More “paths” to legendary gear...

[shadowpass.4236]

> @"Linken.6345" said:

> > @"shadowpass.4236" said:

> > > @"Tails.9372" said:

> > > > @"shadowpass.4236" said:

> > > > I'm not going to address the first part because it just seems like your ranting on and I don't feel the need to respond to "he said she said" like a child. If I ignored part of your message, it was likely because I didn't feel it worth responding to. I could cry and whine, "You ignored me, how could you?! :(" like you just did, but in reality it does nothing if not move the discussion even further off topic.

> > > Interesting to see how you're always throwing ad hominems around when you can't win an argument. And yet you're the one calling other people childish, the irony. Also this thread is about legendary gear for every mode which is hard to argue for when we have some people who refuse to acknowledge various game modes for what they are thanks to their double standards. There is nothing off topic about this.

> > >

> > > > @"shadowpass.4236" said:

> > > > However, like I said in the post above, WvW is won by killing NPCs guarding objectives. So yes, there is "vE" involved when it comes to the "overarching goal" because you have to kill "E's" to win. It doesn't matter what or who you're competing against, PvE simply means Player versus Enemies (NPCs). Judging by the fact that the only way to win is to kill the NPCs (that can be guarded by players), WvW is very clearly a PvP/PvE gamemode.

> > > PvE stands for "Player versus Environment" not "Player versus Enemies" (or do you want to say that JPs aren't PvE?) and CTF is still not a PvE hybrid despite the fact that you have to get the flag in order to win a match. Furthermore, in RTS games you often time have to beat NPCs in order to get the resources you need to win and still no one calls it "PvE" unless the enemy fraction is controled by an NPC. Killing NPCs is just a means to the end (hence the "they are PvE elements") but the mode itself is about fractions of human players competing against each other so my point still stands.

> > >

> >

> > I've already corrected you enough times to the point where I understand that I'm speaking with someone who has no idea what they're talking about.

> >

> > Sure, Player versus Environment. Whoop-dee-doo. My point still stands, the objectives are controlled by NPCs. You will not win WvW by killing enemy players alone. WvW is more about objective control than anything else as that's where the main source of points come from. The four main objectives, camps, towers, keeps, and a castle are all controlled by NPCs. These objectives (I'm saying this for the umpteenth time) **can** be defended by other players. Hence why WvW is **officially** classified as a PvP/PvE gamemode. As I've already said before, it doesn't matter that players are competing against each other... those players are competing against each other by killing each other **and** NPCs. It's really not that hard to understand but if you keep on repeating the same incorrect information, I'm going to ignore you entirely and leave you to your delusions.

>

> And same goes for spvp you win by controlling map nodes you will not win by killing enemy players alone.

> Clearly spvp is just a sub category of wvw we need to get anet to fix this and take away the path to backpack in wvw and armor in spvp.

 

Dear god. Open your eyes and read what I wrote before you comment.

 

I clearly stated **SEVERAL** times that sPvP has an equally heavy emphasis on fighting other players as it does on capping nodes.

 

sPvP is not a sub category of WvW. LOL

[STIHL.2489]

> @"Tails.9372" said:

> No it doesn't because you failed explain how capturing a point in WvW is any different than getting a flag in CTF when it comes to the necessity of having to deal with the environment in order to win the game.

 

CTF?

[shadowpass.4236]

> @"Tails.9372" said:

> > @"shadowpass.4236" said:

> > My point still stands

> No it doesn't because you failed explain how capturing a point in WvW is any different than getting a flag in CTF when it comes to the necessity of having to deal with the environment in order to win the game.

>

> But I agree, there is really no point in discussing with someone who obviously has no interest in having an honest discussion about the topic. But at least you should reflect on your own words:

 

So my point, "the objectives (in WvW) are controlled by NPCs." isn't valid because I "failed explain how capturing a point in WvW is any different than getting a flag in CTF when it comes to the necessity of having to deal with the environment in order to win the game?"

 

The fact that **that** made sense in your head is amazing.

 

> @"shadowpass.4236" said:

> It's common for people to get extremely defensive when they are outed as being completely wrong.

 

> @"Tails.9372" said:

> Keeping that in mind should help you to keep the conversation on a somewhat bearable level.

 

Quote me where I was defending myself.

[Tails.9372]

> @"STIHL.2489" said:

> > @"Tails.9372" said:

> > No it doesn't because you failed explain how capturing a point in WvW is any different than getting a flag in CTF when it comes to the necessity of having to deal with the environment in order to win the game.

>

> CTF?

abbreviation for Capture the flag

 

[STIHL.2489]

> @"Tails.9372" said:

> > @"STIHL.2489" said:

> > > @"Tails.9372" said:

> > > No it doesn't because you failed explain how capturing a point in WvW is any different than getting a flag in CTF when it comes to the necessity of having to deal with the environment in order to win the game.

> >

> > CTF?

> abbreviation for Capture the flag

>

 

Well in sPvP, there are no "environmental" factors in taking the point, the only thing stopping you is other players.

In WvW, there NPC guards, of varying numbers, and strengths, not to mention in some cases, walled in facilities, which can require siege to get though, which is it's own complex mechanic.

 

So, it's a pretty huge variance in how one goes about capturing a point between sPvP and WvW.

 

Just saying.

[Tails.9372]

> @"STIHL.2489" said:

> Well in sPvP, there are no "environmental" factors in taking the point, the only thing stopping you is other players.

> In WvW, there NPC guards, of varying numbers, and strengths, not to mention in some cases, walled in facilities, which can require siege to get though, which is it's own complex mechanic.

>

> So, it's a pretty huge variance in how one goes about capturing a point between sPvP and WvW.

>

> Just saying.

You also have NPCs blocking of resources in RTS games and yet no one calls them "PvE hybrids" despite the fact that they clearly have many PvE elements but the whole basis of his argument was "its a hybrid bacause players have to deal with the PvE elements in order to win" exept the same thing applies to capture the flag where in order to win the game you have to get a part of the enviroment (usually a flag) back to a certain point (usually your base) and unlike WvW you can't even get any points by defeating other players and yet no one would ever call it PvE because it's ultimately about two teams competing against each other and not about what's required in order to win the game and I guess you wouldn't call soccer "PvE" either just because it's all about kicking a ball around and not about beating up the other team.

 

I already said that they are PvE elements but that's really all they are, they're only there to stall players and are never going out of their way in order to change the outcome of the battle in favor of the fraction they belong to. You're simply not competing against them for victory which is why it's not really a PvE hybrid.

[IndigoSundown.5419]

ANet clearly thinks of sPvP and WvW as separate from both each other and from PvE. That's the reality. It's been the reality since before the game launched. It's not going to change. While it's your time to waste, you are in fact wasting time arguing about it, and you're derailing the thread. While I question whether there is any additional value in continuing the thread at all, there is certainly zero value in continuing the tangential debate _because ANet is not going to change the way they view the game modes_.

 

The fact is that players have been complaining on the forums since launch about the reward structures in the game. This thread is another complaint. The complaint has no doubt been heard. At some point, ANet may decide to introduce other Legendary reward acquisition means to PvE. They may not.

 

@ Swagger: If you're still checking this thread, and want to make your point, a poll might be better. The phrasing could be, "Should there be alternate PvE paths to obtain Legendary Gear?" with Yes or No being the options. Or you could structure it differently if you want to offer more choice.

[Feanor.2358]

> @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

> ANet clearly thinks of sPvP and WvW as separate from both each other and from PvE. That's the reality. It's been the reality since before the game launched. It's not going to change. While it's your time to waste, you are in fact wasting time arguing about it, and you're derailing the thread. While I question whether there is any additional value in continuing the thread at all, there is certainly zero value in continuing the tangential debate _because ANet is not going to change the way they view the game modes_.

>

> The fact is that players have been complaining on the forums since launch about the reward structures in the game. This thread is another complaint. The complaint has no doubt been heard. At some point, ANet may decide to introduce other Legendary reward acquisition means to PvE. They may not.

>

> @ Swagger: If you're still checking this thread, and want to make your point, a poll might be better. The phrasing could be, "Should there be alternate PvE paths to obtain Legendary Gear?" with Yes or No being the options. Or you could structure it differently if you want to offer more choice.

 

A poll like this would also be pointless. It's like going out on the streets and doing a poll "should the government remove all taxes". The majority will vote for the instant gratification, because that's what the majority does. And it won't change anything, because it would break the system and therefore can't be implemented. So if both the result and the lack of consequence are clear beforehand, what's the point of polling?

[STIHL.2489]

> @"Tails.9372" said:

> > @"STIHL.2489" said:

> > Well in sPvP, there are no "environmental" factors in taking the point, the only thing stopping you is other players.

> > In WvW, there NPC guards, of varying numbers, and strengths, not to mention in some cases, walled in facilities, which can require siege to get though, which is it's own complex mechanic.

> >

> > So, it's a pretty huge variance in how one goes about capturing a point between sPvP and WvW.

> >

> > Just saying.

> You also have NPCs blocking of resources in RTS games and yet no one calls them "PvE hybrids" despite the fact that they clearly have many PvE elements but the whole basis of his argument was "its a hybrid bacause players have to deal with the PvE elements in order to win" exept the same thing applies to capture the flag where in order to win the game you have to get a part of the enviroment (usually a flag) back to a certain point (usually your base) and unlike WvW you can't even get any points by defeating other players and yet no one would ever call it PvE because it's ultimately about two teams competing against each other and not about what's required in order to win the game and I guess you wouldn't call soccer "PvE" either just because it's all about kicking a ball around and not about beating up the other team.

>

> I already said that they are PvE elements but that's really all they are, they're only there to stall players and are never going out of their way in order to change the outcome of the battle in favor of the fraction they belong to. You're simply not competing against them for victory which is why it's not really a PvE hybrid.

 

Minor note, I think they enacted the PPK for WvW.

 

Anyway, I see what your point is now, and to be honest, I am not sure if they have a point, but I think the main division between WvW and sPvP, is that in sPvP the ONLY thing stopping you from capping a point is another player, in WvW there are a whole bunch of other Environmental Factors, which is more due to the persistent nature of the WvW maps, which are week long bouts, as opposed to 10 min engagements.

 

To be honest, the MOBA's I play, are more like sPvP, where the only thing stopping me is another player and the matches only start when there are enough players.

 

Not sure what kind of other games you play that are like WvW.

[shadowpass.4236]

> @"Tails.9372" said:

> > @"STIHL.2489" said:

> > Well in sPvP, there are no "environmental" factors in taking the point, the only thing stopping you is other players.

> > In WvW, there NPC guards, of varying numbers, and strengths, not to mention in some cases, walled in facilities, which can require siege to get though, which is it's own complex mechanic.

> >

> > So, it's a pretty huge variance in how one goes about capturing a point between sPvP and WvW.

> >

> > Just saying.

> You also have NPCs blocking of resources in RTS games and yet no one calls them "PvE hybrids" despite the fact that they clearly have many PvE elements but the whole basis of his argument was "its a hybrid bacause players have to deal with the PvE elements in order to win" exept the same thing applies to capture the flag where in order to win the game you have to get a part of the enviroment (usually a flag) back to a certain point (usually your base) and unlike WvW you can't even get any points by defeating other players and yet no one would ever call it PvE because it's ultimately about two teams competing against each other and not about what's required in order to win the game and I guess you wouldn't call soccer "PvE" either just because it's all about kicking a ball around and not about beating up the other team.

 

CTF is irrelevant in this discussion. Capturing a flag doesn't mean you're "versus the flag" in any way, shape or form. Just because environmental factors **may** be in play, doesn't automatically mean the entire game/gamemode is PvE.

 

You're also 100% wrong about everything else.

 

My point (and many others) was that WvW is **Officially Classified** as a PvP/PvE gamemode. The fact that you're arguing this point is stupid because you're obviously incorrect.

 

>

> I already said that they are PvE elements but that's really all they are, they're only there to stall players and are never going out of their way in order to change the outcome of the battle in favor of the fraction they belong to. You're simply not competing against them for victory which is why it's not really a PvE hybrid.

 

Again, WvW is **Officially Classified** as a PvP/PvE mode. You're wrong.

[IndigoSundown.5419]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

> > ANet clearly thinks of sPvP and WvW as separate from both each other and from PvE. That's the reality. It's been the reality since before the game launched. It's not going to change. While it's your time to waste, you are in fact wasting time arguing about it, and you're derailing the thread. While I question whether there is any additional value in continuing the thread at all, there is certainly zero value in continuing the tangential debate _because ANet is not going to change the way they view the game modes_.

> >

> > The fact is that players have been complaining on the forums since launch about the reward structures in the game. This thread is another complaint. The complaint has no doubt been heard. At some point, ANet may decide to introduce other Legendary reward acquisition means to PvE. They may not.

> >

> > @ Swagger: If you're still checking this thread, and want to make your point, a poll might be better. The phrasing could be, "Should there be alternate PvE paths to obtain Legendary Gear?" with Yes or No being the options. Or you could structure it differently if you want to offer more choice.

>

> A poll like this would also be pointless. It's like going out on the streets and doing a poll "should the government remove all taxes". The majority will vote for the instant gratification, because that's what the majority does. And it won't change anything, because it would break the system and therefore can't be implemented. So if both the result and the lack of consequence are clear beforehand, what's the point of polling?

 

The above reads like you are suggesting that a majority of forum goers who would visit such a poll would want additional paths to Legendary gear. Using the "taxes" analogy is a fail, however. Eliminating all taxes would mean the government would completely, or at least mostly shut down due to lack of revenue. Providing an additional path to specific pixels in a video game might cost the game company some revenue, but it's also possible that it might gain them revenue.

 

No, the real reason such a poll could be pointless is that ANet has always tended to cater to the so-called hardcore. Some claim that GW2 was intended to be a so-called "casual" game. However, the history of the game -- both the info put out by ANet and their attempts (and failures) to provide what the "real" gamers want -- says that ANet always intended to cater to the hardcore market segment.

 

However, one thing that the history of the game also tells us is that ANet sometimes does provide the squeaky wheel with grease. Whether they would deny the hardcore their exclusive pixels to do so looks unlikely _now_. However, a lot of people thought ANet would never put mounts -- or raids -- into GW2.

[Obtena.7952]

> @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

> ANet clearly thinks of sPvP and WvW as separate from both each other and from PvE. That's the reality. It's been the reality since before the game launched. It's not going to change. While it's your time to waste, you are in fact wasting time arguing about it, and you're derailing the thread. While I question whether there is any additional value in continuing the thread at all, there is certainly zero value in continuing the tangential debate _because ANet is not going to change the way they view the game modes_.

>

> The fact is that players have been complaining on the forums since launch about the reward structures in the game. This thread is another complaint. The complaint has no doubt been heard. At some point, ANet may decide to introduce other Legendary reward acquisition means to PvE. They may not.

>

> @ Swagger: If you're still checking this thread, and want to make your point, a poll might be better. The phrasing could be, "Should there be alternate PvE paths to obtain Legendary Gear?" with Yes or No being the options. Or you could structure it differently if you want to offer more choice.

 

Agreed ... I'm at the point where I'm convinced that this is not a matter of 'good vs. bad idea', it's simply a business decision on what they don't do to divert resources to implement it ... which clearly up to this point is 'it's not important enough to replace anything they are doing".

[Feanor.2358]

> @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

> > > ANet clearly thinks of sPvP and WvW as separate from both each other and from PvE. That's the reality. It's been the reality since before the game launched. It's not going to change. While it's your time to waste, you are in fact wasting time arguing about it, and you're derailing the thread. While I question whether there is any additional value in continuing the thread at all, there is certainly zero value in continuing the tangential debate _because ANet is not going to change the way they view the game modes_.

> > >

> > > The fact is that players have been complaining on the forums since launch about the reward structures in the game. This thread is another complaint. The complaint has no doubt been heard. At some point, ANet may decide to introduce other Legendary reward acquisition means to PvE. They may not.

> > >

> > > @ Swagger: If you're still checking this thread, and want to make your point, a poll might be better. The phrasing could be, "Should there be alternate PvE paths to obtain Legendary Gear?" with Yes or No being the options. Or you could structure it differently if you want to offer more choice.

> >

> > A poll like this would also be pointless. It's like going out on the streets and doing a poll "should the government remove all taxes". The majority will vote for the instant gratification, because that's what the majority does. And it won't change anything, because it would break the system and therefore can't be implemented. So if both the result and the lack of consequence are clear beforehand, what's the point of polling?

>

> The above reads like you are suggesting that a majority of forum goers who would visit such a poll would want additional paths to Legendary gear. Using the "taxes" analogy is a fail, however. Eliminating all taxes would mean the government would completely, or at least mostly shut down due to lack of revenue. Providing an additional path to specific pixels in a video game might co1st the game company some revenue, but it's also possible that it might gain them revenue.

>

> No, the real reason such a poll could be pointless is that ANet has always tended to cater to the so-called hardcore. Some claim that GW2 was intended to be a so-called "casual" game. However, the history of the game -- both the info put out by ANet and their attempts (and failures) to provide what the "real" gamers want -- says that ANet always intended to cater to the hardcore market segment.

>

> However, one thing that the history of the game also tells us is that ANet sometimes does provide the squeaky wheel with grease. Whether they would deny the hardcore their exclusive pixels to do so looks unlikely _now_. However, a lot of people thought ANet would never put mounts -- or raids -- into GW2.

 

No, the real reason why both polls are predetermined and irrelevant is because in both cases the population at large lack the knowledge to properly assess the consequences. This was the point of the analogy, and it is valid. Gamers, as a rule, have a pretty poor grasp on game design. There are exceptions, of course, but they won't change the outcome of such a poll. Another point of the analogy is that both would break the system. Whether you see it or not.

[Obtena.7952]

Polls are just big popularity contests for the subset of people that bother to even look at them. Besides, even if the OP did a poll, it's easily dismissed by either faction as spurious anyways. Anyone can say the polls here are not representative of the real desires of the whole population.

 

In this case, I think it's pretty clear to say that most people in this thread don't get the fact that being a good idea just isn't enough to get something implemented in the game. There is also some silliness happening in this thread that drowns out any worthwhile discussion; if there were good points on either side to be read, you can forget about them making an impact to Anet. Apparently, these people think arguing semantics and definitions is a compelling argument for change.

[IndigoSundown.5419]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> No, the real reason why both polls are predetermined and irrelevant is because in both cases the population at large lack the knowledge to properly assess the consequences. This was the point of the analogy, and it is valid. Gamers, as a rule, have a pretty poor grasp on game design. There are exceptions, of course, but they won't change the outcome of such a poll. Another point of the analogy is that both would break the system. Whether you see it or not.

 

Oh, I get that taking exclusivity of reward away from raids would likely be the death knell for that system. That type of reward structure is inextricably tied to the MMO construct that is raids. I would bet ANet knows it, too. What neither you nor I know is whether breaking the raid system would break the game -- even though it might break the game for raiders. Regardless, ANet is unlikely to go that way. Even if it could be proved that ANet is out a lot of revenue due to so-called casuals leaving due to upset about exclusive rewards, it's almost certainly too late to try to draw them back.

[STIHL.2489]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> I'm at the point where I'm convinced that this is not a matter of 'good vs. bad idea', it's simply a business decision on what they don't do to divert resources to implement it ... which clearly up to this point is 'it's not important enough to replace anything they are doing".

 

You also believe that the loss of players is a viable cost to keep things the way they are, so, no doubt you would take this stand no matter what price Anet or GW2 pays for it.

 

That aside,. Anet has already said this is the way things will be, while I think it is a bad business move to lock something like the ONLY PvE Legendary Armor behind an Expansion.. it's not my call to make.. it's a bold move.. lets see if it pays off.

[Obtena.7952]

> @"STIHL.2489" said:

> > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > I'm at the point where I'm convinced that this is not a matter of 'good vs. bad idea', it's simply a business decision on what they don't do to divert resources to implement it ... which clearly up to this point is 'it's not important enough to replace anything they are doing".

>

> You also believe that the loss of players is a viable cost to keep things the way they are, so, no doubt you would take this stand no matter what price Anet or GW2 pays for it.

>

> That aside,. Anet has already said this is the way things will be, while I think it is a bad business move to lock something like the ONLY PvE Legendary Armor behind an Expansion.. it's not my call to make.. it's a bold move.. lets see if it pays off.

 

Um, no, that's your interpretation, no doubt taking a page from your other 'friends' book on that one.

 

I believe there is a finite pool of resources to do a limited number of things with ... if multiple paths was 'worthy' of allocating those resources, then I believe Anet would do that; that's a completely BUSINESS based decision. In fact, I believe that if it was the best idea ever kind of thing, Anet would hire people to implement it or move people off other projects to this one. Those also have an impact on player retention too, so this isn't a zero sum game where if Anet doesn't implement multiple paths, they are just losing. There are trade offs with EVERY decision here, because of the limited resource pool.

 

Players are going to leave for lots of reasons and trying to claw them back with all the whatevers needed that will keep them is just NOT a viable business strategy. Again, there is a need to have a small amount of business acumen to understand what is happening here and I don't get why people don't understand it ... I can only hope that most people here have actually worked somewhere in their lives ... you see it every day at your workplaces ... this ISN'T some phenomenon limited to Anet or MMO developers. Arguing like the ROI on these decisions is just positive with zero impact on the rest of the business is naive.

 

The truth is that legendary armor affects a VERY small number of people, and while implementing multiple paths probably impacts an even SMALLER fraction of that in positive ways, there are negative effects on players as well, including resource allocation. Compared to releasing the new WvW structure or continuing the LS4 ... this idea is honestly just insignificant for the return on it's investment. It's a nothing to the game overall.

[STIHL.2489]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"STIHL.2489" said:

> > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > I'm at the point where I'm convinced that this is not a matter of 'good vs. bad idea', it's simply a business decision on what they don't do to divert resources to implement it ... which clearly up to this point is 'it's not important enough to replace anything they are doing".

> >

> > You also believe that the loss of players is a viable cost to keep things the way they are, so, no doubt you would take this stand no matter what price Anet or GW2 pays for it.

> >

> > That aside,. Anet has already said this is the way things will be, while I think it is a bad business move to lock something like the ONLY PvE Legendary Armor behind an Expansion.. it's not my call to make.. it's a bold move.. lets see if it pays off.

>

> Um, no, that's your interpretation, no doubt taking a page from your other 'friends' book on that one.

>

 

It really looks likes like you said that.. I mean.. have you forgotten this so soon?

> @"STIHL.2489" said:

> Why should Anet provide other paths to Legendary Armor, well, customer retention would be a good reason, to keep with their founding philosophy would be another.. but they don't need to do either of those things. They can take the loss in both players and faith.

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> So be it ... Anet can't make the game everything for everyone. I see no problem with that. It's reasonable and practical.

 

See right here, you said squarely when faced with the loss of players.. "so be it"..

 

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> Players are going to leave for lots of reasons and trying to claw them back with all the whatevers needed that will keep them is just NOT a viable business strategy. Again, there is a need to have a small amount of business acumen to understand what is happening here and I don't get why people don't understand it ... I can only hope that most people here have actually worked somewhere in their lives ... you see it every day at your workplaces ... this ISN'T some phenomenon limited to Anet or MMO developers. Arguing like the ROI on these decisions is just positive with zero impact on the rest of the business is naive.

 

I think the confusion lies in why cater to >5% of the players who often don't spend a lot of money to start with, when you have limited resources.

 

I mean, if a company has a limited amount of resources and time, if would be better served to reach out to their largest demographics to make the most money, That's just common sense.

 

But.. again.. it is what it is.

 

Lets see how it pans out. Worst case is that it becomes a cautionary tale, which I am sure myself and others would be glad to re-tell in every other game we play.

[Bast.7253]

Given the issues they had with the existing unique-skin legendary armors between the long development time and the multitude of comments about people unhappy with a lot of the skins, I don't see them ever making another unique skin legendary armor set ever again. Which I'm personally glad for because I will probably never get the ones that are already in the game. (Only one I would want would be the heavy armor set.)

 

I would however like a similar system to wvw/spvp for fractals to obtain legendary armor. It would give us incentive to keep doing fractals past dailies if we already have the backpack. Fractals development is a lot slower than I personally like anyway, but the reward system for them is pretty terrible unless they're dailies.

 

Perhaps more daily categories would help. Say for instance, another daily added that gives another 4 chests for doing 5 fractals in a certain tier.

 

 

 

[Kahyos.1437]

I hate instanced raids honestly. I would enjoy it if they would rather have open world bosses or events from time to time for legendary items that are very hard so the community works together.

[Feanor.2358]

> @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > No, the real reason why both polls are predetermined and irrelevant is because in both cases the population at large lack the knowledge to properly assess the consequences. This was the point of the analogy, and it is valid. Gamers, as a rule, have a pretty poor grasp on game design. There are exceptions, of course, but they won't change the outcome of such a poll. Another point of the analogy is that both would break the system. Whether you see it or not.

>

> Oh, I get that taking exclusivity of reward away from raids would likely be the death knell for that system. That type of reward structure is inextricably tied to the MMO construct that is raids. I would bet ANet knows it, too. What neither you nor I know is whether breaking the raid system would break the game -- even though it might break the game for raiders. Regardless, ANet is unlikely to go that way. Even if it could be proved that ANet is out a lot of revenue due to so-called casuals leaving due to upset about exclusive rewards, it's almost certainly too late to try to draw them back.

 

Oh, but I can say for certain all of this. Yes, breaking the raids will effectively break the game for a lot of players. The game would end up in the same situation before the raids were introduced, and they were introduced for a reason - namely, to address this exact issue. The market result is out of question - ANet keeps developing raids, therefore they're a market success.

[Thao.3947]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

> > > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > No, the real reason why both polls are predetermined and irrelevant is because in both cases the population at large lack the knowledge to properly assess the consequences. This was the point of the analogy, and it is valid. Gamers, as a rule, have a pretty poor grasp on game design. There are exceptions, of course, but they won't change the outcome of such a poll. Another point of the analogy is that both would break the system. Whether you see it or not.

> >

> > Oh, I get that taking exclusivity of reward away from raids would likely be the death knell for that system. That type of reward structure is inextricably tied to the MMO construct that is raids. I would bet ANet knows it, too. What neither you nor I know is whether breaking the raid system would break the game -- even though it might break the game for raiders. Regardless, ANet is unlikely to go that way. Even if it could be proved that ANet is out a lot of revenue due to so-called casuals leaving due to upset about exclusive rewards, it's almost certainly too late to try to draw them back.

>

> Oh, but I can say for certain all of this. Yes, breaking the raids will effectively break the game for a lot of players. The game would end up in the same situation before the raids were introduced, and they were introduced for a reason - namely, to address this exact issue. The market result is out of question - ANet keeps developing raids, therefore they're a market success.

 

Perhaps take a look at anets numbers, pre-raids and now.

[Feanor.2358]

> @"Thao.3947" said:

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

> > > > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > > No, the real reason why both polls are predetermined and irrelevant is because in both cases the population at large lack the knowledge to properly assess the consequences. This was the point of the analogy, and it is valid. Gamers, as a rule, have a pretty poor grasp on game design. There are exceptions, of course, but they won't change the outcome of such a poll. Another point of the analogy is that both would break the system. Whether you see it or not.

> > >

> > > Oh, I get that taking exclusivity of reward away from raids would likely be the death knell for that system. That type of reward structure is inextricably tied to the MMO construct that is raids. I would bet ANet knows it, too. What neither you nor I know is whether breaking the raid system would break the game -- even though it might break the game for raiders. Regardless, ANet is unlikely to go that way. Even if it could be proved that ANet is out a lot of revenue due to so-called casuals leaving due to upset about exclusive rewards, it's almost certainly too late to try to draw them back.

> >

> > Oh, but I can say for certain all of this. Yes, breaking the raids will effectively break the game for a lot of players. The game would end up in the same situation before the raids were introduced, and they were introduced for a reason - namely, to address this exact issue. The market result is out of question - ANet keeps developing raids, therefore they're a market success.

>

> Perhaps take a look at anets numbers, pre-raids and now.

 

Sure. Point me one business in which you see a market failure and you continue doing it. Decline in numbers is a natural process in this industry. It's not caused by raids, it's caused by age. The mere fact ANet keeps developing raids means the numbers would be lower now without the raids.

[STIHL.2489]

> @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > @"Thao.3947" said:

> > > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

> > > > > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > > > No, the real reason why both polls are predetermined and irrelevant is because in both cases the population at large lack the knowledge to properly assess the consequences. This was the point of the analogy, and it is valid. Gamers, as a rule, have a pretty poor grasp on game design. There are exceptions, of course, but they won't change the outcome of such a poll. Another point of the analogy is that both would break the system. Whether you see it or not.

> > > >

> > > > Oh, I get that taking exclusivity of reward away from raids would likely be the death knell for that system. That type of reward structure is inextricably tied to the MMO construct that is raids. I would bet ANet knows it, too. What neither you nor I know is whether breaking the raid system would break the game -- even though it might break the game for raiders. Regardless, ANet is unlikely to go that way. Even if it could be proved that ANet is out a lot of revenue due to so-called casuals leaving due to upset about exclusive rewards, it's almost certainly too late to try to draw them back.

> > >

> > > Oh, but I can say for certain all of this. Yes, breaking the raids will effectively break the game for a lot of players. The game would end up in the same situation before the raids were introduced, and they were introduced for a reason - namely, to address this exact issue. The market result is out of question - ANet keeps developing raids, therefore they're a market success.

> >

> > Perhaps take a look at anets numbers, pre-raids and now.

>

> Sure.** Point me one business in which you see a market failure and you continue doing it. **Decline in numbers is a natural process in this industry. It's not caused by raids, it's caused by age. The mere fact ANet keeps developing raids means the numbers would be lower now without the raids.

 

As requested:

Starwars Galaxies, NGE, they stuck with that bad decision.. right to the bitter end.

 

Let me know if you won't accept being wrong about this as well and need another example,

[Feanor.2358]

> @"STIHL.2489" said:

> > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > @"Thao.3947" said:

> > > > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > > > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

> > > > > > @"Feanor.2358" said:

> > > > > > No, the real reason why both polls are predetermined and irrelevant is because in both cases the population at large lack the knowledge to properly assess the consequences. This was the point of the analogy, and it is valid. Gamers, as a rule, have a pretty poor grasp on game design. There are exceptions, of course, but they won't change the outcome of such a poll. Another point of the analogy is that both would break the system. Whether you see it or not.

> > > > >

> > > > > Oh, I get that taking exclusivity of reward away from raids would likely be the death knell for that system. That type of reward structure is inextricably tied to the MMO construct that is raids. I would bet ANet knows it, too. What neither you nor I know is whether breaking the raid system would break the game -- even though it might break the game for raiders. Regardless, ANet is unlikely to go that way. Even if it could be proved that ANet is out a lot of revenue due to so-called casuals leaving due to upset about exclusive rewards, it's almost certainly too late to try to draw them back.

> > > >

> > > > Oh, but I can say for certain all of this. Yes, breaking the raids will effectively break the game for a lot of players. The game would end up in the same situation before the raids were introduced, and they were introduced for a reason - namely, to address this exact issue. The market result is out of question - ANet keeps developing raids, therefore they're a market success.

> > >

> > > Perhaps take a look at anets numbers, pre-raids and now.

> >

> > Sure.** Point me one business in which you see a market failure and you continue doing it. **Decline in numbers is a natural process in this industry. It's not caused by raids, it's caused by age. The mere fact ANet keeps developing raids means the numbers would be lower now without the raids.

>

> As requested:

> Starwars Galaxies, NGE, they stuck with that bad decision.. right to the bitter end.

>

> Let me know if you won't accept being wrong about this as well and need another example,

 

I'm not familiar with the bad decision in question. Care to enlighten me?