Hanako.1827

I thought it was the case given you responded to the whole comment so I assumed you were blanket responding to everything in there instead of the tiny selection of it mentioning people being bored of elder dragons. But I made that post because someone was claiming IBS had a good ending, you didn't specfically.

"You can just turn gold into gems, thats ingame content" makes these topics my litmus test for who's worth listening to.

Since the rest is opinion based (which I heavily disagree with) ill go directly to the first question I think being disappointed with things like creatures with lore and vast environment changing powers being killed of in uncreative ways that are contradictory to their motives and being upset the release date of a game are worlds apart that I'm immensely confused as to why you think these two things have an equal level of applicability to be compared with a vague question bow tied at the end that no one disagrees with. One is the soured result of a long narrative outcome and the other is the news of having to wait for a game. Youre avoiding the question as to whether or not you believe arenanet wants to kill the dragons and destroyed the hype built around these creatures for a change of heart in enemies and because they're tired of dragons. The only response was your opinion on its narrative elements that to me seems to amount to "Well I don't really care for dragons, they bore me and I thought the fight was fine because it was short and I could be done with it sooner" Which isn't an answer to the question I kinda posed. But Ill rephrase it again so I can get an honest answer. Do you think Arenanet Killed off two elder dragons in order to get rid of them for alternative narrative points to be explored? .Yes, one interlinked with the main PoF story .

No but it makes it obvious what the consensus is to them being killed off in the way they did. You can be tired of dragons but I don't consider you particularly fair or good faith in saying the end of IBS was a good thing. That or you just like really bad content and foundational figures of the lore being killed off because they're not the particular ones you like.

That doesn't really tie well with the communities further and more obvious anger towards two of them being killed off.

Yeah I even said "mount skins" in regards to gw2 because "Mounts" in games like wow and FFXIV are technically just skin because their functions are the same.

Ive never heard of anybody express this point except for you to be honest and again, I don't think this is a sentiment arenanet share, but I guess I should ask do you think they did this because arenanet wants to move beyond dragons for other plot devices? We don't actually fight that many dragons in gw2 compared to the variety you'll find in FFXIV and WoW, we just fight very big ones, few and far between that I think are quite well designed. Im sorry you personally don't like them but at the end of the day the game has always decided to revolve around them, and thematics of its very logo is a dragon. You're someone who Ive seen actually post quite intelligent responses but you're falling off the mark here to the point where Im confused if you're even speaking in good faith. This is nothing to me but a pointless personal opinion as a response to the original expression of what I believe is arenanets internal issues being showcased, at the very least they could have dedicated an expansion to both Jormag and Primordus instead of a pokemon battle that ends in a 5 second clip of two heads killing each other. I certainly do not think arenanet thinks the same that they would kill off two dragons teased with15 years of hype in a unanimously agreed upon, terrible way, because they want to diversify their big bad roster I will happily bet my odds against yours in saying that isn't the case. As for a personal opinion of mine? I like the dragons, they look cool and well designed, their projections of power and influence on the world and its denizens are varied enough to me to be interesting and we kill one once every 3 years with plenty of variations of enemies inbetween it seems.

I guess the point to mention is the "store mounts" part. XIV has mounts you can earn through gameplay. All the skins for mounts in gw2 are store mounts.

And unfortunately its likely at the point where its unlikely to happen given peoples soured opinion of the game. I think they're heavily intertwined. I believe lot of people don't feel like doing some of the content that already exists because rewards just aren't really there, and its further a slap in the face when you see something that felt like it could have been integrated into a reward system in-game, especially when it matches its theme, is in the gemstore, you can pad out content in decent enough ways with reward incentives tied with particular altercations to existing content. I mean I know many MMO's where I fight more dragons and saying you're tired of fighting dragons will never be a good enough response for why two creatures that belong to a pivotal group of the overall lore of Guild Wars should essentially be written off. Usually from what the trend sets, an expansion is based around a particular dragon, if they have decided to get rid of two of those opportunities then for me personally, it isn't a positive indication as to what the future holds for this game. I don't think arenanet killed Primordias and Jormag off because they're "tired of dragons" either. They are chances for expansions and I think given they want to make an overall finished package probably indicates they are trying to rush to the end of something and were willing to cut them out in order to achieve that with the time they have. I personally take more issue with the shielding people give arenanet for conventionally stupid decisions that I believe, do not work out in the long term for growth in my eyes, and I find it very confusing that those who relentlessly side with authority which hasn't displayed itself with its best thinking hat for how it handles money, will wax how they understand the market while others don't when there's plenty of nuance for and against. Yeah spelt it wrong mb. Oh they may have had a point. But my issue as I said was it is not a point in good faith which Vlaxitov was pointing out which was mostly indicated by the 'appeal to authority' approach Kharmin continues to exude. Im very well aware of what armchair quarterbacking means. You do have a somewhat valid point, but so does someone on the opposition and in my personal opinion from someone who is happy to admit to outletting conjecture as much as you and kharmin I have no reason to believe the current practices have worked for the benefit. Because from what is indicative with the outcomes seen with layoffs, cut content for a closer narrative conclusion (thats essentially what killing off two expansion potential dragons in a living story wrap up is), failed side projects that took money from Guild Wars and former staff seeming to confirm that the company is obsessed with keeping up appearances then there is plenty enough validation present to not have much faith in their economics team since I see them more as people better at salvaging loses the company creates than building up on establishes successes which instead they prefer to sour.

No one knows that for certain.

So this thing that kind of sucks has always been happened before, therefore you should never express dissatisfation? They have 5 skills to change, its not a phenomenal effort, and its not like they're required to even do all of them some can be recycled, but don't make every single one a reused animation (i preferably think variety is always better so Id personally love all 5 to be unique but w/e beggars can't be choosers) Reaper got a new animation and technically two since even though their weapon toss was reused the claw animation for the pull back was at least new. The mist effects aren't even that intricately made, they just looks like grey and red scribbles.

The harrowing call one always hears just before an expansion for anything is released to find out it was never changed

Oh probably I understand where you're coming from completely. I think anyone that takes one highschool class of basic economics would understand the point you're making. But there's two points to make. 1. How many players would GW2 have retained if practices were more fair to keep them playing and paying in the first place? Im almost certain a lot of people stopped playing when they realised these skins were not going to budge on their hefty price along with other Gemstore shenanigans. So though the point you are making is very valid and sound, there is absolutely a potential that a player base that is bigger with more incentive to buy skins would have the possibility to lead to decent enough revenue stream. Whether or not thats too late now who really knows. If you lower prices to expand sales that doesn't necessarily equate to more revenue, but if your overall sample pool for the market is now bigger then its increases those odds. I will be happy to admit the argument potentially against this is that certain players who only care to get a specified mount skin for that one mount and be content with it now have it easier at the potential cost of anet. 2. Im not arguing for what WILL work but I'm dismissing any argument that for sure certifies arenanets decision as a logical outcome to a conclusion. The things the company has done to the game has haemorrhaged players and made continuing ones like myself doubtful which is why I mentioned the fact that TWO elder dragons were killed of in a living world series, players aren't all that incentivized to spend money when the future of the game seems uncertain, especially given Arenanet has demonstrated that they will happily take that money to spend it on another project. If absolute trust in their chief economists was the sword to die on then technically no MMO has any reason for dying. And if arenanets showcasing of their current game with a botched Elder Dragon two for one deal and an expansion with professions that seem to be reusing animations constantly I don't particularly see a reason why those doubts can be seen as misplaced. This mixed with the point above is indicative of a very big a common market term called a depressed market. The 400 gems for a mount is a bit disingenuous, its 400 gems for random chance of a mount skin with the high potential to get a skin for a mount you might not even want. If an extra option existed where you could pay 600 gems but the selection is locked to a few more lower effort textures I think that would be a decent addition. I would LOVE to spend money in the gemstore, I personally don't plan to do that since my issue with mounts isn't the price, its the fact that they are gemstore exclusive and I like prestige items which mounts have always been seen as a staple golden child for and the gem store doesn't allow. I don't think you're even necessarily wrong but I take issue with your response to Vox being fallacious given who he was responding to and especially since nothing he was suggesting was fallacious given its a suggestion that indicates why he would even be invigorated to spend gems on mounts. Though you and Kharmin have the same points you have them for different reasons which is why they couldn't specify what you expressed, and they have displayed not only misplacement in calling people fallacious but has themselves committed to throwing fallacious arguments in what seems like an endless pursuit of Devils advocate positions for arenanet that their post history seems to indicate, they will say nothing is truly knowable while at the same time claiming that the set price is indicative enough proof that they are wrong which is why you can easily say they argue in bad faith. Saying "because arenanet deemed it so" is not a logical position at the end of the day, you have to give a rationale to the decision which you presented but they didn't.

Thats REALLLLYYYY hard to determine. Because theres was a set price from the get go for the skins so theres no actual evidence for or against whether or not it would drive sales. I certainly believe sales would probably go up if the price drop was directed more at the less flashy skins. Also logically he can ask Kharmin for evidence because it isn't a negative. Especially given Kharmin is talking with the bravado of someone who has some analytical raw data beyond "Well look at the price now". If there was an optimal point reached I don't see how it explains the current state of some of the events of the game such as two elder dragons being killed at the end of a rushed living story which strongly hints wanting to bring a conclusion closer to GW2, so I wouldn't go as far to say its working all that efficiently.

"You see guys, the very issue you're talking about is proof within itself that its the best strategy because, it would have been implemented another way by the exact people you are criticizing if this was not the case, this is marketing 101 guys" Why do you use the word fallacy when critiquing other people when you tick every logical fallacy box to their descriptive T? The one you're doing here is 'appeal-to-authority'.

If theres something I learned about Kharmin and their post history. They are very good at conjuring up your assumptions for you.

How is it self defeating when a lot of other MMO's have allowed gold to get them mounts through other ways, the idea is that the specific ways the mounts are earned make the price of getting say carried through a raid, or a pvp achievement are so much its not worth it. Ive earned plenty of mounts via gold, and even my own money since I genuinely don't mind giving anet my money on occasion. Also Im well aware of paid raids because they exist in other MMO's but! 1. You understand because a gold buying option exists currently doesn't mean a future implementation has to abide by it right? Thats what this thread is asking. You're the one who pigeon holed it to magnetite shards when I wouldn't even implement it that way. (thats also what your entire original premise relied upon) 2 The gold worth of a run goes up when there's now a mount incentive to pay for one that usually its so much that people will have to spend an absurd amount on gems to get the gold to pay for one that its probably far less incentivising. Especially if it doesn't use your Magnetite example you projected onto my position. (wow has mount runs and has had them for ages and it has never devalued the mount to the point where you see it everywhere, they're just absurdly expensive because its a burden to take a paying player through a harder difficulty raid, which is how I personally would go about earning a mount in a raid) 3. This entire post has argued about multiple ways to get mounts, not only have you tunnel visioned it into raids but youve told me to defend it within a framework you setup. "I back tracked nothing, you are just digging yourself in a deeper hole here as the walls close in," You got me joker. Your complex debating mind has had me cornered with no escaping the maze of 'everything has to be in the gemstore because its not really different from earning it in modes of gameplay right?'

Ive already established that I can understand but not fully empathize with something if it can be considered by some of the player base (and a common criticism of most youtube content creators) a detriment to their playing experience. And also that even mentioning whether or not the inclusion of a few hard-to-earn earnable mount skins will hurt the store skin market so much. I find these people aggravating because you make the argument that "arenanet need to make their money" then tie it with the premise of "make it hard to earn" and the the complaint switches to "But I don't want to be forced into a mode of gameplay or effort to do it". You literally can't win. Its not enough the gemstore has a ton of skins that the idea of some being behind a form of accomplishment is so detrimental to their own experience? So as a result my idealised incentives which I typically expect in an MMO have to disappear? Because I prefer outcomes that can be tied to feats of accomplishment which has been a present thing in most MMO's that have mounts and more importantly I like incentives to play the game which unlockable mounts have always done. I can't distinguish your efforts from someone paying money and as a result no form of accomplishment is really on display for your efforts which I typically like indicated when im getting something flashy.

I can voice an opinion as to why the game has something I consider an issue? I don't think you realize a game with an interactive community doesn't really change if people don't express it, especially if a few people in the thread act like shareholders and have to submit to what might be considered a poor decision for player engagement because "well they gotta earn money". (that or they're very weirdly content with the game not building on its initially established cosmetic reward incentive)

Not a sound argument. Since one I never established a premise that I'm broke in gw2 to even afford a mount skin or that that's my issue, I have plenty of gold and don't care about farming, and two I HAD established (you just chose to ignore) why that isn't a satisfying alternative because it flatlines the outcome of how a mount is achieved in contrast to say earning it via a specified accomplishment. If you're gonna try and use terms like "self-defeating" but not actually establish a premise to why than maybe avoid using that term if you're unaware as to what it means as much as you're indicating.

You literally altered my argument into saying its the main when I said its a vital component, imo a fundamental, but not a sole concept to be revolved around (arenanet agree btw because it literally funds itself off of selling this component instead of integrating it within gameplay so I don't really see how you can reject this absolutely undeniable truth to it being very important). I believe it intertwines, so don't wax lyrical about how I'm apparently dismissing arguments when you're not even engaging mine in good faith. Also your point makes no sense whatsoever because games evolved to include these functions because they were much more engaging and gave extra value to those exploratory concepts of gameplay and world expo you just mentioned. This literally was the case up until the internet was integrated with gaming and those desires slowly were transitioned to be ones you purchase instead, some games try to find a balance which is fine, other games go way to hard on those rewards being store exclusive so they fail. Again you mention a chase like its a bad thing, people like earning things others don't have, stop being frightened at the idea of something potentially not being so easy to access, your mindset is what killed this game for a lot of people. The community will spout 17million strong yet realise barely any of those 17 million wanted to stick around because why? The games easy and streamlined af. How important are rewards? Some of MMO's most popular videos have been about the journey of getting a legendary or a mount, or a pvp rank, or a title. Again you don't live in reality if you believe specified reward incentives that require different attempts and adaptability to modes of gameplay are engaging for people who play games. You're saying Im dismissing arguments but you understand your response is you going off on platitudes of "Oh exploring and playing the game is all I need" and claiming I want bigger numbers (despite my actual indifference towards GW2's progression system involving stats). You understand all the things your mentioning being tied with SOME reward incentive would make it only more accessible to some right? I like exploring the world for its game assets but it doesn't give me much reason to go back which is typically why collections are a good thing (which... who would have guess.... are a reward incentive). Again you said I'm being dismissive but you have avoided every other point in my response. Is really calling a game better for letting you earn something in-game by having a dedicated mastery towards its multitude modes of gameplay really a point you struggle to comprehend? Can you just admit you want everything to be accessible and want no sense of challenge (in an MMORPG) to earn something?

I mean you have a shot of getting anything in any MMO. You just don't like the shot you'd potentially have to take so as a result everything has to be streamlined.

Lol what a joke of a response. I have all the legendaries I want to own from both tier 1 and 2 and the masteries I find worth having. Also its actually some of the VERY few things I can do buddy lol, thats the point im making.

You understand you're avoiding my question again right? What kind of MMO is guild wars 2, what is its positive feedback loop. Im not asking what it isn't. I will never take people seriously when their response of people having an issue with a game on its forum is "this game just isn't for you, why are you complaining?", especially when the request is just wanting a few mount skins to be earned in game. Again gold has intrinsically little value or form of pristiness when its intertwined with gems/real life money. If a "reward" like currency is indistinguishable from people real life money then it contributes to the ever growing issue of guild wars 2, which is cool looking items are not impressive to see as it is in other MMO's which to me is just an overall bad. The "go play other games" argument is such a flawed and childish one and contributes to people wanting to leave the game knowing it has such a depressing community that supports what is generally considered bad practice in MMORPG's. The "massively multiplayer" part of MMORPG's isn't really bolstered in guild wars 2 when its content with having less people that spend more money and don't really venture out into the world because theres little reason to.

Because it model pretty heavily goes against a lot of the RPG aspects typically found in an RPG. progression, power climb and rewards? Dunno how thats confusing to you unless GW2 is the only MMO you've played. I mean has it worked or has it just kept it barely alive? One common complaint with the new expansion at the moment is it seems like corners are being cut. With the showcase of very miserable looking tier 3 legendaries and constant reuse of animation on abilities for new specs Actually no, if you're able to actually read, I say this because if it is to abandon that concept of an armour chase it requires replacing it with another one (I'm not gonna get into why reward incentives for gameplay should exist since if you argue against this point you're lost as to why MMO's one of their fundamental levels are enjoyable) . I'm willing to let that go if GW2 stuck to its initial vision of finding a decent replacement which it used to do sort of with cosmetics. Now I ask what is the reward inventive for playing the game? Its relatively dull living world no one plays? It seems like the only answer is "for the sake of playing it" which is never a concept that bodes well in an MMORPG which is about exploring an expansive world and the rewards it has to offer. Its gameplay has to intertwine with rewards otherwise both have little value. Seeing someone in cool looking armour in gw2 is such a "who cares" moment compared to other MMO's because of this. Im fully aware going into this game that it wasn't going to have vertical progression, given I like the game on its base level (its very intriguing legendary building system, its mounts, its combat, its visuals) I was hoping it would build on that to make a good MMORPG rather than a big dress up game with the few left being people with far too little time to be invested in something but a big enough wallet to look pretty and stand in lion arch. Im actually curious to your opinion on what game Guild Wars 2 is, because you avoided that question in that post btw?? What about it is satisfying to you given theres no positive feedback loop present in how it works and is known as the MMO people play for a bit, and then quit for months at a time.