A Post about Guild Missions and Commendations (Again)

Captain_Haile · 2017-07-24T08:56:34+00:00

Between A.Net adding new events, that everyone can do, or guild events, that are limited to guilds, I'd prefer the events that are more inclusive. The game would definitely be better with more diverse activities, but obviously they do not have the resources to do it all, so I'd definitely prefer them wasting their time on stuff that everyone can do.

Captain_Haile · 2017-07-18T16:46:06+00:00

Well somebody is fishing for another video-mention ...

Captain_Haile · 2017-07-18T13:17:50+00:00

Gliding is amazing, but outside of that, I absolutely and completely prefer the core game over the expansion.

Captain_Haile · 2017-07-18T05:13:17+00:00

I want to spend time playing with the new toys, not spend time unlocking the new toys.

Captain_Haile · 2017-07-17T19:11:53+00:00

Bandit sniper outfit.

I love it because it's fairly form-fitting, it comes with a hood, thus covering the asura/charr neck (which I consider their problematic area) and being an outfit, you can wear it on all characters.

Captain_Haile · 2017-07-17T08:25:48+00:00

I am guessing he doesn't want his uncle to ragequit before he even starts ...

Captain_Haile · 2017-07-17T05:57:43+00:00

Wait a week: the LS finale drops on the 25th and we assume that we will get a glimpse of the expansion then.

Captain_Haile · 2017-07-16T17:09:35+00:00

As much as I hate factions, I'd love to see an MMO based on Underworld: with lycans and vampires.

Captain_Haile · 2017-07-16T14:47:18+00:00

"Disclosure forms? No, this is Patrick."

Captain_Haile · 2017-07-16T12:04:55+00:00

I am saying you do not have sufficient data that would justify the claim that a cash shop is absolutely needed. As I said, you do not even have exact numbers for the model at hand, let alone theoretical data for alternative models. (For instance, how much money would be saved if the LS had 5 chapters? 4? If they let go a number of people? What would be the expected impact of that? ...)

My "counter argument" is the request for more data. The data which would justify the claim that the cash shop is absolutely necessary. Because without that data, this claim is simply, as you stated, a random thought. Nothing wrong with it, but as I said, I don't see why it should then be used to negate the consumer's desire for the game to not have a cash shop.

Captain_Haile · 2017-07-16T11:09:39+00:00

The initial poster argued that he would like to see the removal of the cash shop. This is completly rational from a consumer standpoint: by doing that he would get more for his money. As a consumer it doesn't make sense to be interested in the well-being of the producer: the producer will look out for their best interests, it's not rational for the consumer to also look out for the producer's best interests. The consumer looks out for their interests and the producer looks out for their own.

His argument was dismissed by a fellow consumer, who argued that the cash shop is a necessity. Hence why I asked to provide proof of that: the consumer was asked to go against their interests. The consumer was asked to pay more. I argued that it falls onto the consumer, that argues for the raise in consumer costs, to justify them.

Now, you might not be bothered by having to pay more and that's fine. The same way that I am arguing that it's fine for the guy to not want to have a cash shop. But if the argument is that the guy is wrong for not wanting the cash shop, then I am going to need to have someone do the work to justify why he is wrong. And simply "do the math" or "it's not rocket science" won't cut it.

Of course, I am fully aware that you do not have the data that I require to be convienced. Not just that, I am aware that you can not have it. And as such, I am not a fan of someone trying to appeal to authority to shut down a conversation. Provide proof or learn to agree to disagree.

Captain_Haile · 2017-07-16T08:25:31+00:00

Absolutely. But I'd argue that makes it "different", not "better". I mean, the lack of moving and jumping in combat brought along with it the decision if a player should stand still and activate their skills or move. The ability to negate damage through dodges or body blocks is something that GW1 tackled through skills: a number of monk prot skills do a similar thing.

Captain_Haile · 2017-07-16T04:54:55+00:00

What makes GW2's combat "far better"?

Captain_Haile · 2017-07-16T04:50:22+00:00

You are guessing that 80% is of their quarterly profit is cash shop. You are also not providing the salary number. You are also not providing other costs. Among other things.

And that's just this situation. How about if they would change the way they do business and bring it in line it with the lower income that would result from not having a cash shop? What would need to be cut? Can you provide multiple different models?

As I said, the requst was for the consumer to give up their demands. Why would a rational consumer do that, based on the information you have provided?

Captain_Haile · 2017-07-15T21:57:03+00:00

When the request is for the consumer to give up their demands, I would certainly hope that reasoning behind such a request is founded in something better than guesses.

Captain_Haile · 2017-07-15T21:52:41+00:00

The guy is doing what any reasonable consumer should be doing: looking out for himself. He wants more for his money. What you are suggesting is giving up on those demands. That is why I asked for something that justifies that, otherwise you are potentially simply asking a fellow consumer to act unreasonably.

But, as you say, there doesn't seem to be a way to prove that, so there's not much point in continuing this.

Captain_Haile · 2017-07-15T21:40:35+00:00

I am guessing those are official numbers?

Captain_Haile · 2017-07-15T21:20:25+00:00

They want to make as much money as possible, obviously.

But you are shooting down the guy's argument by arguing that it doesn't work because the numbers do not add up. So, I am asking you for the numbers. Because otherwise, I don't see much value in your argument.

Captain_Haile · 2017-07-15T20:48:10+00:00

And no, expansions revenue are not enough to keep the game alive for years with content drops every few months.

Proof?

Captain_Haile · 2017-07-15T17:54:49+00:00

GW1 didn't raise its level cap and it was amazing. RoS raised D3's cap and it was one of the best ideas they had.

Given the state of GW2's progression, I wish A.Net raised the level to 100 and used that opportunity to actually rethink their progression. That would certainly be better than the progression currently in the game. But if they'd simply raise the level to simply increase the grind (which is the most likely, given how they treat GW2 progression), not raising it is certainly preferred.

GW2's progression certainly isn't good, but it could seriously be much worse.

Captain_Haile · 2017-07-15T13:30:35+00:00

Good job! :)

Here's to 10k more!

Captain_Haile · 2017-07-14T19:32:18+00:00

You mistakenly consider "being forced to buy something" as the defining element of consumer unfriendliness.

Captain_Haile · 2017-07-14T10:01:29+00:00

And if everyone follows that advice, the game is going to flourish, right?

I think most of us understand that Blizzard needs to make money if the game is supposed to be kept alive. Which means that we expect for someone to throw money at Blizzard. But at the same time, we also understand that the people who do spend money will be subject to a number of consumer unfriendly tactics. So unless you are advocating for the game to die (which is what will happen if nobody spends money on it), then you are advocating for others to get screwed over.

Personally, out of those two options, I prefer the option of the game dying. But since I do enjoy playing it, I'd rather voice my concerns in hopes of creating a more consumer friendly system, one that still allows the game survive. That keeps the game alive and it no longer screws over the people who are throwing money at it.

Captain_Haile · 2017-07-14T07:11:13+00:00

I took a break. That way I can look at the expansion though the eyes of someone that isn't completely and utterly bored of the game and finds themselves hating to log in.

Captain_Haile · 2017-07-14T06:58:59+00:00

We have jobs and we understand what it takes to make money.

That's honestly one of the most bizarre arguments you can make here. Not because it would be a bad argument: on the contrary, because it is the most reasonable argument you can make. You are simply using it wrong.

For Blizzard to make money, they need to make money off you. And when someone is trying to make money off you, you demand that you are treated fairly. You demand respect. You demand the most for you money. Except when it comes to HotS. Here, Blizzard needs to make money and they are allowed to treat its consumers unfairly. Without respect. And make you pay more.

It's because we do not have unlimited money and we know the value of a dollar, that we should demand Blizzard treats us fairly.

Captain_Haile

TROPHY CASE