Don't like multi-maps

[Asur.9178]

[Fix] ...the new multi-map nonsense ASAP. This is not healthy for the game.

[Loosmaster.8263]

Kind of vague isn't it?

[JustTrogdor.7892]

> @Loosmaster.8263 said:

> Kind of vague isn't it?

 

Probably referring to this:

 

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/18489/introducing-domain-of-istan-ml-farm

 

 

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

How odd; says there is an Official post here. But, no.

 

Bummer.

 

[JustTrogdor.7892]

> @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said:

> How odd; says there is an Official post here. But, no.

>

> Bummer.

>

 

That is weird. Maybe because the OP used an Anet tag in the post? I have no idea as this forum has its weird issues.

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

Indeed. Or maybe someone posted, and then removed their post. /shrug

This forum seems to be reluctant to allow mistakes.

[Khisanth.2948]

but it's finally gotten the elite spec exotics into a decent price range ...

[Asur.9178]

It says official because an ANet mod changed/edited the title and contents.

[JustTrogdor.7892]

> @Asur.9178 said:

> It says official because an ANet mod changed/edited the title and contents.

 

Interesting. When I see thread titles with an Anet tag I usually look to see what they had to say. In that case I think it would be of benefit for the mod that made the changes to leave a comment in the OP or as a separate post.

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

Ahh, I didn't notice that. Though, I'm pretty sure I've seen edited (by Gaile) titles without the tag. Of course, I could be mistaken.

 

Edit: Nope, I wasn't mistaken. Here's an example: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/18461/tp-price-drops-was-goodbye-old-friends#latest

[TheGrimm.5624]

Not sure what the answer is to this one, just a shame that people will look to game the system when the map design is like this. I think one of the better options might be less timer based and more event base triggers to advance the map. Now that said we don't have visibility into the upcoming maps so this might cause issues with maps we have no information on yet and conflicting events, but map advances driven by events do require players to play the content versus just jump to the rewards section. I don't have problems with farmers unless they farm at the expense of everyone else playing the content as designed, that becomes an issue.

[Gaile Gray.6029]

Hi,

 

I want to clarify what we do and do not do in relation to editing a post's title or contents:

 

* **Thread Titles:** We occasionally will modify a thread **title** to make it more explanatory. Where "I really want this..." isn't clear, "I really want new races" exposes the thread's topic. If there's a case where minor editing of a title clarifies the topic, or when it reduces the concerns about "click bait" titles, we sometimes will amend the topic, often as the result of a post where a forum member points out that it would be beneficial. Usually titles are replaced to keep them short, but for very brief titles we might do this: "New Topic Name (was '[former topic name]')." Replacements are made using as neutral wording as possible, and if there are questions about such a change, the forum member can write Forums@Arena.Net and we can discuss.

 

* **Post Contents:** We *never* in any way edit or change the **contents** of a post. In this thread I added a single word -- "fix" -- taken from the original title and added to make it clear the OP was asking for changes. However, we do not change someone's words. * (This may explain why we remove posts with offensive language, rather than simply editing it out.)

 

* **This post:** In the case of this thread, the title was very vague (as the second post mentions) -- "Anet fix this." As you can see, the new title reflects the contents.

 

* **Bug:** Edited titles do not add an "ArenaNet" flag to a thread. You've noted a forum bug, and thanks for pointing it out. I'll report this to our web programmer and Vanilla.

 

> @Asur.9178 said:

> It says official because an ANet mod changed/edited the title and contents.

 

 

[Shagaliscious.6281]

They should disable mounts in Silverwastes too. It's an unfair advantage for the people with PoF to be able to loot more chests just because they bought the expansion.

[Teratus.2859]

No fan of multi-loot either.. imo it's pretty much an exploit.

[mercury ranique.2170]

> @Teratus.2859 said:

> No fan of multi-loot either.. imo it's pretty much an exploit.

 

An exploit is using a bug to gain an unfair advantage. It is a breach of the user agreement and get people banned. It is like saying someone is pretty much a murderer and imo very harsh.

 

There might be or might not be a bug involved. I personally suspect the meta was rushed cause it was a fair criticism of PoF (lacking good meta’s). So even if it was unintended, I do think it is more a feature. But further, it doesn’t give you an unfair advantage as everyone can do it. If it s desirable or should be removed is another story. I think the event do need some adjustment in the reward and the reward mechanic.

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

A bug that allows everyone to do it doesn't make it 'not an exploit'. AB multi-loot was deemed in the 'exploit-area' by MO, himself.

 

No idea what might or might not happen with this, but anything that affects the economy so drastically should probably be looked into.

 

@"Gaile Gray.6029" What is the forum bug? As noted above, it's not that ArenaNet tags show up when editing titles, or posts. Or are you saying it only happens sometimes?

[Ayakaru.6583]

guys, its Grey tag. That means a dev moderated it. Only if the tag is red they actually commented

[JustTrogdor.7892]

> @"Ayakaru.6583" said:

> guys, its Grey tag. That means a dev moderated it. Only if the tag is red they actually commented

 

Hate to continue off topic but it seems this thread has also branched in to discussions about posts tags. It is a red tag and was before Gaile posted in this thread, just like all the other real Anet responses, at least on my browser.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

Same for me^. And, if an ArenaNet tag shows up when editing titles, why isn't there one on the thread I linked to above?

[Asur.9178]

> @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

> Hi,

>

> I want to clarify what we do and do not do in relation to editing a post's title or contents:

>

> * **Thread Titles:** We occasionally will modify a thread **title** to make it more explanatory. Where "I really want this..." isn't clear, "I really want new races" exposes the thread's topic. If there's a case where minor editing of a title clarifies the topic, or when it reduces the concerns about "click bait" titles, we sometimes will amend the topic, often as the result of a post where a forum member points out that it would be beneficial. Usually titles are replaced to keep them short, but for very brief titles we might do this: "New Topic Name (was '[former topic name]')." Replacements are made using as neutral wording as possible, and if there are questions about such a change, the forum member can write Forums@Arena.Net and we can discuss.

>

> * **Post Contents:** We *never* in any way edit or change the **contents** of a post. In this thread I added a single word -- "fix" -- taken from the original title and added to make it clear the OP was asking for changes. However, we do not change someone's words. * (This may explain why we remove posts with offensive language, rather than simply editing it out.)

>

> * **This post:** In the case of this thread, the title was very vague (as the second post mentions) -- "Anet fix this." As you can see, the new title reflects the contents.

>

> * **Bug:** Edited titles do not add an "ArenaNet" flag to a thread. You've noted a forum bug, and thanks for pointing it out. I'll report this to our web programmer and Vanilla.

>

> > @Asur.9178 said:

> > It says official because an ANet mod changed/edited the title and contents.

>

>

 

That's good to know. Thanks Gaile!

 

Also, to note, I don't particularly dislike multi-maps specifically, but rather the idea of acquisition of rewards without working for it, and the amount of toxicity it brews.

 

One should not be able to acquire rewards they did not earn. In this case, you should not be able to loot chests if you were not actively participating in a specific map instance.

 

> @"mercury ranique.2170" said:

> > @Teratus.2859 said:

> > No fan of multi-loot either.. imo it's pretty much an exploit.

>

> An exploit is using a bug to gain an unfair advantage. It is a breach of the user agreement and get people banned. It is like saying someone is pretty much a murderer and imo very harsh.

>

> There might be or might not be a bug involved. I personally suspect the meta was rushed cause it was a fair criticism of PoF (lacking good meta’s). So even if it was unintended, I do think it is more a feature. But further, it doesn’t give you an unfair advantage as everyone can do it. If it s desirable or should be removed is another story. I think the event do need some adjustment in the reward and the reward mechanic.

 

An exploit does not necessary have to include a bug. An exploit can involve you "exploiting" an unintended mechanic, which you clearly know and understand is/was unintended.

[Ayakaru.6583]

> @JustTrogdor.7892 said:

> > @"Ayakaru.6583" said:

> > guys, its Grey tag. That means a dev moderated it. Only if the tag is red they actually commented

>

> Hate to continue off topic but it seems this thread has also branched in to discussions about posts tags. It is a red tag and was before Gaile posted in this thread, just like all the other real Anet responses, at least on my browser.

>

>

>

>

>

>

 

Really? It's tagged grey on my screen.

Compared to a post below which is tagged red and does have a dev comment

[Blude.6812]

> @Shagaliscious.6281 said:

> They should disable mounts in Silverwastes too. It's an unfair advantage for the people with PoF to be able to loot more chests just because they bought the expansion.

 

WAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. Just buy the expansion but NEVER punish those that have bought it.

[Menadena.7482]

> @JustTrogdor.7892 said:

> > @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said:

> > How odd; says there is an Official post here. But, no.

> >

> > Bummer.

> >

>

> That is weird. Maybe because the OP used an Anet tag in the post? I have no idea as this forum has its weird issues.

 

Yes, when we first got this forum silly me thought an anet tag on a thread meant an anet account had started it. Then I realized it was probably just tag spam.

[Menadena.7482]

> @TheGrimm.5624 said:

> Not sure what the answer is to this one, just a shame that people will look to game the system when the map design is like this. I think one of the better options might be less timer based and more event base triggers to advance the map. Now that said we don't have visibility into the upcoming maps so this might cause issues with maps we have no information on yet and conflicting events, but map advances driven by events do require players to play the content versus just jump to the rewards section. I don't have problems with farmers unless they farm at the expense of everyone else playing the content as designed, that becomes an issue.

 

Actually, they do cause a problem: they spike the population, making the event scale up, then leave for another map all at once. I joined the squad near me during one of the new metas yesterday and they were openly hostile about there being another commander on the map, even trying to figure out a way to get them to disconnect.

[Charrbeque.8729]

> @Asur.9178 said:

> [Fix] ...the new multi-map nonsense ASAP. This is not healthy for the game.

 

Maybe they should change it like they did to AB multi loot: require players to get credit for the final part of the event before they can open chests. I've always found it odd that I can open the chests in Istan even though I didn't participate in the events.