren't 'censored' so what is your argument here?
No, but posts like that get removed all the time, and she made it clear she wanted to and probably would under normal circumstances. My opinion is that she needs to check the moderation team's zeal.
-
> @"Mewcifer.5198" said:
> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:
> > > @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:
> > > > @"Ashen.2907" said:
> > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:
> > > > > My biggest issue is how direct criticism of Anet or developer handling of something carries significant risk of quick censorship, _often to a higher degree than comments directed toward other players_. As if this is North Korea or something. I get it if you're directly attacking individuals whether they be other posters or Anet employees, but making generalized comments that are critical of dev actions should not receive censorship and infractions.
> > > > >
> > > > > On some occasions I've challenged them and basically been met with defensiveness in the form of "no I found it offensive and I have the authority to censor you so lalalalala".
> > > > >
> > > > > It will usually drive me off the boards for a while.
> > > >
> > > > Now that is funny.
> > > >
> > > > Comparing moderation on a game forum to a totalitarian regime that tortures and kills its own people.
> > >
> > > I want to point out that we're trying very hard to leave all posts in place, but some of them truly are unacceptable. Referring to the moderation team in a pejorative way isn't necessary, and comparing them to North Korea is inexplicable. I see this a lot in appeals: "You guys are all commies," or "The mods are fascists," or the almost-inevitable reference to certain horrible political parties from WWII (which I can't say expressly because the word is rightfully filtered on the forums).
> > >
> > > Our message remains: **Argue with / debate an opinion, a position, a decision, an idea, but don't make it personal.**
> >
> > Oh, come on. It should be quite clear that was tongue-in-cheek. And, more importantly, it was also just a generalized comment. This post from from Gaile is actually a precise example of the sort of thing I'm talking about, and several posters other than Ashen replied to mine with insightful comments that were ignored in favor of this one.
> >
> > The thing that's interesting is that this is not applied to players. Typically, only direct attacks that denigrate specific players are targeted for moderation, but generalized non-polite criticism of Anet is not tolerated because, it seems, that at least some moderators take personal offense to it and then decide it needs to be censored. I would consider this to be an inappropriate overreach of forum moderation. You can't force people to always be friendly. All you can do is stop them from harassing individuals.
>
> You literally compared the forums to North Korea. You can claim it is "tongue in cheek" all you want but you still made the statement. Even if it was exaggerated for effect it was still said and that still implies that it is meant at least a little bit.
>
> If I was to make a similar "tongue in cheek" comparison of you to something similar it would be removed from the forums, and rightly so.
That's not the point. The point is that it's inappropriate for Gaile or any moderator to use their personal offense meter as a barometer for deciding what deserves to be censored.
Who cares if I used hyperbole to make a point? I didn't say anything that objectively warranted censorship or infraction. That would be things like harassing individuals or spamming topics.
-
> @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:
> > @"Ashen.2907" said:
> > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:
> > > My biggest issue is how direct criticism of Anet or developer handling of something carries significant risk of quick censorship, _often to a higher degree than comments directed toward other players_. As if this is North Korea or something. I get it if you're directly attacking individuals whether they be other posters or Anet employees, but making generalized comments that are critical of dev actions should not receive censorship and infractions.
> > >
> > > On some occasions I've challenged them and basically been met with defensiveness in the form of "no I found it offensive and I have the authority to censor you so lalalalala".
> > >
> > > It will usually drive me off the boards for a while.
> >
> > Now that is funny.
> >
> > Comparing moderation on a game forum to a totalitarian regime that tortures and kills its own people.
>
> I want to point out that we're trying very hard to leave all posts in place, but some of them truly are unacceptable. Referring to the moderation team in a pejorative way isn't necessary, and comparing them to North Korea is inexplicable. I see this a lot in appeals: "You guys are all commies," or "The mods are fascists," or the almost-inevitable reference to certain horrible political parties from WWII (which I can't say expressly because the word is rightfully filtered on the forums).
>
> Our message remains: **Argue with / debate an opinion, a position, a decision, an idea, but don't make it personal.**
Oh, come on. It should be quite clear that was tongue-in-cheek. And, more importantly, it was also just a generalized comment (in other words, it specifically **wasn't** personal). This post from from Gaile is actually a precise example of the sort of thing I'm talking about, and several posters other than Ashen replied to mine with insightful comments that were ignored in favor of this one.
The thing that's interesting is that this is not applied to players. Typically, only direct attacks that denigrate specific players are targeted for moderation, but generalized non-polite criticism of Anet is not tolerated because, it seems, that at least some moderators take personal offense to it and then decide it needs to be censored. I would consider this to be an inappropriate overreach of forum moderation. You can't force people to always be friendly. All you can do is stop them from harassing individuals.
In a nutshell, it's inappropriate for you to use your personal offense meter as a barometer for deciding what comments need to be infracted and censored. Did I break any forum rules that are actually reasonable to police? I.e. like harassing an individual? No? Then leave it alone.
-
My biggest issue is how direct criticism of Anet or developer handling of something carries significant risk of quick censorship, _often to a higher degree than comments directed toward other players_. As if this is North Korea or something. I get it if you're directly attacking individuals whether they be other posters or Anet employees, but making generalized comments that are critical of dev actions should not receive censorship and infractions.
On some occasions I've challenged them and basically been met with defensiveness in the form of "no I found it offensive and I have the authority to censor you so lalalalala".
It will usually drive me off the boards for a while.
-
1200 gems is still expensive but a lot more reasonable than the 2000 they were trying to get away with and probably lost a lot of business in the process.
I love how all the people saying the price was fine were using the argument that they hadn't change the price yet as evidence that the mounts were priced fairly, because, you know, Anet is a company and therefore knows everything. Well, take that, 2000 gem mount skin white knights.
-
-The Revenant - awesome concept, terrible execution. Needs a lot more skill choice.
-An approach to balance that is nothing short of astonishingly bad
-Lack of new weapon types
-Lack of new world dungeon 5 man content
-Lack of visual effects slider
-Conditions are overtuned/badly designed. They should be short duration, low-medium damage with the benefit of ignoring armor.
-Defensive stats are weak, in part because of conditions being overtuned and proliferation of immunity/resistance
-Too much reactive/chaotic gameplay over strategic gameplay
-
I think it's important to have forward gating, and important not to have backward gating. The level scaling works perfectly how it is IMO.
-
A lot of bosses in the story episodes are designed poorly, IMO.
-
> @"Adenin.5973" said:
> Imo, if PoF didn't add mounts it would've been the worst expansion I've ever seen for an MMORPG.
>
> - Story was quite decent for an MMO
> - Mounts are super cool
> - Environmental map design was good
>
> Other than that, everything else was bad or non existent
>
> - No replayability at all
> - Still only a short story experience
> - No engaging quests, events or anything that would carry the lore or story outside of the few main story missions
> - No new big metas or world bosses added
> - Super lame repeatable heart system was once more reused
> - Very few new armor/weapon sets and skins
> - No new legendaries
> - No mount skins available through PoF collections
> - Not much or nothing at all in terms of fractals or dungeons or PvP modes or WvW maps (literally, what's the longterm aspect of this expac?)
> - Mastery system as progression system, to make up for the lack of raising the level cap has gotten even more useless, to a point where Anet should go back to the drawing board and ask themselves if there's not any better solution to make masteries a longterm goal with some use in the game and not something you only care for 5 days after an release
> - No new races or classes
> - No major class overhaul with an expac
>
> With PoF I've got 2 weeks of fun. We got an awesome new mechanic with mounts, that gives the entire game a new touch. We got new elite specializations to play for the next two years.
>
> But other than that, PoF felt like a bundle of LS episodes, all we basically got besides mounts was story and 5 maps. If you didn't like vanilla or HoT you should really not buy PoF, because you'll be sooner as you might think back to playing the old content for the next years.
There's not much to pick apart here. I basically feel the same.
-
> @"Chyanne Waters.8719" said:
> According to newer lore Palawa Joko had banned Scythes for the living people in his kingdom and to get rid of the Sunspears. So to not get caught with a Scythe the used them to make daggers to continue the fight. I cannot remember exactly where I read that I think it was in the game somewhere though.
Well, yeah, but they made up that lore to justify the game not having scythes. It can just as easily be unmade.
-
> @"kharmin.7683" said:
> > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:
> > I doubt I’ll ever have even the current max allowed, but more power to you if you want that many. Having alts does have the advantage of allowing different builds, one build on each character, which is one reason I do have more than one of a profession.
>
> I'm guessing that this is why we'll never see build templates. ANet stands to make more money with players purchasing so many slots.
>
> Unless they make build templates something players would have to purchase?
Yeah, but trying to monetize so much is usually a backfiring strategy. It's best to pick a few quality things to monetize rather than trying to nickel and dime players.
I have the opposite of the OP's problem. I really want to just have one main character rather than having to try to manage alts. I'd love if we could level multiple classes/builds on the same toon in some way like it works with FFXIV (I'd even make purchases to allow for it). I honestly think that works better in MMOs, because jumping between alts all the time kind of breaks immersion. I know some people prefer it, but I don't. Give us both options.
-
> @"shadowpass.4236" said:
> I personally don't see the need for it. As someone who plays soulbeast in ranked constantly, I've never wanted/needed to swap to another pet while in the beastmode of another one.
Yes, and because you've never wanted it, no one else should have it as an option right? The only way I can see not doing this as an option would be if Anet was attempting to balance it in such a way that you were intended to only stay in one pet for beastmode.
-
Yes, because I don't see the purpose of Anet controlling that just to force players to interact with their pets when they don't want to, unless their goal is literally just to aggravate players.
-
I agree with some of your points - particularly the one about the game being too afraid of inconveniencing players, which does seem to work against immersion for a lot of players.
But I disagree with many. Level scaling is brilliant.
-
> @"Mourningcry.9428" said:
> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:
> > > @"Mourningcry.9428" said:
> > > This has already been addressed by Anet.
> >
> > That means nothing. If demand for real world dungeons is high and continues to grow, Anet will at some point change their tune and start doing them again.
>
> Actually, it's really the only thing that matters. Whether you choose to accept this or not is entirely up to you - but it doesn't change the reality of the situation.
>
> Presuming to know what will actually change the situation based on opinion shares the same level of delusion.
>
>
That is an asinine comment not worthy of true rebuttal.
-
> @"Mourningcry.9428" said:
> This has already been addressed by Anet.
That means nothing. If demand for real world dungeons is high and continues to grow, Anet will at some point change their tune and start doing them again.
Fractals were a great idea as a type of dungeon, but they are not sufficient to replace all other 5 man content. World dungeons with setting-specific lore need to be brought back. PoF would have been much better if it had a few dungeons scattered around the new zones for players to immerse themselves in. The open world simply can't simulate that level of immersion and camaraderie building as well.
The decision to cut dungeons was made long ago, presumably by Colin, and he was wrong, much like how he was wrong about a lot of other things that the game suffered for. It's time to reverse that decision.
-
Yeah i'm curious to see the next patch.
-
> @"mtpelion.4562" said:
> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:
> >
> > This is an argument from ignorance leading to a useless game of burden shifting, which I admittedly also participated in.
> >
> > You cannot assume the price is fine simply because it has not been sufficiently demonstrated to be too high.
> > I cannot assume the price is too high because it has not been demonstrated that it's fine.
> >
> > All we can do is draw semi-conclusions based on our own intuition in this context. My intuition tells me the price is too high, because, like many consumers, I value fairness in pricing, and am turned off by prices that appear to be artificially inflated in order to exploit demand to _the point that it makes me question my overall support to the product and/or company_. And I **know** that this view is not that unusual. And the reason Obtena's argument fails is because charging $25 for a skin is brand new in their business model. The fact that GW2 has been running with moderate success using a cash shop for a few years is not a useful data point in supporting the claim that the prices are fine.
> >
> > If you disagree, that's fine, but don't act like your argument is more philosophically sound or that you have any clearer an objective answer to this quandary than I do.
>
> I do not mean to suggest that you are not entitled to your opinion, which is that the price is too high. I only mean to state that based on these facts:
>
> 1. Mount skins are new.
> 2. Since they are new, they have no price history
> 3. The price was set at $25.
> 4. The price has not been lowered.
> 5. New options were introduced, which did not affect the pricing model of the single skin option.
>
> The logical conclusion is that ArenaNet is meeting their revenue projection which means that the price point is not too high, it is just too high for you personally.
>
> Rolls Royce sells cars for $450,000. That price point is not "too high", because they sell them at that price point for a profit. That price point is too high for me though, because I don't want to spend that much on a car.
>
> I will even state that I am completely with you with regard to mount skins. $25 is substantially more than I am willing to pay for a mount skin, however, until ArenaNet either lowers the price or changes the delivery model completely, the logical assumption is that they have priced it correctly for the target market.
Yes, but they get away with that due to the allure of exclusivity in the upper class economy (insert eye roll here), but they also have a lot of features and components that help drive up the cost to manufacture, and the selling point is likewise inflated. I'm not sure how comparable this is.
The only nitpick I'll make is that I think it's too early for us to conclude that the prices are fine just because they haven't gone down. For starters, Anet has a track record of failing to admit mistakes and moving slowly to correct course. What concerns me most is the indirect effect of making prices too high on any item - it tends to have a more significant effect in the long term even if they are meeting revenue goals in the short term. My feeling is that Anet needs to tread a bit more carefully about burning customers that would otherwise be loyal supporters by creating a perception that they are price gouging with vanity items.
-
It's really strange that they haven't fixed the healing meta so that anyone else is as good as druids.
Just going strictly from profession themes - guardians, elementalists, and engineers should all have strong healing options that rival or even beat the druid. Why this hasn't been addressed already is beyond me.
-
It's intuitively obvious that the Revenant has some pretty major design problems. I don't really feel the need to pick apart the energy mechanic since it doesn't look like the revenant will ever get a more comprehensive design update the way they need.
-
> @"mtpelion.4562" said:
> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:
> > > @"mtpelion.4562" said:
> > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:
> > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:
> > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:
> > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:
> > > > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:
> > > > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:
> > > > > > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:
> > > > > > > > > > > @"MarshallLaw.9260" said:
> > > > > > > > > > > > @"ZeftheWicked.3076" said:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >Not to mention the very high price in rl money for gems.
> > > > > > > > > > > > As things are on more then one occasion i chose to grind for ingame gold and exchange it for gems, rather then throw a few $ at you, because of the high prices and low real money:gem ratio...
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Although I'm sure your knowledge of economic strategies is superb and you are a master of pricing, marketing, purchasing and selling of all varieties of virtual items and commodities, I would still question if you are in any way correct.
> > > > > > > > > > > ANet probably have a whole department who have analysed at which price, how many people will buy what product and set the level appropriately to maximize profit. Of course some people think the price is too high, they are not the target audience.
> > > > > > > > > > > With all due respect, gem prices are what they have always been and gem store items are 99% cosmetic changes ( excluding boosts and gathering tools). Therefore by definition, they are premium/luxury items, not affecting regular mechanics of the game.
> > > > > > > > > > > If the price **seems** to high for you, don't buy it. As mentioned, not all items are marketed at all people.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > See the _companies/executives are hypercompetent_ fallacy. Or, in other words, the _appeal to authority_.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > News flash - professional economists are wrong way more often than they are right, and most companies don't hire professional economists. In reality, companies and their executives generally don't have a clue what they're doing, and and routinely make poor decisions that undermine their own revenue and long-term health.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Charging $25 for skins that are released frequently and can't be used exclusively is a bad marketing decision, because anyone with a lick of sense can see that it's artificially inflated, which is going to embitter a lot of people that want to support this game but don't want to be exploited by cash grab schemes. This can be seen by the numerous conversations about it on the message boards.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Or they determined that it was more optimal to sell the items at a higher cost based on data they’ve collected over the years. If they saw that they’d make much more money overall with higher prices, chances are they’re going to go that route.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Or, they're just making guesses and don't actually know what they're doing. You know, the same thing that happens in most companies.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Or you’re making all of that based on your opinions that may have little to no facts to back it up.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Right, I'm the one doing that.
> > > > >
> > > > > You’re the one claiming to know how every company works, saying that they don’t know what they’re doing, and they’re simply just guessing. You provided zero evidence to support these claims but you use it to substantiate your claim that Anet must not know what they’re doing when determining pricing.
> > > >
> > > > The burden of proof is not on me. It's on you.
> > >
> > > Actually, the burden of proof lies entirely upon the person making the claim. You are claiming that something is overpriced despite a complete and total lack of data or supportive argumentation.
> > >
> > > This isn't a case of everyone else using an appeal to authority, but rather a case of your position being argued from a position of complete ignorance of all facts and circumstances.
> > >
> > > You are free to speculate on the over/underpriced status of things on the gem store, but since you are devoid of data on the subject, presenting your argument as anything other than a completely unsubstantiated opinion is misleading at best.
> >
> > Sorry, but no. The claim in this case is that Anet has a professional economist and a sophisticated model of data proving they're setting the best price point for their mount skins and other expensive items. The assumption is that they are just being experimental. Hypothetically, it is not possible to show evidence of the latter, whereas it is possible to show evidence of the former.
> >
> > I'm sorry you don't understand how burden of proof works.
>
> That is not the claim.
>
> The fact is that ArenaNet set the price.
>
> The claim is that the price is "too high".
>
> Any discussion of who is employed by ArenaNet is an irrelevant side conversation that would only matter if the claim had been shown to have form of merit. It is not the claim, but an unnecessary retort to your specious claim.
This is an argument from ignorance leading to a useless game of burden shifting, which I admittedly also participated in.
You cannot assume the price is fine simply because it has not been sufficiently demonstrated to be too high.
I cannot assume the price is too high because it has not been demonstrated that it's fine.
All we can do is draw semi-conclusions based on our own intuition in this context. My intuition tells me the price is too high, because, like many consumers, I value fairness in pricing, and am turned off by prices that appear to be artificially inflated in order to exploit demand to _the point that it makes me question my overall support to the product and/or company_. And I **know** that this view is not that unusual. And the reason Obtena's argument fails is because charging $25 for a skin is brand new in their business model. The fact that GW2 has been running with moderate success using a cash shop for a few years is not a useful data point in supporting the claim that the prices are fine.
If you disagree, that's fine, but don't act like your argument is more philosophically sound or that you have any clearer an objective answer to this quandary than I do.
-
> @"mtpelion.4562" said:
> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:
> > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:
> > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:
> > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:
> > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:
> > > > > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:
> > > > > > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:
> > > > > > > > > @"MarshallLaw.9260" said:
> > > > > > > > > > @"ZeftheWicked.3076" said:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >Not to mention the very high price in rl money for gems.
> > > > > > > > > > As things are on more then one occasion i chose to grind for ingame gold and exchange it for gems, rather then throw a few $ at you, because of the high prices and low real money:gem ratio...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Although I'm sure your knowledge of economic strategies is superb and you are a master of pricing, marketing, purchasing and selling of all varieties of virtual items and commodities, I would still question if you are in any way correct.
> > > > > > > > > ANet probably have a whole department who have analysed at which price, how many people will buy what product and set the level appropriately to maximize profit. Of course some people think the price is too high, they are not the target audience.
> > > > > > > > > With all due respect, gem prices are what they have always been and gem store items are 99% cosmetic changes ( excluding boosts and gathering tools). Therefore by definition, they are premium/luxury items, not affecting regular mechanics of the game.
> > > > > > > > > If the price **seems** to high for you, don't buy it. As mentioned, not all items are marketed at all people.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > See the _companies/executives are hypercompetent_ fallacy. Or, in other words, the _appeal to authority_.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > News flash - professional economists are wrong way more often than they are right, and most companies don't hire professional economists. In reality, companies and their executives generally don't have a clue what they're doing, and and routinely make poor decisions that undermine their own revenue and long-term health.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Charging $25 for skins that are released frequently and can't be used exclusively is a bad marketing decision, because anyone with a lick of sense can see that it's artificially inflated, which is going to embitter a lot of people that want to support this game but don't want to be exploited by cash grab schemes. This can be seen by the numerous conversations about it on the message boards.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Or they determined that it was more optimal to sell the items at a higher cost based on data they’ve collected over the years. If they saw that they’d make much more money overall with higher prices, chances are they’re going to go that route.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Or, they're just making guesses and don't actually know what they're doing. You know, the same thing that happens in most companies.
> > > > >
> > > > > Or you’re making all of that based on your opinions that may have little to no facts to back it up.
> > > >
> > > > Right, I'm the one doing that.
> > >
> > > You’re the one claiming to know how every company works, saying that they don’t know what they’re doing, and they’re simply just guessing. You provided zero evidence to support these claims but you use it to substantiate your claim that Anet must not know what they’re doing when determining pricing.
> >
> > The burden of proof is not on me. It's on you.
>
> Actually, the burden of proof lies entirely upon the person making the claim. You are claiming that something is overpriced despite a complete and total lack of data or supportive argumentation.
>
> This isn't a case of everyone else using an appeal to authority, but rather a case of your position being argued from a position of complete ignorance of all facts and circumstances.
>
> You are free to speculate on the over/underpriced status of things on the gem store, but since you are devoid of data on the subject, presenting your argument as anything other than a completely unsubstantiated opinion is misleading at best.
Sorry, but no. The claim in this case is that Anet has a professional economist and a sophisticated model of data proving they're setting the best price point for their mount skins and other expensive items. The assumption is that they are just being experimental with, at best, a limited set of useful data. Hypothetically, it is not possible to show evidence of the latter, whereas it is possible to show evidence of the former.
I'm sorry you don't understand how burden of proof works.
The censoring
in Guild Wars 2 Discussion
Posted
> @"Randulf.7614" said:
> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:
> > > @"Ashen.2907" said:
> > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:
> > > > No, but posts like that get removed all the time
> > >
> > > Good.
> > >
> > > Going onto someone else's property and comparing them to mass murderers...
> > >
> > > Yeah, its removing posts of that sort that is the problem. /s
> >
> > No, you're wrong. Hyperbole is used to make points on message boards all the time. The problem was that Gaile read and responded to that post as if it was a personal attack when it wasn't. That's the entire reason there's an issue with how these boards are moderated that players are largely united in criticizing here.
> >
> > It's not an appropriate way to moderate boards. End of discussion.
> >
> > Also - "Someone else's property"? Lol, the players fund these boards, just like they fund the game. What a silly remark.
>
> It is very much an appropriate way to moderate the forums. Hyperbole in this way ( and usually in general) adds nothing to a constructive, mature discussion whether positive or negative - the only purpose of the forums. Whether other forums use it all the time is irrelevant. Gaile has already stated she or more correctly, the forum team, are enforcing the company rules on what should or should not be allowed, not her own morale compass - something thoroughly covered in detail earlier in this thread.
>
> The players also do not fund the boards. We rent the game and we make purchases from it. The forum is not directly paid for by us and therefore we have no appropriation over it. I work in retail, in the same relationship my customers do not pay for my company’s website either.
It doesn't matter (alone) whether it adds to constructive discussion. Lots of things don't add to constructive discussion. How many one-liner posts that are usually simplistic variations of "your opinion is dumb" exchanged between players **don't** get moderated on the boards? Is the solution to hire an army of moderators and infract half of the posts that get made? No. Instead, their solution is to only care when it appears too critical of arenanet based on their own personal sensibilities. It's absurd.
And, yes, the players do fund the boards. Literally. And yes, your company's customers pay for your website. Literally.