BlaqueFyre.5678 Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > I tried once to ahve a discussion about the policy and changing it, Chris Cleary came to thread, reposted the policy and ran away. That's not a discussion. There is no room to talk with devs about it. It's easier for them to ignore the problem they created. > > > > The fact that he didn't discuss in that thread isn't the same as saying they have never discussed it. Again, from ANet's point of view, there's nothing new to talk about. In that context, engaging in conversation on the topic is perhaps less respectful, since it gives the illusion that ANet is considering a policy change. > > > > If you want them to change their (collective) mind, come up with an innovation. Rephrasing the same points people made before, repeating cliches, or making declarative statements that indicate one isn't happy with the policy isn't going to do much at this point. > > Posting arguments and suggestions didn't help either. Chris completely ignored everything being said about the issue. That is direct declaration about their lack of will to do anything about it. I kinda understand them, it's easy and cheap to ignore it. Iirc that thread which was attempting using the same argument this thread is which stating is breaks EU law (which it doesn’t based on all definitions used in the GDRP) and didn’t not need any further discussion since everything was discussed during the AMA and What Anet discussed internally prior to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IndigoSundown.5419 Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > I tried once to ahve a discussion about the policy and changing it, Chris Cleary came to thread, reposted the policy and ran away. That's not a discussion. There is no room to talk with devs about it. It's easier for them to ignore the problem they created. > > > > The fact that he didn't discuss in that thread isn't the same as saying they have never discussed it. Again, from ANet's point of view, there's nothing new to talk about. In that context, engaging in conversation on the topic is perhaps less respectful, since it gives the illusion that ANet is considering a policy change. > > > > If you want them to change their (collective) mind, come up with an innovation. Rephrasing the same points people made before, repeating cliches, or making declarative statements that indicate one isn't happy with the policy isn't going to do much at this point. > > Posting arguments and suggestions didn't help either. Chris completely ignored everything being said about the issue. That is direct declaration about their lack of will to do anything about it. I kinda understand them, it's easy and cheap to ignore it. I've read a lot of threads about meters. I've yet to see any arguments, on either side, that were not in the very first of those threads. It isn't "ignoring" if you've seen, thought about, and dismissed the point before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrubySzymek.1362 Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 > @"BlaqueFyre.5678" said: > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > I tried once to ahve a discussion about the policy and changing it, Chris Cleary came to thread, reposted the policy and ran away. That's not a discussion. There is no room to talk with devs about it. It's easier for them to ignore the problem they created. > > > > > > The fact that he didn't discuss in that thread isn't the same as saying they have never discussed it. Again, from ANet's point of view, there's nothing new to talk about. In that context, engaging in conversation on the topic is perhaps less respectful, since it gives the illusion that ANet is considering a policy change. > > > > > > If you want them to change their (collective) mind, come up with an innovation. Rephrasing the same points people made before, repeating cliches, or making declarative statements that indicate one isn't happy with the policy isn't going to do much at this point. > > > > Posting arguments and suggestions didn't help either. Chris completely ignored everything being said about the issue. That is direct declaration about their lack of will to do anything about it. I kinda understand them, it's easy and cheap to ignore it. > > Iirc that thread which was attempting using the same argument this thread is which stating is breaks EU law (which it doesn’t based on all definitions used in the GDRP) and didn’t not need any further discussion since everything was discussed during the AMA and What Anet discussed internally prior to that. > > This awesome argumentation wasn't provided by me and I see no reason to dismiss whole thread because of some ridiculous statements provided by unrelated posters. Same way hardcore players don't want toxic members of their community being associated with them, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illconceived Was Na.9781 Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > @"BlaqueFyre.5678" said: > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > > > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > > I tried once to ahve a discussion about the policy and changing it, Chris Cleary came to thread, reposted the policy and ran away. That's not a discussion. There is no room to talk with devs about it. It's easier for them to ignore the problem they created. > > > > > > > > The fact that he didn't discuss in that thread isn't the same as saying they have never discussed it. Again, from ANet's point of view, there's nothing new to talk about. In that context, engaging in conversation on the topic is perhaps less respectful, since it gives the illusion that ANet is considering a policy change. > > > > > > > > If you want them to change their (collective) mind, come up with an innovation. Rephrasing the same points people made before, repeating cliches, or making declarative statements that indicate one isn't happy with the policy isn't going to do much at this point. > > > > > > Posting arguments and suggestions didn't help either. Chris completely ignored everything being said about the issue. That is direct declaration about their lack of will to do anything about it. I kinda understand them, it's easy and cheap to ignore it. > > > > Iirc that thread which was attempting using the same argument this thread is which stating is breaks EU law (which it doesn’t based on all definitions used in the GDRP) and didn’t not need any further discussion since everything was discussed during the AMA and What Anet discussed internally prior to that. > > > > > > This awesome argumentation wasn't provided by me and I see no reason to dismiss whole thread because of some ridiculous statements provided by unrelated posters. Same way hardcore players don't want toxic members of their community being associated with them, eh? I think you've misunderstood: what **new** arguments are there that would make it worth the time to open the discussion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrubySzymek.1362 Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said: > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > I tried once to ahve a discussion about the policy and changing it, Chris Cleary came to thread, reposted the policy and ran away. That's not a discussion. There is no room to talk with devs about it. It's easier for them to ignore the problem they created. > > > > > > The fact that he didn't discuss in that thread isn't the same as saying they have never discussed it. Again, from ANet's point of view, there's nothing new to talk about. In that context, engaging in conversation on the topic is perhaps less respectful, since it gives the illusion that ANet is considering a policy change. > > > > > > If you want them to change their (collective) mind, come up with an innovation. Rephrasing the same points people made before, repeating cliches, or making declarative statements that indicate one isn't happy with the policy isn't going to do much at this point. > > > > Posting arguments and suggestions didn't help either. Chris completely ignored everything being said about the issue. That is direct declaration about their lack of will to do anything about it. I kinda understand them, it's easy and cheap to ignore it. > > I've read a lot of threads about meters. I've yet to see any arguments, on either side, that were not in the very first of those threads. It isn't "ignoring" if you've seen, thought about, and dismissed the point before. Since this threads appear all the time, it is clearly the problem. And it is being actively ignored. Same thing you say about dps meter problems above were being constantly repeated to people who wanted raids and mounts. And guess what, we have raids and mounts now. I am not against dps meters as tools. However I want the policy and/or their implementation changed in this game. Which will never happen, obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrubySzymek.1362 Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > @"BlaqueFyre.5678" said: > > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > > > > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > > > I tried once to ahve a discussion about the policy and changing it, Chris Cleary came to thread, reposted the policy and ran away. That's not a discussion. There is no room to talk with devs about it. It's easier for them to ignore the problem they created. > > > > > > > > > > The fact that he didn't discuss in that thread isn't the same as saying they have never discussed it. Again, from ANet's point of view, there's nothing new to talk about. In that context, engaging in conversation on the topic is perhaps less respectful, since it gives the illusion that ANet is considering a policy change. > > > > > > > > > > If you want them to change their (collective) mind, come up with an innovation. Rephrasing the same points people made before, repeating cliches, or making declarative statements that indicate one isn't happy with the policy isn't going to do much at this point. > > > > > > > > Posting arguments and suggestions didn't help either. Chris completely ignored everything being said about the issue. That is direct declaration about their lack of will to do anything about it. I kinda understand them, it's easy and cheap to ignore it. > > > > > > Iirc that thread which was attempting using the same argument this thread is which stating is breaks EU law (which it doesn’t based on all definitions used in the GDRP) and didn’t not need any further discussion since everything was discussed during the AMA and What Anet discussed internally prior to that. > > > > > > > > > > This awesome argumentation wasn't provided by me and I see no reason to dismiss whole thread because of some ridiculous statements provided by unrelated posters. Same way hardcore players don't want toxic members of their community being associated with them, eh? > > I think you've misunderstood: what **new** arguments are there that would make it worth the time to open the discussion? Old ones weren't adressed to begin with, so no new arguments are needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlaqueFyre.5678 Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > @"BlaqueFyre.5678" said: > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > > > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > > I tried once to ahve a discussion about the policy and changing it, Chris Cleary came to thread, reposted the policy and ran away. That's not a discussion. There is no room to talk with devs about it. It's easier for them to ignore the problem they created. > > > > > > > > The fact that he didn't discuss in that thread isn't the same as saying they have never discussed it. Again, from ANet's point of view, there's nothing new to talk about. In that context, engaging in conversation on the topic is perhaps less respectful, since it gives the illusion that ANet is considering a policy change. > > > > > > > > If you want them to change their (collective) mind, come up with an innovation. Rephrasing the same points people made before, repeating cliches, or making declarative statements that indicate one isn't happy with the policy isn't going to do much at this point. > > > > > > Posting arguments and suggestions didn't help either. Chris completely ignored everything being said about the issue. That is direct declaration about their lack of will to do anything about it. I kinda understand them, it's easy and cheap to ignore it. > > > > Iirc that thread which was attempting using the same argument this thread is which stating is breaks EU law (which it doesn’t based on all definitions used in the GDRP) and didn’t not need any further discussion since everything was discussed during the AMA and What Anet discussed internally prior to that. > > > > > > This awesome argumentation wasn't provided by me and I see no reason to dismiss whole thread because of some ridiculous statements provided by unrelated posters. Same way hardcore players don't want toxic members of their community being associated with them, eh? https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/9814/dps-meter-policy-needs-to-be-revised/p1 Except you did at the bottom of the first post on that page and in your support of Paladine’s message quoted in the post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pifil.5193 Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > @"BlaqueFyre.5678" said: > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > > > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > > I tried once to ahve a discussion about the policy and changing it, Chris Cleary came to thread, reposted the policy and ran away. That's not a discussion. There is no room to talk with devs about it. It's easier for them to ignore the problem they created. > > > > > > > > The fact that he didn't discuss in that thread isn't the same as saying they have never discussed it. Again, from ANet's point of view, there's nothing new to talk about. In that context, engaging in conversation on the topic is perhaps less respectful, since it gives the illusion that ANet is considering a policy change. > > > > > > > > If you want them to change their (collective) mind, come up with an innovation. Rephrasing the same points people made before, repeating cliches, or making declarative statements that indicate one isn't happy with the policy isn't going to do much at this point. > > > > > > Posting arguments and suggestions didn't help either. Chris completely ignored everything being said about the issue. That is direct declaration about their lack of will to do anything about it. I kinda understand them, it's easy and cheap to ignore it. > > > > Iirc that thread which was attempting using the same argument this thread is which stating is breaks EU law (which it doesn’t based on all definitions used in the GDRP) and didn’t not need any further discussion since everything was discussed during the AMA and What Anet discussed internally prior to that. > > > > > > This awesome argumentation wasn't provided by me and I see no reason to dismiss whole thread because of some ridiculous statements provided by unrelated posters. Same way hardcore players don't want toxic members of their community being associated with them, eh? Perhaps because they're not associated with them. Grouping people together into a "community" simply because they happen to like one or two things always seemed like a bad idea to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrubySzymek.1362 Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 > @"BlaqueFyre.5678" said: > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > @"BlaqueFyre.5678" said: > > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > > > > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > > > I tried once to ahve a discussion about the policy and changing it, Chris Cleary came to thread, reposted the policy and ran away. That's not a discussion. There is no room to talk with devs about it. It's easier for them to ignore the problem they created. > > > > > > > > > > The fact that he didn't discuss in that thread isn't the same as saying they have never discussed it. Again, from ANet's point of view, there's nothing new to talk about. In that context, engaging in conversation on the topic is perhaps less respectful, since it gives the illusion that ANet is considering a policy change. > > > > > > > > > > If you want them to change their (collective) mind, come up with an innovation. Rephrasing the same points people made before, repeating cliches, or making declarative statements that indicate one isn't happy with the policy isn't going to do much at this point. > > > > > > > > Posting arguments and suggestions didn't help either. Chris completely ignored everything being said about the issue. That is direct declaration about their lack of will to do anything about it. I kinda understand them, it's easy and cheap to ignore it. > > > > > > Iirc that thread which was attempting using the same argument this thread is which stating is breaks EU law (which it doesn’t based on all definitions used in the GDRP) and didn’t not need any further discussion since everything was discussed during the AMA and What Anet discussed internally prior to that. > > > > > > > > > > This awesome argumentation wasn't provided by me and I see no reason to dismiss whole thread because of some ridiculous statements provided by unrelated posters. Same way hardcore players don't want toxic members of their community being associated with them, eh? > > https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/9814/dps-meter-policy-needs-to-be-revised/p1 > > Except you did at the bottom of the first post on that page and in your support of Paladine’s message quoted in the post. I updated first post accordingly as discussion went by. Chris debunked this arguement and never adressed anything else. Truth is, if Paladine never turned this discussion into law debate, Chris would never post there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReaverKane.7598 Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 > @"Cyberman Mastermind.6012" said: > > @"ReaverKane.7598" said: > > Oookay... Welcome to life in a society. > > Whether you like it or not, you and anyone else are judging others when you interact with them. > Sure, but it always depends on how they act on this judgement. Do they keep it to themselves? Or do they try to offer constructive critism? > Or do they stomp on the n00b who dares not to be a tactical genius and yet have the audacity to play in a group? > Perhaps they do so without realizing it, might be - some people think that being rude means being direct, and such... > > I'm quite sure that I'm not playing at 100% efficiency - there's some skills I'd rather not use, but since ANet decided that weapons enforce skills, and for some reason I want to have FUN in this game (which includes using a weapon I feel comfortable with, not just the one with best efficiency), there is little I can do. > > Also, long ago I realized that, despite playing lots of games, I'm not a machine where you stick in a different punch card to get a different program running. I know many people are like that - they look up the best gear/skill combo for a class and do exactly what the instructions say. > Great for them, but not everyone works that way. > > . > . > . > > To get back on topic: as long as you stay civil, I don't mind if you record my behaviour in-game, combat or otherwise. > If you're not staying civil, there should be options for that already (harassment and such). > [edit]To clarify the last sentence - these options exist. Maybe they need to be enforced more strongly, I don't know, and hopefully never will have to know. So far I had a pleasant experience in the game. Again, most people won't complain if you deviate 1% from the optimal dps for your class... Most People will complain if you deviate **GROSSLY** from the minimum average DPS that is sensible for a run. And most of the time, people will only even address the issue if the run is failing a lot, and the outlier is identified, which gets called out, or like i do, at the end of a successful run, i'll give advice to the outlier via PM. 3/5 times the person will become defensive (and by defensive i mean rude) which means i end up just blocking that person, and less tolerant of failure as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrubySzymek.1362 Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 > @"Pifil.5193" said: > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > @"BlaqueFyre.5678" said: > > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > > > > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > > > I tried once to ahve a discussion about the policy and changing it, Chris Cleary came to thread, reposted the policy and ran away. That's not a discussion. There is no room to talk with devs about it. It's easier for them to ignore the problem they created. > > > > > > > > > > The fact that he didn't discuss in that thread isn't the same as saying they have never discussed it. Again, from ANet's point of view, there's nothing new to talk about. In that context, engaging in conversation on the topic is perhaps less respectful, since it gives the illusion that ANet is considering a policy change. > > > > > > > > > > If you want them to change their (collective) mind, come up with an innovation. Rephrasing the same points people made before, repeating cliches, or making declarative statements that indicate one isn't happy with the policy isn't going to do much at this point. > > > > > > > > Posting arguments and suggestions didn't help either. Chris completely ignored everything being said about the issue. That is direct declaration about their lack of will to do anything about it. I kinda understand them, it's easy and cheap to ignore it. > > > > > > Iirc that thread which was attempting using the same argument this thread is which stating is breaks EU law (which it doesn’t based on all definitions used in the GDRP) and didn’t not need any further discussion since everything was discussed during the AMA and What Anet discussed internally prior to that. > > > > > > > > > > This awesome argumentation wasn't provided by me and I see no reason to dismiss whole thread because of some ridiculous statements provided by unrelated posters. Same way hardcore players don't want toxic members of their community being associated with them, eh? > > Perhaps because they're not associated with them. Grouping people together into a "community" simply because they happen to like one or two things always seemed like a bad idea to me. Oh but hardcores always group people against current dps meter status quo as lazy casuals who expect to be carried which is proven in my thread gently linked by black. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illconceived Was Na.9781 Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said: > > I've read a lot of threads about meters. I've yet to see any arguments, on either side, that were not in the very first of those threads. It isn't "ignoring" if you've seen, thought about, and dismissed the point before. > > Since this threads appear all the time, it is clearly the problem. No that only means that people don't agree with the policy and aren't willing to accept "yes, DPS meters are in the game" as an answer. > And it is being actively ignored. > Same thing you say about dps meter problems above were being constantly repeated to people who wanted raids and mounts. And guess what, we have raids and mounts now. No, that's a complete misunderstanding of what happened: ANet was working on mounts ages ago. They implemented despite people being against them and it turned out to be great for the game. Similarly, ANet was always considering Raids. It didn't fit their initial plans for the game and they changed their mind. These were also implemented despite some people objecting. And that, too, turned out to be good for the overall health of the game (even if it turned some people away). With DPS meters, they rejected them as being good for the game at launch and changed their mind, after seeing how people tackles challenging-instanced content. In each case, ANet didn't discuss much at all. It's not about repeating arguments; it's about the studio deciding what's ultimately best for the game. They'll listen to our feedback, but that doesn't mean they'll agree or change their implementation plans to placate the loudest voices among us. > However I want the policy and/or their implementation changed in this game. Why? How would the game benefit from a different policy? > Which will never happen, obviously. Make up your mind: either ANet changes stuff because people discuss it, which is what you claimed above. Or they don't change stuff. **** > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > This awesome argumentation wasn't provided by me and I see no reason to dismiss whole thread because of some ridiculous statements provided by unrelated posters. Same way hardcore players don't want toxic members of their community being associated with them, eh? > > > > I think you've misunderstood: what **new** arguments are there that would make it worth the time to open the discussion? > > Old ones weren't adressed to begin with, so no new arguments are needed. On the contrary, the old ones have long since been addressed. You simply don't agree with ANet's decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlaqueFyre.5678 Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > @"BlaqueFyre.5678" said: > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > @"BlaqueFyre.5678" said: > > > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > > > > > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > > > > I tried once to ahve a discussion about the policy and changing it, Chris Cleary came to thread, reposted the policy and ran away. That's not a discussion. There is no room to talk with devs about it. It's easier for them to ignore the problem they created. > > > > > > > > > > > > The fact that he didn't discuss in that thread isn't the same as saying they have never discussed it. Again, from ANet's point of view, there's nothing new to talk about. In that context, engaging in conversation on the topic is perhaps less respectful, since it gives the illusion that ANet is considering a policy change. > > > > > > > > > > > > If you want them to change their (collective) mind, come up with an innovation. Rephrasing the same points people made before, repeating cliches, or making declarative statements that indicate one isn't happy with the policy isn't going to do much at this point. > > > > > > > > > > Posting arguments and suggestions didn't help either. Chris completely ignored everything being said about the issue. That is direct declaration about their lack of will to do anything about it. I kinda understand them, it's easy and cheap to ignore it. > > > > > > > > Iirc that thread which was attempting using the same argument this thread is which stating is breaks EU law (which it doesn’t based on all definitions used in the GDRP) and didn’t not need any further discussion since everything was discussed during the AMA and What Anet discussed internally prior to that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This awesome argumentation wasn't provided by me and I see no reason to dismiss whole thread because of some ridiculous statements provided by unrelated posters. Same way hardcore players don't want toxic members of their community being associated with them, eh? > > > > https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/9814/dps-meter-policy-needs-to-be-revised/p1 > > > > Except you did at the bottom of the first post on that page and in your support of Paladine’s message quoted in the post. > > I updated first post accordingly as discussion went by. Chris debunked this arguement and never adressed anything else. Truth is, if Paladine never turned this discussion into law debate, Chris would never post there. That thread shows you stating they are privacy violations at the bottom which does after you updated it and by the definitions of both US and EU laws it’s not protected by privacy laws as you claimed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrubySzymek.1362 Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said: > > > > I've read a lot of threads about meters. I've yet to see any arguments, on either side, that were not in the very first of those threads. It isn't "ignoring" if you've seen, thought about, and dismissed the point before. > > > > Since this threads appear all the time, it is clearly the problem. > No that only means that people don't agree with the policy and aren't willing to accept "yes, DPS meters are in the game" as an answer. Actually they are not. They are 3rd party toys with no official support from Anet. I am not against dps meters, I am against their current implementation. One day you gonna learn the difference and stop generalizing people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrubySzymek.1362 Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 > @"BlaqueFyre.5678" said: > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > @"BlaqueFyre.5678" said: > > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > > @"BlaqueFyre.5678" said: > > > > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > > > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > > > > > > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > > > > > I tried once to ahve a discussion about the policy and changing it, Chris Cleary came to thread, reposted the policy and ran away. That's not a discussion. There is no room to talk with devs about it. It's easier for them to ignore the problem they created. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The fact that he didn't discuss in that thread isn't the same as saying they have never discussed it. Again, from ANet's point of view, there's nothing new to talk about. In that context, engaging in conversation on the topic is perhaps less respectful, since it gives the illusion that ANet is considering a policy change. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you want them to change their (collective) mind, come up with an innovation. Rephrasing the same points people made before, repeating cliches, or making declarative statements that indicate one isn't happy with the policy isn't going to do much at this point. > > > > > > > > > > > > Posting arguments and suggestions didn't help either. Chris completely ignored everything being said about the issue. That is direct declaration about their lack of will to do anything about it. I kinda understand them, it's easy and cheap to ignore it. > > > > > > > > > > Iirc that thread which was attempting using the same argument this thread is which stating is breaks EU law (which it doesn’t based on all definitions used in the GDRP) and didn’t not need any further discussion since everything was discussed during the AMA and What Anet discussed internally prior to that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This awesome argumentation wasn't provided by me and I see no reason to dismiss whole thread because of some ridiculous statements provided by unrelated posters. Same way hardcore players don't want toxic members of their community being associated with them, eh? > > > > > > https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/9814/dps-meter-policy-needs-to-be-revised/p1 > > > > > > Except you did at the bottom of the first post on that page and in your support of Paladine’s message quoted in the post. > > > > I updated first post accordingly as discussion went by. Chris debunked this arguement and never adressed anything else. Truth is, if Paladine never turned this discussion into law debate, Chris would never post there. > > That thread shows you stating they are privacy violations at the bottom which does after you updated it and by the definitions of both US and EU laws it’s not protected by privacy laws as you claimed. > > Since you didn't read what you quote; Chris debunked this arguement and never adressed anything else. Truth is, if Paladine never turned this discussion into law debate, Chris would never post there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pifil.5193 Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > @"Pifil.5193" said: > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > @"BlaqueFyre.5678" said: > > > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > > > > > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > > > > I tried once to ahve a discussion about the policy and changing it, Chris Cleary came to thread, reposted the policy and ran away. That's not a discussion. There is no room to talk with devs about it. It's easier for them to ignore the problem they created. > > > > > > > > > > > > The fact that he didn't discuss in that thread isn't the same as saying they have never discussed it. Again, from ANet's point of view, there's nothing new to talk about. In that context, engaging in conversation on the topic is perhaps less respectful, since it gives the illusion that ANet is considering a policy change. > > > > > > > > > > > > If you want them to change their (collective) mind, come up with an innovation. Rephrasing the same points people made before, repeating cliches, or making declarative statements that indicate one isn't happy with the policy isn't going to do much at this point. > > > > > > > > > > Posting arguments and suggestions didn't help either. Chris completely ignored everything being said about the issue. That is direct declaration about their lack of will to do anything about it. I kinda understand them, it's easy and cheap to ignore it. > > > > > > > > Iirc that thread which was attempting using the same argument this thread is which stating is breaks EU law (which it doesn’t based on all definitions used in the GDRP) and didn’t not need any further discussion since everything was discussed during the AMA and What Anet discussed internally prior to that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This awesome argumentation wasn't provided by me and I see no reason to dismiss whole thread because of some ridiculous statements provided by unrelated posters. Same way hardcore players don't want toxic members of their community being associated with them, eh? > > > > Perhaps because they're not associated with them. Grouping people together into a "community" simply because they happen to like one or two things always seemed like a bad idea to me. > > Oh but hardcores always group people against current dps meter status quo as lazy casuals who expect to be carried which is proven in my thread gently linked by black. Yeah, them darn hardcores... they're all the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlaqueFyre.5678 Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > @"BlaqueFyre.5678" said: > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > @"BlaqueFyre.5678" said: > > > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > > > @"BlaqueFyre.5678" said: > > > > > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > > > > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > > > > > > I tried once to ahve a discussion about the policy and changing it, Chris Cleary came to thread, reposted the policy and ran away. That's not a discussion. There is no room to talk with devs about it. It's easier for them to ignore the problem they created. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The fact that he didn't discuss in that thread isn't the same as saying they have never discussed it. Again, from ANet's point of view, there's nothing new to talk about. In that context, engaging in conversation on the topic is perhaps less respectful, since it gives the illusion that ANet is considering a policy change. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you want them to change their (collective) mind, come up with an innovation. Rephrasing the same points people made before, repeating cliches, or making declarative statements that indicate one isn't happy with the policy isn't going to do much at this point. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Posting arguments and suggestions didn't help either. Chris completely ignored everything being said about the issue. That is direct declaration about their lack of will to do anything about it. I kinda understand them, it's easy and cheap to ignore it. > > > > > > > > > > > > Iirc that thread which was attempting using the same argument this thread is which stating is breaks EU law (which it doesn’t based on all definitions used in the GDRP) and didn’t not need any further discussion since everything was discussed during the AMA and What Anet discussed internally prior to that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This awesome argumentation wasn't provided by me and I see no reason to dismiss whole thread because of some ridiculous statements provided by unrelated posters. Same way hardcore players don't want toxic members of their community being associated with them, eh? > > > > > > > > https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/9814/dps-meter-policy-needs-to-be-revised/p1 > > > > > > > > Except you did at the bottom of the first post on that page and in your support of Paladine’s message quoted in the post. > > > > > > I updated first post accordingly as discussion went by. Chris debunked this arguement and never adressed anything else. Truth is, if Paladine never turned this discussion into law debate, Chris would never post there. > > > > That thread shows you stating they are privacy violations at the bottom which does after you updated it and by the definitions of both US and EU laws it’s not protected by privacy laws as you claimed. > > > > > > Since you didn't read what you quote; Chris debunked this arguement and never adressed anything else. Truth is, if Paladine never turned this discussion into law debate, Chris would never post there. > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > @"BlaqueFyre.5678" said: > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > @"BlaqueFyre.5678" said: > > > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > > > @"BlaqueFyre.5678" said: > > > > > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > > > > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > > > > > > I tried once to ahve a discussion about the policy and changing it, Chris Cleary came to thread, reposted the policy and ran away. That's not a discussion. There is no room to talk with devs about it. It's easier for them to ignore the problem they created. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The fact that he didn't discuss in that thread isn't the same as saying they have never discussed it. Again, from ANet's point of view, there's nothing new to talk about. In that context, engaging in conversation on the topic is perhaps less respectful, since it gives the illusion that ANet is considering a policy change. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you want them to change their (collective) mind, come up with an innovation. Rephrasing the same points people made before, repeating cliches, or making declarative statements that indicate one isn't happy with the policy isn't going to do much at this point. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Posting arguments and suggestions didn't help either. Chris completely ignored everything being said about the issue. That is direct declaration about their lack of will to do anything about it. I kinda understand them, it's easy and cheap to ignore it. > > > > > > > > > > > > Iirc that thread which was attempting using the same argument this thread is which stating is breaks EU law (which it doesn’t based on all definitions used in the GDRP) and didn’t not need any further discussion since everything was discussed during the AMA and What Anet discussed internally prior to that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This awesome argumentation wasn't provided by me and I see no reason to dismiss whole thread because of some ridiculous statements provided by unrelated posters. Same way hardcore players don't want toxic members of their community being associated with them, eh? > > > > > > > > https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/9814/dps-meter-policy-needs-to-be-revised/p1 > > > > > > > > Except you did at the bottom of the first post on that page and in your support of Paladine’s message quoted in the post. > > > > > > I updated first post accordingly as discussion went by. Chris debunked this arguement and never adressed anything else. Truth is, if Paladine never turned this discussion into law debate, Chris would never post there. > > > > That thread shows you stating they are privacy violations at the bottom which does after you updated it and by the definitions of both US and EU laws it’s not protected by privacy laws as you claimed. > > > > > > Since you didn't read what you quote; Chris debunked this arguement and never adressed anything else. Truth is, if Paladine never turned this discussion into law debate, Chris would never post there. You made your claim on it breaching privacy protection laws after Chris’ quote, not before and no edit stating it was debunked, clearly I did read that post, unlike some people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AliamRationem.5172 Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 > @"sorudo.9054" said: > privacy or not, being able to see who has a DPS meter on would already help tons and lowers frustration. Would it? It seems to me that all it does is increase toxicity. Since the vast majority of players using a dps meter rarely bother to mention it, and the purpose of this change is explicitly to exclude players who use them, it's hard to imagine any other outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyberman Mastermind.6012 Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 > @"ReaverKane.7598" said: > Again, most people won't complain if you deviate 1% from the optimal dps for your class... Most People will complain if you deviate **GROSSLY** from the minimum average DPS that is sensible for a run. And most of the time, people will only even address the issue if the run is failing a lot, and the outlier is identified, which gets called out, or like i do, at the end of a successful run, i'll give advice to the outlier via PM. 3/5 times the person will become defensive (and by defensive i mean rude) which means i end up just blocking that person, and less tolerant of failure as well. First off, I think it's great that you send them a PM (no sarcasm here!) instead of announcing it in group chat - it shows you don't want to blame them in front of the group, but want to help. (Because we all know there are jerks out there, so even if you innocently offer a suggestion, it's possible someone else will pick it up to harass the other player.) I'm surprised that a majority of the reactions you get are negative, to be honest. Maybe you just have bad luck with grouping and always find the jerks who don't care about trying to increase their DPS. Just to cover both sides, though, maybe your remarks, even if not intended as such, are received as hostile. It's astonishing how the same words can be taken completely different. One mans "Well, lets get to it" is anothers "You lazy bastard, why the f... are you not yet up and running, damn you!"... (The example is hyperbole, but I'm serious about the issue itself.) Could you give an example? I'm playing a ranger if you need a class. I'm actually afraid of posting my build now... Regarding being tolerant of failure - understandable and quite human, but obviously a downward spiral. Being no master of Zen myself, I'll refrain from saying you should stay optimistically and always assume the best intentions in others :-) (Which one should, IMO, but I try not to throw stones unless I'm sure those "glass" walls are not in fact rubber and bouncy...) . . . To get somewhat back on topic, having some time to think about it - I actually think it would HELP if Anet built a DPS meter into the game. Equal footing for all, and they could (and should!) offer average DPS for each class/weapon combination. They already pre-built half of our skills, so lets take away the second-guessing. Toxic people are toxic - they don't need a reason, just an excuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarcShriek.5829 Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 IF combat data is public, why shouldn't dps meter use be public? I think that people using dps meters should be flagged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenDEADLY.5281 Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 Just out of curiosity, exactly how many times does something have to be meticulously explained to someone in a good willed and informative manner, to have it willfully ignored, before being able to write them off entirely as a troll? Honest question, why do people like this even need to be catered to? His request is asinine, he refuses to see reason, and the community as a whole would be much better off by simply not engaging him at all at this point. You're all going out of you way to carefully explain everything and his response is simply to ignore it and continue to make false claims about his privacy rights in an online video game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belorn.2659 Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 If people who use DPS meters should get flagged, could we also flag people who get kicked out of groups? Even better, lets bring up some amazon rating system so we can all flag each other so everyone know who to exclude and who to include before they even meet. I can only see flowers and hearths from such change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperadordf.2687 Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 > @"DarcShriek.5829" said: > IF combat data is public, why shouldn't dps meter use be public? I think that people using dps meters should be flagged. Sure, I would love to kick people who don't use dps meters. It would save me a lot of effort and bad feelings for kicking people. Instead of kicking them after the first wipe, kick them instantly. Solid idea, love it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voltekka.2375 Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 "I want no dps meters! IT VIOLATES MY PRIVACY! Flag people who use them!" is, in my view, a way of using many words to say "i do bad dps. Carry me" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Despond.2174 Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 Sorry, but when you said "violating my privacy" you lost me. Beyond exaggeration and attention demanding. You need to grow up, it's just DPS meters. I don't even need to use them because I know I perform decently on the golems and I always ask if anyone's using them let me know how I am doing. People like to use them to improve and gauge where everyone is, if this somehow hurts your emotions then create your own groups with your own standards. It's nothing to do with elitism, in fact it promotes a higher bar and motivation for people to improve. That's why I don't care if someone in the group is using one, I on my own am always trying to improve myself and I am not sitting back wanting to be carried, I want to contribute equally to the group. That's the mentality you want in gaming, patience and motivation. 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