kharmin.7683

Not for me, thank you. I prefer the action and story to continue moving forward not backward. /shrug

Probably Alex Jones. I admit i haven't watched that clowns show in any form except in YTP, but it gives you a pretty good idea of what he is about. Nope.

It's not a 'nanny state', it's a government body looking out for its citizens. It's their job to make sure that gambling isn't in video games that are easily accessible to children. Nothing 'nanny state' about it. I disagree. nanny statenouna government perceived as authoritarian, interfering, or overprotective. Parents should be responsible for their children. Not the government. Parents ARE still responsible for their children.Gov. Just makes the guidelines. Alcohol laws.Tabac laws.Minimum driving ages.Sexual consent minimum age.Generell abuse/beatingAnd yet, despite those laws, these things happen anyway. A deviant person will, by definition, go against his/her society's morals and rules. Fortunately, for many societies, these deviants represent a very small minority. Should those societies continue to make rules and laws that oppress the majority's freedoms while the deviants would continue to go against them anyway? Would you prefer to live without them since it’s parents job anyway?I would prefer that society agree on a set of morals and/or laws and then punish those who decide to oppose them. Parents ought to be a child's first arbiter of moral and ethical guidelines. Sadly, many parents lack in this responsibility. Without these laws some companies would sell a minor alcohol/tabac... no questions asked, without legal consequences.Again, laws that are for the benefit of the majority of the society in which they are written should be enforced. You can’t Lock up your kids at home till they are 18/21, neither should you.I never suggested that kids be locked up. I am advocating for parents to take their responsibilities seriously and teach right and wrong and to know and understand what their children are doing. If their kids are deviating from what should be expected of them, then the parents should be the first ones to discipline them and not abdicate that responsibility to the government. These laws are rather „I will protect your children from....“ then „you have to protect your children from...“ Sorry, i'm not understanding what you're trying to say here. Your nanny state opinion always baffles me, and I am really wondering where it’s coming from. In EU you would be quite the minority, and I never spoke to someone with that mindset, so it would be really interesting to hear.I'm not so sure that I have had a "nanny state" opinion? As for where my opinion does derive, it is based on the freedom that all persons were given at creation. The rules, morals, ethics, laws ... whatever one wants to call them should be established by the majority of the society in which they are founded. You and I certainly have a different take on what this means; many EU countries appear to be more socialist driven than here in the US. It may be that you are more used to stricter laws and governmental control over your decisions and actions than I am.

I am a very casual, almost exclusively solo player. I struggle with a good bit of HoT maps. I do not like them, nor do I prefer to spend any time in them. Having said that, I would not want Anet to make any changes to these maps.

A GM could whisper them and see if they respond. Wait... they do this already.A GM could move the character and see if they respond. Wait... they do this already. It could be that a GM checks each and every report made in game about potential AFK players. It could be that those same GMs check and get responses. Since it is their policy to not divulge the results of any probe or action, we will never know. If a player responds to GM action, then they are not breaking any rules as they are currently written. If you don't like players who appear to be AFK, then perhaps work toward Anet changing their ToS. (again, I do not advocate for those who play AFK. Neither do I play in this way, despite some here who think otherwise)

I vote no. I would like some normalcy in 2020. No need to move up holidays or themed events.

Focusing so much on things that can provide direct monetization is probably the main area Anet has gone wrong. Build templates are perhaps the best example of what a fiasco that can cause. That isn't how it works for a large number of reasons. The gem store needs to support the game, not the other way around. Perhaps gem store sales aren't enough. We don't know; we don't have Anet's internal financials and/or business plan.You focus on making a quality game with lots to offer everyone who buys it, and people will spend money it provided there are opportunities for them to do so - and there are plenty. Perhaps too many at this point. Ever heard of analysis paralysis, or too much choice?This assumes that these opportunities are what the majority of the player base wants. This also assumes that Anet isn't already focusing on making a quality game with lost to offer everyone who buys it. Their metrics tells them what sells and what doesn't sell and where they can make the most profit to satisfy their shareholders because, at the end of the day, it's the shareholders who really matter, not the players. Kharmin, you love to cite Anet's "metrics" to rationalize whatever status quo, and this is little more than an appeal to authority. For one, you don't know what metrics Anet uses or whether or not they are any good. Marketing people and CEOs alike are just people - they make mistakes constantly, they have weak baselines, ignore confounding variables, etc., and commonly undermine themselves without ever realizing it. Many people said to defend the lack of mounts before Anet eventually determined they were worth adding to the game.Because it's true. Nobody here in the forums has any idea what drives Anet to make the decisions that they make. Only Anet knows. Most companies have their own metrics that help determine those decisions.Your comment on shareholders vs players doesn't make sense - in particular because trying excessively to please shareholders with shortsighted "visions" surrounding profit is precisely what sinks a lot of companies. In truth, their focus should be neither players nor shareholders - it should be the product they've invested in and creatively thinking through all the ways in which they can make better and more accessible. It absolutely makes sense. If the shareholders don't get their returns, then they will pull out which will leave Anet with capital issues. While I agree that Anet's focus ought to be on the product, without people pumping money in there would be no product. Gem store sales alone might not be enough to keep the game going.I think 8 years ago if they had had a more solid vision for the game and the direction they were going and spent the first two years building toward that vision, it would have been much more successful. Instead they made all kinds of mistakes like propping up a ton of temporary content, overemphasizing the most poorly received part of the game (story), ignoring systems that were delivered but left unrefined, and pivoting directions repeatedly - something the game has never and likely will never full recover from.I agree. I believe that they were a very young studio full of brilliant people with wonderful visions for the game, but lacking in real business sense.

Focusing so much on things that can provide direct monetization is probably the main area Anet has gone wrong. Build templates are perhaps the best example of what a fiasco that can cause. That isn't how it works for a large number of reasons. The gem store needs to support the game, not the other way around. Perhaps gem store sales aren't enough. We don't know; we don't have Anet's internal financials and/or business plan.You focus on making a quality game with lots to offer everyone who buys it, and people will spend money it provided there are opportunities for them to do so - and there are plenty. Perhaps too many at this point. Ever heard of analysis paralysis, or too much choice?This assumes that these opportunities are what the majority of the player base wants. This also assumes that Anet isn't already focusing on making a quality game with lost to offer everyone who buys it. Their metrics tells them what sells and what doesn't sell and where they can make the most profit to satisfy their shareholders because, at the end of the day, it's the shareholders who really matter, not the players.

Ya well most look at things as "how does it affect me"I would rather anet ban all bots then change anything but instead of defending bots because you don't want a change to your pet or minion then say anet should just ban all bots.I'm not defending AFK farmers who break the ToS. The problem, IMO, is the current rules allow for players to farm without actively playing the game. As long as they are present, and can respond to a GM, ANet considers them to be playing the game. Rather than ban bots (which is already against the ToS), people ought to be advocating for changing the ToS.

Botting itself?Creating a not healthy image for the game?Dropping mats prices on TP?RMT?Encouraging others to afk instead of actively playing the game which is "designed to be played actively" ©? None of these examples in any way affects your ability to play the game.

It's not a 'nanny state', it's a government body looking out for its citizens. It's their job to make sure that gambling isn't in video games that are easily accessible to children. Nothing 'nanny state' about it. I disagree. nanny statenouna government perceived as authoritarian, interfering, or overprotective. Parents should be responsible for their children. Not the government.

Yeah, I got booted out around 8:50am EDT and haven't been able to connect to the login server since then.

Build 105843Error Code 58:11:5:535 Booted out around 8:50am EDT

Sorry, but unrestricted flying mounts would invalidate all other mounts. Why use anything else if you can just fly wherever you want? The skyscale is actually a pretty elegant solution to that problem as it goes about as far as you can without crossing that line. I find I still use most of my other mounts (I admit the springer is pretty neglected since unlocking skyscale). Also, don't judge the skyscale based on that rent-a-scale. I hated that thing and didn't see the point in unlocking the skyscale as a result (dragged my feet for months on that!). But the real deal with cliff jumping is easy to use and lets you do things you simply can't do with any combination of the other mounts. It's a great mount that leaves room to use your other mounts! So...my opinion is invalid and how I feel is somehow wrong, and also invalid. Got it.Wow. No one invalidated your opinion.

So, it has nothing to do with the fact that GW2 is based on GW1 code? The same code that the developers who created it are no longer with the company? I'm sure that all of that coding is documented so the current team should have no problem making changes. So, rather than do something that would potentially make more money for the company and its investors, let's instead keep limping along with the current code structure. The truth is that neither you, nor I, nor Obtena, nor anyone else on the forums has any real idea of the situation at Anet. Everyone is speculating and theorizing (and in some posts panicking). There could be many more reasons than what you pointed out, but no one here would know what they are. And, again in my opinion, for a company to make a conscious decision to fail makes no business sense.

I'm sure they can't "spare" any resources to do a job similar to the one a simple modder is doing. Not like Anet doesn't already have an engine team (consisting of multiple people if I may add) right? They don't need to hire anyone or "allocate resources", they already have the resources, they are just misusing them.You can cite your source of this knowledge? You know that Anet has enough resources to divide between projects? You know that the resources that they have (plentiful, apparently?) could be better used than they currently are? (sigh) No one here knows these things. "I"m sure" that if Anet had the resources, then they would be working on this already. Since it appears that they aren't, and in absence of any evidence to say otherwise, we can only assume that they are doing what they can with what they have.

Well, that's absurd. No one is saying new games can't be developed with higher requirements. What is important here is that if you are a customer of a game and you purchase that gaming service, the provider better think VERY hard about the consequences of providing an upgrade to that service if it has a negative impact on customers that purchased that service based on it's original requirements.Not only that, but the studio has to consider whether or not it is worth the investment of time/resources to stop production on the current game and begin production on a new and improved one (or to allocate those same resources into trying to add/change/delete the existing programming). I'm sure that their shareholders have an opinion on that decision.

As a ranger main, I completely disagree with this idea. And as a ranger main, I still make the suggestion. Make it so if you also contribute, then fine, it counts. But if you're just sitting there afk with your pet as the only thing attacking, then no.And how would the game know? Does development time and resources really need to go to this when there is no real in-game problem to solve? AFK farming is only violating rules if/when Anet says that it is; otherwise, the game is working as intended and developed. Also, coding for this wouldn't solve the perceived AFK issue with other professions. Yet more time/resources would have to be spent there and for what?

As a ranger main, I completely disagree with this idea.