Hesione.9412 Posted December 5, 2020 Share Posted December 5, 2020 > @"Seera.5916" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"Seera.5916" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > @"Seera.5916" said: > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > @"Seera.5916" said: > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Seera.5916" said: > > > > > > > > > I don't know the reasons the others have but to me those unlocks go against the whole core of playing video games in the first place. What's the point of buying a game that you're only going to pay more to bypass the actual playing of it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Seems to me the point is to give people choice on playing the parts of the game they **want** to play and not being subjected to the parts they don't for a fee. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Opening one's real life wallet should not be an option. > > > > > > > > > > > > OK ... but it already is an option ... Anet has ALREADY opened that Pandora's Box ... so sure express your opinion but it's hard to see how that opinion is relevant to the game when Anet has already moved past the 'shouldn't be an option to buy progression' issue. > > > > > > > > > > Again answer this: why should people who do not want that stuff in the shop stop voicing their displeasure in such feats in an attempt to get ANet to stop adding such items? > > > > > > > > No one said they shouldn't. > > > > > > > > >I might as well just stop playing, uninstall, and never give ANet another dime. Because it's going to end up that way, might as well save my money and put my money and time towards other games that do not turn into a huge pay to win game. Because I don't support pay to win games. > > > > > > > > Clearly you don't define buying level 80 and waypoint unlocks and full endgame gear P2W because you are still here ... so then you shouldn't have a problem with MP's either. > > > > > > > > > > Because it's not quite egregious pay to win levels yet. > > > > Exactly ... when it suits you or doesn't impact you, it's not a problem. Therefore, it shouldn't be a problem to sell MP's because the fear you won't be able to get them if people can buy them is based on a misunderstanding you have about how people play the game. The barrier to getting MP's isn't people, it's organizing. If the game ever has so few people that MP's can't be obtained, it will have shut down LONG before that point. > > > > What is egregious to you is not a objective metric for a gamewide consideration of what is OK as P2W and what isn't. Clearly, you need that differentiation because it must be hard to know you say you won't support games that have P2W ... all the while logging in and playing GW2 like it doesn't do it. > > I never said everyone had to have the same cut off for whether or not they support a game or not with regards to pay to win. > > I do not support pay to win decisions. With it being so few items right now, me actually playing the game still and not buying anything I feel crosses the line actually helps my cause by lowering the percentage of players who buy the items and use the items. Which lowers the chances of them adding more. > > But your posts have been all like if someone suggests adding some buy to progress thing to the store we should be silent on it because of precedent so that ANet will put it in because "it doesn't affect me" will eventually lead to everything you have to unlock being buyable. Which is egregious pay to win. > > Which does affect me in the long run. The players who buy those unlocks will on average be the first to leave because they've "done everything" and have nothing else left to do. Which is odd because they bypassed most/all of it in the first place. Those people go around and then claim that there's not much to do in the game. Which turns off potential new players because who wants to join an MMO that's been around for a while that doesn't have much to do. The reduction of new players would then hurt the game as current players drop off due to the fact that there are very few games that people typically play for long periods of their life. Meaning that players who do not want to purchase those unlocks will be hurt when there's not enough players willing to actually do the content. Meaning they either have to buy the bypass or just do without. Which then hurts the game as those players go around and state that the game is dying and doesn't have many players further hurting the game's new player acquisition and making the problem worse. Another poster above went over what it would do to the actual content that ANet would put out at that point to account for those players who bypass everything. > > So excuse me for looking at the big picture and what letting suggestions like this go uncontested would very highly likely do to the game if ANet took silence as at least approval of adding it to the game if not out right support. Every time they type something in chat, after their name is "(paid for mastery points)". They have the compulsory title of "Paid for Mastery Points". That will warn the rest of us that the player probably doesn't know how to play at least part of the game. Should this be introduced to the game, _and should I then decide I want to keep playing_, I don't want to play with anyone who has purchased them. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerox.8731 Posted December 5, 2020 Share Posted December 5, 2020 > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"Nerox.8731" said: > > > > > > Again, I have no problem with people who want to have opinions. In this case, it's easy to see the irrelevance of those opinions because of established game for-sale progression elements. > > > > > > > If you want to go that very specific route, your opinion is by your own definition irrelevant... > > Except it's not an opinion. The idea that Anet can sell progression elements is based an observation of what is really happening in the game ... not some opinion I have about what I think of the idea. > If you want to go that very specific route, your ~~opinion ~~ argument is by your own definition irrelevant as this is not about what has already happened in the past, but a discussion what should happen in the future. Better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted December 5, 2020 Share Posted December 5, 2020 > @"Nerox.8731" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"Nerox.8731" said: > > > > > > > > Again, I have no problem with people who want to have opinions. In this case, it's easy to see the irrelevance of those opinions because of established game for-sale progression elements. > > > > > > > > > > If you want to go that very specific route, your opinion is by your own definition irrelevant... > > > > Except it's not an opinion. The idea that Anet can sell progression elements is based an observation of what is really happening in the game ... not some opinion I have about what I think of the idea. > > > If you want to go that very specific route, your argument is by your own definition irrelevant as this is not about what has already happened in the past, but a discussion what should happen in the future. > > Better? No, it's not better because it doesn't make sense. The precedent for Anet selling progression already exists for reasons, whatever they are, that outweigh the sensitivities of players that don't want it. If you want to discuss what should happen in the future for other possible progression offers on the GS, then the basis for the arguments for and against these new proposals must be based on what is the CURRENT reality, not an opinion that is already irrelevant. I mean, it's nonsense for you to say my argument, based on the reality of the game, ... is irrelevant because the current reality of the game is VERY relevant to the discussion. Anet sells progression. Forget about your emotionally based ideas of how an MMO business model should work because Anet isn't playing by those rules. They are playing by the rules they make and if you don't want to enter that arena with those rules to argue for or against future progression offerings, you already know how relevant your contribution is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerox.8731 Posted December 5, 2020 Share Posted December 5, 2020 > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"Nerox.8731" said: > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > @"Nerox.8731" said: > > > > > > > > > > Again, I have no problem with people who want to have opinions. In this case, it's easy to see the irrelevance of those opinions because of established game for-sale progression elements. > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you want to go that very specific route, your opinion is by your own definition irrelevant... > > > > > > Except it's not an opinion. The idea that Anet can sell progression elements is based an observation of what is really happening in the game ... not some opinion I have about what I think of the idea. > > > > > If you want to go that very specific route, your argument is by your own definition irrelevant as this is not about what has already happened in the past, but a discussion what should happen in the future. > > > > Better? > > No, it's better because it doesn't make sense. The precedent for Anet selling progression already exists for reasons that outweight the sensitivities of players that don't want it. If you want to discuss about what should happen in the future for other possible progression offers on the GS, then the basis for the arguments for and against these new proposals are based on what is the CURRENT reality, not an opinion that is already irrelevant to the discussion. > > I mean, it's nonsense for you to say my argument, based on the reality of the game, ... is irrelevant because the current reality of the game is VERY relevant to the discussion. > > Anet sells progression. Forget about your emotionally based ideas of how an MMO business model should work because Anet isn't playing by those rules. They are playing by the rules they make and if you don't want to enter that arena with those rules to argue for or against future progression offerings, you already know how relevant your contribution is. That precedent doesn't outweight anything. Monetization of progression isn't entirely black and white as you try to make it out to be. Doing naughty things once is hardly an argument to do them again. How severely this impacts the game is subjective per individual, but never has made a game better and very quickly leads to exploitation of the platform, see mobile gaming. Considering we're seeing increasingly exploitative practices in the gemstore, I am increasingly sensitive to further unnecessary monetization. As for the rest, it's the same you've repeated several times and continue to be completely stubborn about, and is the reason I'm not going to bother to further argument with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted December 5, 2020 Share Posted December 5, 2020 > @"Nerox.8731" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"Nerox.8731" said: > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > @"Nerox.8731" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, I have no problem with people who want to have opinions. In this case, it's easy to see the irrelevance of those opinions because of established game for-sale progression elements. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you want to go that very specific route, your opinion is by your own definition irrelevant... > > > > > > > > Except it's not an opinion. The idea that Anet can sell progression elements is based an observation of what is really happening in the game ... not some opinion I have about what I think of the idea. > > > > > > > If you want to go that very specific route, your argument is by your own definition irrelevant as this is not about what has already happened in the past, but a discussion what should happen in the future. > > > > > > Better? > > > > No, it's better because it doesn't make sense. The precedent for Anet selling progression already exists for reasons that outweight the sensitivities of players that don't want it. If you want to discuss about what should happen in the future for other possible progression offers on the GS, then the basis for the arguments for and against these new proposals are based on what is the CURRENT reality, not an opinion that is already irrelevant to the discussion. > > > > I mean, it's nonsense for you to say my argument, based on the reality of the game, ... is irrelevant because the current reality of the game is VERY relevant to the discussion. > > > > Anet sells progression. Forget about your emotionally based ideas of how an MMO business model should work because Anet isn't playing by those rules. They are playing by the rules they make and if you don't want to enter that arena with those rules to argue for or against future progression offerings, you already know how relevant your contribution is. > > That precedent doesn't outweight anything. Monetization of progression isn't entirely black and white as you try to make it out to be. No one is trying to make anything black or white and it's plain to see there is a precedent set here (two in fact) for selling progression despite obvious objections; if you disagree with that, then your understanding of what precedent actually means is in question. If you have a reason that Anet shouldn't sell MP's with a reason that isn't immediately irrelevant because other progression is purchasable or because the reason is just some emotional plea, I would love to hear it. I've given several reasons why I think it's a good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tashigi.3159 Posted December 5, 2020 Share Posted December 5, 2020 Lets put one of the only progression systems the game has in the gem store, Lol Come on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notebene.3190 Posted December 6, 2020 Share Posted December 6, 2020 Ideally, for every point that is locked behind content I'm just not going to get to do, and not because it involves work and time, but because of the 'type' of content it involves, I would really like to see a point that takes some work and time, but isn't like "Kill Jimmy Jammy in less than 30 seconds without being hit by his third telegraph the second time, but his second telegraph, but only after you break his shield the 4th time, with 10 of your closest friends, with your right ankle behind your neck, using a spoon". There's someone on one of those teams, and it always seems like you just 'know' when their turn was up for content, based on mastery requirements, or how the meta is walled behind content like that, with no alternate path to completion. I'm concerned this Champion episode is going to pinch those mastery points and I won't have enough to spend on that last thing in Dragon Mastery. Unless, the last thing in Dragon Mastery is for raider type folks, then just hide it like you hid raids away, and instead of always being 8 off, now I'll always be 13 off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyninja.2954 Posted December 6, 2020 Share Posted December 6, 2020 > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"Nerox.8731" said: > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > @"Nerox.8731" said: > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > @"Nerox.8731" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, I have no problem with people who want to have opinions. In this case, it's easy to see the irrelevance of those opinions because of established game for-sale progression elements. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you want to go that very specific route, your opinion is by your own definition irrelevant... > > > > > > > > > > Except it's not an opinion. The idea that Anet can sell progression elements is based an observation of what is really happening in the game ... not some opinion I have about what I think of the idea. > > > > > > > > > If you want to go that very specific route, your argument is by your own definition irrelevant as this is not about what has already happened in the past, but a discussion what should happen in the future. > > > > > > > > Better? > > > > > > No, it's better because it doesn't make sense. The precedent for Anet selling progression already exists for reasons that outweight the sensitivities of players that don't want it. If you want to discuss about what should happen in the future for other possible progression offers on the GS, then the basis for the arguments for and against these new proposals are based on what is the CURRENT reality, not an opinion that is already irrelevant to the discussion. > > > > > > I mean, it's nonsense for you to say my argument, based on the reality of the game, ... is irrelevant because the current reality of the game is VERY relevant to the discussion. > > > > > > Anet sells progression. Forget about your emotionally based ideas of how an MMO business model should work because Anet isn't playing by those rules. They are playing by the rules they make and if you don't want to enter that arena with those rules to argue for or against future progression offerings, you already know how relevant your contribution is. > > > > That precedent doesn't outweight anything. Monetization of progression isn't entirely black and white as you try to make it out to be. > > No one is trying to make anything black or white and it's plain to see there is a precedent set here (two in fact) for selling progression despite obvious objections; if you disagree with that, then your understanding of what precedent actually means is in question. If you have a reason that Anet shouldn't sell MP's with a reason that isn't immediately irrelevant because other progression is purchasable or because the reason is just some emotional plea, I would love to hear it. I've given several reasons why I think it's a good idea. You have given 2 reasons why you think it's a good idea: 1. there are items which have some similar type of effect on character progression (btw character only, NOT account) 2. you believe this would enhance the experience for some players because they can now skip content they do not enjoy You meanwhile continue to not acknowledge or quite simply not comment or ignore: 1. the detrimental effects of letting players skip content via cash shop "work arounds" via disconnect from the game, reduction of game time by skipping content (which you assume will be made up in other content, which might very well be true, but that is an assumption where as players being allowed to skip content via purchases is a FACT that it will reduce content engagement) 2. the cumulative nature of the detrimental effect in 1. To show this via an extreme: if we assume a player could immediately "boost" to max level, max mastery level, maximum equipment level and maximum achievement points via gem store purchases, how big would the player retention be for this type of player? (we actually have precedent here with exotic gear on launch and the implementation of ascended gear shortly after with developers directly stating that the time to acquire gear was shorter than they expected) 3. the actual effect further implementation of cash shop skips to content on future development (which can be seen in other titles). It stands to reason that content quality could suffer IF the developers know they will allow players to skip it or content could be made intentionally annoying in order to encourage sales of the skip item. Both things happening in the industry regularly 4. the actual effect on in game communities/players/content IF players are allowed to skip that content (which you simply brushed off as:"well the developer could make work arounds for that too", essentially stating that the developers could fix issues with this implementation via more fixes). 5. the outward perception of having more and more game elements in the store, no matter if pay-to-win or not. In general not a positive perception in many players Yet all you care about is to repeat the same thing you have said over and over:"it's already in the game, adding more of this is not a problem". Which is factually untrue or only true if one does NOT want to actually engage in the thought-process of implementation and consequence or considering past precedent and content even in this game. Is that an accurate summary of how this thread has been advancing so far? Meanwhile some of us have given productive and thought out responses on this issue. For one, the amount of mastery points WILL increase and with it the amount of SPARE mastery points, thus allowing players choice in the approach to how to manage this progress in game (an assumption which is proven when comparing current content to past content). The main issue here is actually the experience required which continues to grow and takes up a significantly longer time than acquiring the mastery points from a game play time perspective. In order to combat this and keep progression somewhat manageable for newer players, different types of in game activities could see daily/weekly rotation both in order to increase experience gained as well as funnel and focus player populations into content. Both creating a solution to one problem while also creating solutions to other problems like lack of players in certain content, which already has precedent in game (see dailies and weeklies) and has proven very effective and fun. Also I'm done with this thread. There has been nothing productive or new mentioned in favor of implementing more cash shop content for a few pages now and the vast majority of responses paint a very clear picture, at least for the players active in this debate on the forums (which as we know is not representative). EDIT: minor clarifications and structure for better readability Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted December 6, 2020 Share Posted December 6, 2020 You are discouraged because I won't engage in some discussion about the pros and cons of selling progression. It's a needless exercise because the points you provided are ALREADY relevant to the CURRENTLY sold progression. If Anet concludes it's OK to sell progression with all the points on the table ... what makes you think the SAME points are going to compelling to them to NOT sell more? This isn't a argument where whoever puts the most comprehensive points about if Anet should or shouldn't sell progression wins ... it's already decided because they already do it. The question here isn't IF they sell progression, it's why they shouldn't sell THIS specific progression element. If the points you want to talk about are the _same_ as the currently sold progression, then there isn't any reason to think Anet shouldn't do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyninja.2954 Posted December 6, 2020 Share Posted December 6, 2020 > @"Obtena.7952" said: > You are discouraged because I won't engage in some discussion about the pros and cons of selling progression. It's a needless exercise because the points you provided are ALREADY relevant to the CURRENTLY sold progression. If Anet concludes it's OK to sell progression with all the points on the table ... what makes you think the SAME points are going to compelling to them to NOT sell more? > > This isn't a argument where whoever puts the most comprehensive points about if Anet should or shouldn't sell progression wins ... it's already decided because they already do it. The question here isn't IF they sell progression, it's why they shouldn't sell THIS specific progression element. If the points you want to talk about are the _same_ as the currently sold progression, then there isn't any reason to think Anet shouldn't do it. Please take the time to read what was written. You obviously once again decided to skip everything which explained what is different between mastery point progression and already available items (read: there has not been any account wide progression elements on the gem store yet as example. Hence if you want to continue to harp on this one point, I'd challenge your argument that account wide progression has been sold until now, which it has not.Works for me too.). It's in the text, try again. As far as what is being argued: Suffice to say you are the only one deciding to ignore the pros and cons in this discussion. It is also the obvious reason why you fail to allow any other opinions on this matter and consider your opinion the only valid one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgentMoore.9453 Posted December 6, 2020 Share Posted December 6, 2020 I've been coming back to this thread on and off since it was posted to see if my initial thought, that adding MPs to the shop wouldn't matter, would change. Honestly? Hasn't. Progression has been for sale in this game for years. You can buy waypoints. You can buy an expansion to obtain mounts. You can buy legendary weapons with gems-to-gold. You can dance if you want to. You can leave your friends behind. Wait, that's the safety dance - I'm sorry. The point is, there are multiple ways to get these things, either by purchase ($$$) or by playing the game (free!*) Right now, you can pop a character to level 80 by buying a boost from the shop and instantly be geared and ready for end-game content. You can do this as a brand new player, or you can do it as someone who has played for a while and is ready to max out a new alternate. It makes no difference at all to me, a person who typically gets to 80 by hand or by using writs of experience I've accumulated through gameplay. How other people get to 80 is none of my business, and getting to 80 isn't an unfair advantage as it's available to everyone who owns the game. **Buying levels (or buying MPs as is being proposed) isn't something I'd do, and the costs to do so make it more sensible to simply play the game** to achieve the same result. That said, how other people reach a goal doesn't matter to me in the slightest, and I fail to see gem shop progression doing any more damage than people who choose to do it through playing the game. It's not better or worse; one method isn't morally or logically superior to the other. The end result is no different. In summation, I wouldn't buy MPs from the gem store, but I wouldn't care if they were available there. People are going to get their masteries one way or another, and if they add a way that gives the company some cash and also doesn't take away from my experience, then who cares? _* Free - Ish. Sometimes you need to buy an expansion, though arguably you can do that for free too if you want to grind gold for all eternity and turn it into gems._ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linken.6345 Posted December 6, 2020 Share Posted December 6, 2020 > @"AgentMoore.9453" said: > I've been coming back to this thread on and off since it was posted to see if my initial thought, that adding MPs to the shop wouldn't matter, would change. > > Honestly? Hasn't. Progression has been for sale in this game for years. You can buy waypoints. You can buy an expansion to obtain mounts. You can buy legendary weapons with gems-to-gold. You can dance if you want to. You can leave your friends behind. Wait, that's the safety dance - I'm sorry. The point is, there are multiple ways to get these things, either by purchase ($$$) or by playing the game (free!*) > > Right now, you can pop a character to level 80 by buying a boost from the shop and instantly be geared and ready for end-game content. You can do this as a brand new player, or you can do it as someone who has played for a while and is ready to max out a new alternate. It makes no difference at all to me, a person who typically gets to 80 by hand or by using writs of experience I've accumulated through gameplay. How other people get to 80 is none of my business, and getting to 80 isn't an unfair advantage as it's available to everyone who owns the game. > > **Buying levels (or buying MPs as is being proposed) isn't something I'd do, and the costs to do so make it more sensible to simply play the game** to achieve the same result. That said, how other people reach a goal doesn't matter to me in the slightest, and I fail to see gem shop progression doing any more damage than people who choose to do it through playing the game. It's not better or worse; one method isn't morally or logically superior to the other. The end result is no different. > > In summation, I wouldn't buy MPs from the gem store, but I wouldn't care if they were available there. People are going to get their masteries one way or another, and if they add a way that gives the company some cash and also doesn't take away from my experience, then who cares? > > > _* Free - Ish. Sometimes you need to buy an expansion, though arguably you can do that for free too if you want to grind gold for all eternity and turn it into gems._ As other have pointed out the progression now is character based not account based that mastery points are. And even if you wouldent by mps the way they are implemented now, whats stopping anet from making it so boring/tedious or even hard that you have to buy mps for cold hard cash or quit the game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted December 7, 2020 Share Posted December 7, 2020 > @"Linken.6345" said: > > @"AgentMoore.9453" said: > > I've been coming back to this thread on and off since it was posted to see if my initial thought, that adding MPs to the shop wouldn't matter, would change. > > > > Honestly? Hasn't. Progression has been for sale in this game for years. You can buy waypoints. You can buy an expansion to obtain mounts. You can buy legendary weapons with gems-to-gold. You can dance if you want to. You can leave your friends behind. Wait, that's the safety dance - I'm sorry. The point is, there are multiple ways to get these things, either by purchase ($$$) or by playing the game (free!*) > > > > Right now, you can pop a character to level 80 by buying a boost from the shop and instantly be geared and ready for end-game content. You can do this as a brand new player, or you can do it as someone who has played for a while and is ready to max out a new alternate. It makes no difference at all to me, a person who typically gets to 80 by hand or by using writs of experience I've accumulated through gameplay. How other people get to 80 is none of my business, and getting to 80 isn't an unfair advantage as it's available to everyone who owns the game. > > > > **Buying levels (or buying MPs as is being proposed) isn't something I'd do, and the costs to do so make it more sensible to simply play the game** to achieve the same result. That said, how other people reach a goal doesn't matter to me in the slightest, and I fail to see gem shop progression doing any more damage than people who choose to do it through playing the game. It's not better or worse; one method isn't morally or logically superior to the other. The end result is no different. > > > > In summation, I wouldn't buy MPs from the gem store, but I wouldn't care if they were available there. People are going to get their masteries one way or another, and if they add a way that gives the company some cash and also doesn't take away from my experience, then who cares? > > > > > > _* Free - Ish. Sometimes you need to buy an expansion, though arguably you can do that for free too if you want to grind gold for all eternity and turn it into gems._ > > As other have pointed out the progression now is character based not account based that mastery points are. Sure that's a noted difference, but it's not a foregone conclusion that any difference of note would preclude the sale of a specific progression element. The question is why it's OK to sell character based progression but not account based progression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgentMoore.9453 Posted December 7, 2020 Share Posted December 7, 2020 > @"Linken.6345" said: > And even if you wouldent by mps the way they are implemented now, whats stopping anet from making it so boring/tedious or even hard that you have to buy mps for cold hard cash or quit the game? I'd assume that if any (additional) progression got added to the shop, it'd be added like the current ones are - in such a way that it's more cost effective for most people to play the game than to throw down money and jump ahead. Now, past examples don't guarantee they _wouldn't_ do something unintelligent and change their model to try and encourage sales - they've done unintelligent things with monetization before - but they haven't yet with other conveniences like the 80-boost and WP packs. Any convenience added to the store should just be an additional path for those willing to shell out - not an excuse to ramp up the difficulty or reduce the enjoyability of gameplay in order to turn a dollar. Whether or not we trust the company to be respectful of that is a totally separate topic, but I figured this thread was more about the concept of having progression in the shop at all - MPs specifically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted December 7, 2020 Share Posted December 7, 2020 ^^ I think it's worth noting that assumption that Anet would rethink how they implement progression content because they would sell an element to bypass the content isn't based on anything more than a speculation. There aren't examples in the game where Anet rethought how WP's and levels are obtained and yet they sell 80 boosters and WP unlocks. Based on that, I also don't see why Anet would rethink implementation for any other progression element they might want to sell if they didn't do it for WP's and levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linken.6345 Posted December 7, 2020 Share Posted December 7, 2020 > @"AgentMoore.9453" said: > > @"Linken.6345" said: > > And even if you wouldent by mps the way they are implemented now, whats stopping anet from making it so boring/tedious or even hard that you have to buy mps for cold hard cash or quit the game? > > I'd assume that if any (additional) progression got added to the shop, it'd be added like the current ones are - in such a way that it's more cost effective for most people to play the game than to throw down money and jump ahead. > > Now, past examples don't guarantee they _wouldn't_ do something unintelligent and change their model to try and encourage sales - they've done unintelligent things with monetization before - but they haven't yet with other conveniences like the 80-boost and WP packs. > > Any convenience added to the store should just be an additional path for those willing to shell out - not an excuse to ramp up the difficulty or reduce the enjoyability of gameplay in order to turn a dollar. Whether or not we trust the company to be respectful of that is a totally separate topic, but I figured this thread was more about the concept of having progression in the shop at all - MPs specifically. Cough build loadouts cough, yea never happen to any conveniences before at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Greyhawk.9107 Posted December 7, 2020 Share Posted December 7, 2020 > @"AgentMoore.9453" said: > I've been coming back to this thread on and off since it was posted to see if my initial thought, that adding MPs to the shop wouldn't matter, would change. > > Honestly? Hasn't. Progression has been for sale in this game for years. You can buy waypoints. You can buy an expansion to obtain mounts. You can buy legendary weapons with gems-to-gold. You can dance if you want to. You can leave your friends behind. Wait, that's the safety dance - I'm sorry. The point is, there are multiple ways to get these things, either by purchase ($$$) or by playing the game (free!*) > > Right now, you can pop a character to level 80 by buying a boost from the shop and instantly be geared and ready for end-game content. You can do this as a brand new player, or you can do it as someone who has played for a while and is ready to max out a new alternate. It makes no difference at all to me, a person who typically gets to 80 by hand or by using writs of experience I've accumulated through gameplay. How other people get to 80 is none of my business, and getting to 80 isn't an unfair advantage as it's available to everyone who owns the game. > > **Buying levels (or buying MPs as is being proposed) isn't something I'd do, and the costs to do so make it more sensible to simply play the game** to achieve the same result. That said, how other people reach a goal doesn't matter to me in the slightest, and I fail to see gem shop progression doing any more damage than people who choose to do it through playing the game. It's not better or worse; one method isn't morally or logically superior to the other. The end result is no different. > > In summation, I wouldn't buy MPs from the gem store, but I wouldn't care if they were available there. People are going to get their masteries one way or another, and if they add a way that gives the company some cash and also doesn't take away from my experience, then who cares? > > > _* Free - Ish. Sometimes you need to buy an expansion, though arguably you can do that for free too if you want to grind gold for all eternity and turn it into gems._ I've also continued to follow this thread, and my own stance remains the same: _IF_ Arenanet put in Mastery Points in the Gem Store I **Would** quit this game for good. Anet would lose a paying customer, and make no mistake I have continued to buy items from the Gem Store with my real hard earned money instead of with fake gold, for good. Permanently. You're fooling yourselves if you think that buy-able Mastery Points won't lead to the kind of game design and business model that plagues mobile gaming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgentMoore.9453 Posted December 7, 2020 Share Posted December 7, 2020 > @"Linken.6345" said: > > Now, past examples don't guarantee they _wouldn't_ do something unintelligent and change their model to try and encourage sales - they've done unintelligent things with monetization before - but they haven't yet with other conveniences like the 80-boost and WP packs. > > > > Cough build loadouts cough, yea never happen to any conveniences before at all. I mean, I wasn't gonna call it out by name given the 40,000 other threads about loadouts that already exist, but that's what I meant by unintelligent monetization. However, it's still not a equitable comparison. Switching your build with a 3rd party program was something people were doing for a while, but it was never an integrated feature in the game like MPs, Levels, and WPs are. If you weren't someone who used outside software, then the templates and loadouts they put in the gemstore were something you didn't have access to before as a player. The closest we had was watching our builds switch automatically when entering WvW or PvP, but it wasn't really storage of the sort that later got put in the store. I'd argue it's still more cost effective to just keep a notepad of build codes and switch out your gear as needed since that option is free, but I'm not really interested in switching up my gear and build very often, so I'm not the target audience for what they're selling. If they really wanted people buying it, the implementation should have been loads better, both for the people who'd been using outside software and for people new to the idea. > @"The Greyhawk.9107" said: > IF Arenanet put in Mastery Points in the Gem Store I Would quit this game for good That is absolutely your right, and in the spirit of gaming, I would hope that on the eve of your departure you would return to the forum one last time in order to 'give us your stuff'. On a more serious note though, I'm not sure paying customers matter that much more than nonpaying customers. If we did, I'd assume we'd see more of what we requested show up in the game in terms of fixes and implementation of content. I'm sure ArenaNet appreciates it when some of us go 'hey, have some cash', but I seriously doubt they regard us with any kind of elevated appreciation that isn't also extended to anyone who plays the game in a given month, as they too can become paying customers at any time. Making people with money comfortable spending _more_ money seems like a nobrainer, but we've repeatedly seen that Not Happening . There are still quite a few elements of GuildWars2 that I _do_ enjoy though, so when threads like this crop up, looking at the 'does this give ANet development money without making the game worse?' angle is a consideration for me. That brings us back to this thread about purchasing mastery points in the gem store. Buying progression in GW2, so far at least, hasn't seemed to lead to anything that you couldn't already achieve just by playing the game - What is it about MPs (or any other progression) that you think would be different? Why would this be the thing that made you quit, or is it something you've been considering before now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyninja.2954 Posted December 7, 2020 Share Posted December 7, 2020 > @"AgentMoore.9453" said: > That brings us back to this thread about purchasing mastery points in the gem store. Buying progression in GW2, so far at least, hasn't seemed to lead to anything that you couldn't already achieve just by playing the game - What is it about MPs (or any other progression) that you think would be different? Why would this be the thing that made you quit, or is it something you've been considering before now? First off, the items which could even be considered "paying for progression" are at best limited AND in no way endgame related AND not account wide. The upgrade never were endgame related, the 80 boost was added AFTER masteries were implemented and masteries had de-facto replaced character level. Literally EVERY progression upgrade is character specific. As such taking a step further and implementing account wide content skipping mechanics for money is a huge leap forward away from past monetization. Not to mention that you have no way of supporting your claim that past monetization of progression has NOT had a negative effect on the game. That claim is in no way founded in any proof submitted. I already eluded to the issue which level 80 boosts cause which is visible: player confusion of what they should do. **TL;DR**: Your claim that there are no negative effects is false or unfounded and given responses to already implemented progression, which we have access to, likely untrue or unlikely. Your claim that past progression is any where near or similar to purchasable Mastery points is false. It should come as no surprise that players who enjoy the game are opposed to having content which is part of the game play cycle be put up for monetization, especially when given the options provided on achieving this content, there are vastly more mastery points available than needed, are ample and diverse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted December 7, 2020 Share Posted December 7, 2020 > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > First off, the items which could even be considered "paying for progression" are at best limited AND in no way endgame related AND not account wide. The upgrade never were endgame related, the 80 boost was added AFTER masteries were implemented and masteries had de-facto replaced character level. The question isn't if there are differences ... the question is why the differences make MP's something Anet shouldn't sell. The differences themselves aren't reasons to not sell MP's. If anything, endgame progression is going to be more of a hard stop for players, so a more useful and sensible element to sell them. Considering Anet is willing to sell less difficult-to-obtain elements to prevent hard stops, it's reasonable to conclude that MP's aren't excluded just because they are exclusive to endgame. I mean ... let's put the cards on the table ... you can ALREADY buy endgame elements buy purchasing the best endgame weapons off the TP with gem-exchanged gold ... so that 'endgame' label seems like a pretty artificial label to apply as a reason to not sell MP's. I don't see a reason can't sell account wide progression; there is likely no technical barrier. Again, just pointing out differences aren't reasons to not sell MP's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyninja.2954 Posted December 7, 2020 Share Posted December 7, 2020 > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > First off, the items which could even be considered "paying for progression" are at best limited AND in no way endgame related AND not account wide. The upgrade never were endgame related, the 80 boost was added AFTER masteries were implemented and masteries had de-facto replaced character level. > > The question isn't if there are differences ... the question is why the differences make MP's something Anet shouldn't sell. The differences themselves aren't reasons to not sell MP's. > > If anything, endgame progression is going to be more of a hard stop for players, so a more useful and sensible element to sell them. Considering Anet is willing to sell less difficult-to-obtain elements to prevent hard stops, it's reasonable to conclude that MP's aren't excluded just because they are exclusive to endgame. I mean ... let's put the cards on the table ... you can ALREADY buy endgame elements buy purchasing the best endgame weapons off the TP with gem-exchanged gold ... so that 'endgame' label seems like a pretty artificial label to apply as a reason to not sell MP's. > > I don't see a reason can't sell account wide progression; there is likely no technical barrier. Again, just pointing out differences aren't reasons to not sell MP's. No, you were very explicit that it is of essential value that there be precedent as justification for future implementation of items. So much in fact that you literally called all other arguments and opinions unreasonable and not valid. As such I will hold you to your word: There has not been any account wide progression sold on the gem store nor endgame progression. As such there has been no precedent for such items to be sold now or in the future. It's that simple. Your words, not mine. Now you can argue and redefine and re-categorize or argue what ever other justification or interpretation you want. All that does is show how biased your own reasoning on this matter is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddoctor.2738 Posted December 7, 2020 Share Posted December 7, 2020 > @"AgentMoore.9453" said: > What is it about MPs (or any other progression) that you think would be different? I can give you one reason: MPs give a reason to play new content, if you remove MPs, you remove an incentive to play the content Arenanet developed that awards them. There is a reason they started adding MPs as rewards in more expensive collections, those used to be just for achievement points. > Making people with money comfortable spending more money seems like a nobrainer, but we've repeatedly seen that Not Happening . That would certainly depend on how any kind of gem store Mastery Point is given. Remember, to get Mastery Points you must have the appropriate expansion unlocked, and the appropriate living world episode as well. Other points are unlocked at specific points in the story. You don't have access to all the points by default and allowing players to purchase mastery points without having access to the content that awards it would have the opposite effect of what you want (people that have money, spending it). Then of course there is the question of how much each mastery point is "worth". One mastery point is easy to acquire, another is very hard, how is their cost going to be determined? Fluctuating cost based on the mastery point that someone wants to purchase? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted December 7, 2020 Share Posted December 7, 2020 > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > First off, the items which could even be considered "paying for progression" are at best limited AND in no way endgame related AND not account wide. The upgrade never were endgame related, the 80 boost was added AFTER masteries were implemented and masteries had de-facto replaced character level. > > > > The question isn't if there are differences ... the question is why the differences make MP's something Anet shouldn't sell. The differences themselves aren't reasons to not sell MP's. > > > > If anything, endgame progression is going to be more of a hard stop for players, so a more useful and sensible element to sell them. Considering Anet is willing to sell less difficult-to-obtain elements to prevent hard stops, it's reasonable to conclude that MP's aren't excluded just because they are exclusive to endgame. I mean ... let's put the cards on the table ... you can ALREADY buy endgame elements buy purchasing the best endgame weapons off the TP with gem-exchanged gold ... so that 'endgame' label seems like a pretty artificial label to apply as a reason to not sell MP's. > > > > I don't see a reason can't sell account wide progression; there is likely no technical barrier. Again, just pointing out differences aren't reasons to not sell MP's. > > No, you were very explicit that it is of essential value that there be precedent as justification for future implementation of items. So much in fact that you literally called all other arguments and opinions unreasonable and not valid. No, that's not what I said ... I said that any reasons provided that are applicable to the CURRENTLY sold progression aren't relevant to future implementations ... that's obvious ... because those points were not compelling enough to prevent the sale of CURRENTLY sold progression so they wouldn't be compelling enough to prevent the sale of future implementations either. I also said numerous times that the only argument to exclude MP's from sale is to detail what makes them different _and why that difference excludes them_ ... I haven't wavered from that point and it's a point I've made earlier on this thread. Just stating differences is not enough to exclude MP's from sale. So basically ... other than emotional pleas and the ALREADY considered points against already existing sold progression items which DON'T lead Anet to the conclusion they can't sell progression ... you don't have a reason ... sounds good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyninja.2954 Posted December 7, 2020 Share Posted December 7, 2020 > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > First off, the items which could even be considered "paying for progression" are at best limited AND in no way endgame related AND not account wide. The upgrade never were endgame related, the 80 boost was added AFTER masteries were implemented and masteries had de-facto replaced character level. > > > > > > The question isn't if there are differences ... the question is why the differences make MP's something Anet shouldn't sell. The differences themselves aren't reasons to not sell MP's. > > > > > > If anything, endgame progression is going to be more of a hard stop for players, so a more useful and sensible element to sell them. Considering Anet is willing to sell less difficult-to-obtain elements to prevent hard stops, it's reasonable to conclude that MP's aren't excluded just because they are exclusive to endgame. I mean ... let's put the cards on the table ... you can ALREADY buy endgame elements buy purchasing the best endgame weapons off the TP with gem-exchanged gold ... so that 'endgame' label seems like a pretty artificial label to apply as a reason to not sell MP's. > > > > > > I don't see a reason can't sell account wide progression; there is likely no technical barrier. Again, just pointing out differences aren't reasons to not sell MP's. > > > > No, you were very explicit that it is of essential value that there be precedent as justification for future implementation of items. So much in fact that you literally called all other arguments and opinions unreasonable and not valid. > > No, that's not what I said ... I said that any reasons provided that are applicable to the CURRENTLY sold progression aren't relevant to future implementations ... that's obvious ... because those points were not compelling enough to prevent the sale of CURRENTLY sold progression so they wouldn't be compelling enough to prevent the sale of future implementations either. > > I also said numerous times that the only argument to exclude MP's from sale is to detail what makes them different _and why that difference excludes them_ ... I haven't wavered from that point and it's a point I've made earlier on this thread. > > Just stating differences is not enough to exclude MP's from sale. That is your opinion. The difference is huge in both effect and magnitude given how character progression and account progression differ in scales of at least 5 to up to 69 or 70 (given that is the current maximum of characters). Not only in effect but also ability to monetize such elements. As such you'd have to show that this is not different or significantly different, besides you claiming as much. > @"Obtena.7952" said: > So basically ... other than emotional pleas and the ALREADY considered points against already existing sold progression items which DON'T lead Anet to the conclusion they can't sell progression ... you don't have a reason ... sounds good. Nah, the reasons I listed are further up and yes they incorporate more than just what has been sold but also actual in game cause and effect, which we as players have been able to perceive. Notice that my reasons are not cherry picked and do NOT in fact bend and redefine how I define things. That's what you are doing when arguing similarity in progression. In short: if it suits your argument, everything is fine and difference doesn't matter. If it doesn't suit your argument you simply ignore it or declare your opinion is the only valid one. Again: there has not ever been any account wide progression or endgame progression on sale in the gem store. Most recent in fact causing a conflict with the implementation of the template system, which certainly could have used an account wide alternative. I guess monetizing per character is a priority or was so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obtena.7952 Posted December 7, 2020 Share Posted December 7, 2020 > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > Nah, the reasons I listed are further up and yes they incorporate more than just what has been sold but also actual in game cause and effect, which we as players have been able to perceive. Notice that my reasons are not cherry picked and do NOT in fact bend and redefine how I define things. That's what you are doing when arguing similarity in progression. I'm just bringing you back here. The differences provided for why MP's can't be sold provided so far are 'endgame' and 'account-wide' ... what is it about endgame and account-wide exclude MP's from being sold on the GS? I've explained why I think those 'differences' are either 1) not actually different from currently sold progression elements and 2) not a barrier to Anet selling MP's. That's where we are at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now