Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Raknar.4735

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,436

  • Joined

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Raknar.4735

    Kill Proof idea - Let us ping from the Wallet

    in Instanced Group Content

    Posted

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @"YtseJam.9784" said:Titles are not 100% trustworthy, people can buy those. You need some kind of proof that you can beat them frequently :)

    You could just create a static with people you know. 100% trustworthy, and the proof are your past runs with the group.Only like minded players.It‘s not that hard to create your own groups ;)

    Unrelated to op, but related to some other posters:Guess it‘s just easier to complain about „toxic casuals“, even though you would actually never see casuals anywhere near to T4.They‘re just the scapegoat term for some „hardcore“ (LULW) players. Big cope.Hint: The people you are pugging with aren‘t actually casual players, those bad players belong to your same group of „hardcore“ people, you‘re just cannibalizing your own community. Nice job.

    There is no binary switch which makes one player casual or hardcore, even if that is the most easy approach by players, of any part of the community, to easily blame and demonize other players. As such, a vast majority of players who play T4 fractals are in fact casual, if performance and ability is used as definition for someone being casual or hardcore.

    It would also not matter. The term used is irrelevant. The fact that there is a huge discrepancy even ONLY within T4 tier is the actual issue. Mind you the even bigger discrepancy going higher up into CMs. The fact you treat all players as "hardcore" above a certain skill threshold is just plain insulting. That's like saying every single person with a certain shade of darker skin are all black. Way to put all minority groups into one basket (maybe this analogy will make you realize how toxic your statement is, with real world similarities).

    @Raknar.4735 said:You’re not entitled to play with good players every time, if you don’t build a static. Oh well, I guess it is hard to socialize for some people, they‘d rather blame the boogeyman „toxic casual“ for their own shortcomings.

    You mean the same way you just now marginalized an entire group of different skilled players as all being "hardcore" and as such "elitist"? How are you not being toxic at this point in time? Doesn't even matter if you consider yourself casual or what ever, toxic is toxic, and that's the exact mentality which others refer to as "toxic casual". Thought I will agree, the added descriptor is not needed. Strait up toxic suffices in this case.

    To your entitlement argument: every player has the same right to shape and form the groups they want. If one group of players is not allowed to shape and form their groups, no one is.

    So, you didn‘t get my post at all. Nice. I have never said being hardcore is about skill level, not sure where you got that from. Insinuating that is just insulting. What I have said is that some people that use the label „hardcore“ for themselves are being toxic to their own community by calling other people „toxic casuals“, for some reason, thus cannibalizing the instance-going community.

    Your blatant misrepresentation of my post and opinion is pretty toxic, straight up toxic.

    You never gave a definition for what you define as casual or hardcore, and as such I gave one for how I used the terms. If your definition varied, you are welcome to give that differing one, though it will not change any of the facts that:
    1. the main issue here is difference in player skill, which is present no matter in which content but of significant importance in more challenging content
    2. you still approach this entire issue the same way as other toxic members of either side of the spectrum approach it: as binary "us versus them" and no definition you could give would alleviate your wording here
    3. the terms "casual" and "hardcore" are absolutely insufficient to even remotely give justice to the vast amount of difference in player skill or individual approach to this issue. Which is exactly WHY a crude system like KP is in effect in the first place the way it is handled, because numeric values can distinguish

    Hurts when one points out what was actually said, doesn't it? Your wording and approach is part of the problem the community of this game faces, and it does not matter which side of the argument you think you are on.

    So you put words into my mouth that were based on your assumptions and shared all your anger based on that? Wow.Maybe you should have asked first before assuming things. That‘s key to conversation. This really is part of the problem of this community.

    I didn't assume. There is literally NO definition you can use which would change the wording you used. Which was strait up binary, but nice try to deflect.

    Except I‘m not deflecting. You‘re just assuming.

    @Raknar.4735 said:Also, just getting a static would fix most of the proplems some people here have. Can’t be that hard to create your own group, can it?

    Sure, doesn't this apply to all players? No matter how skilled they are? Couldn't weaker players not also form statics? Does the ability to form a static supersede or benefit a specific group of players?

    Yes this applies to everyone,, nowhere have i stated something else. Are you trying to move the goalpost?

    So if it aplies to everyone, it is of no value as argument that one type of players should be required to take this step instead of using the LFG. No?

    ??? Stop moving the goalpost. Creating a static would solve so many problems.

    @Raknar.4735 said:Sure, you have the right do shape your group how you want, but you don‘t have the right to be toxic to others, as simple as that.

    I never claimed anyone has a right to be toxic, but that is not what you said now is it? You gave descriptors and lade the blame clearly on a subsection of the payer base. You literally wrote:

    I didn‘t say you did claim that? It was just a general statement everyone should agree on: Don‘t be toxic.

    Agreed.

    @Raknar.4735 said:You’re not entitled to play with good players every time, if you don’t build a static. Oh well, I guess it is hard to socialize for some people, they‘d rather blame the boogeyman „toxic casual“ for their own shortcomings.

    That is by far not the same as stating no one should be toxic.

    Yeah, I blame the subsection of the player base that calls other people names and is toxic, in this case the term „toxic casual“.I also tell them that not everyone will behave how they want, unless they create a static. So to fix their problems with meeting „toxic casuals“, as they call them, they could simply create a static group.

    Okay, that is more understandable, yet this also applies to all players. If players don't want to meet "toxic elitist", they should form a static. In fact they should simply make their own groups. Yet I will yield that even with making personal groups, some cross over of toxic players from any part of the player base might join, but it is a step towards healthier group compositions.

    Yes, exactly. That is my point. Just create statics and you won‘t have to deal with people that might be toxic. (Or atleast the chance is way lower)Edit: Asum edited his post. Not as bad as it was before now, so fine.

    Kill Proof idea - Let us ping from the Wallet

    in Instanced Group Content

    Posted

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @"YtseJam.9784" said:Titles are not 100% trustworthy, people can buy those. You need some kind of proof that you can beat them frequently :)

    You could just create a static with people you know. 100% trustworthy, and the proof are your past runs with the group.Only like minded players.It‘s not that hard to create your own groups ;)

    Unrelated to op, but related to some other posters:Guess it‘s just easier to complain about „toxic casuals“, even though you would actually never see casuals anywhere near to T4.They‘re just the scapegoat term for some „hardcore“ (LULW) players. Big cope.Hint: The people you are pugging with aren‘t actually casual players, those bad players belong to your same group of „hardcore“ people, you‘re just cannibalizing your own community. Nice job.

    There is no binary switch which makes one player casual or hardcore, even if that is the most easy approach by players, of any part of the community, to easily blame and demonize other players. As such, a vast majority of players who play T4 fractals are in fact casual, if performance and ability is used as definition for someone being casual or hardcore.

    It would also not matter. The term used is irrelevant. The fact that there is a huge discrepancy even ONLY within T4 tier is the actual issue. Mind you the even bigger discrepancy going higher up into CMs. The fact you treat all players as "hardcore" above a certain skill threshold is just plain insulting. That's like saying every single person with a certain shade of darker skin are all black. Way to put all minority groups into one basket (maybe this analogy will make you realize how toxic your statement is, with real world similarities).

    @Raknar.4735 said:You’re not entitled to play with good players every time, if you don’t build a static. Oh well, I guess it is hard to socialize for some people, they‘d rather blame the boogeyman „toxic casual“ for their own shortcomings.

    You mean the same way you just now marginalized an entire group of different skilled players as all being "hardcore" and as such "elitist"? How are you not being toxic at this point in time? Doesn't even matter if you consider yourself casual or what ever, toxic is toxic, and that's the exact mentality which others refer to as "toxic casual". Thought I will agree, the added descriptor is not needed. Strait up toxic suffices in this case.

    To your entitlement argument: every player has the same right to shape and form the groups they want. If one group of players is not allowed to shape and form their groups, no one is.

    So, you didn‘t get my post at all. Nice. I have never said being hardcore is about skill level, not sure where you got that from. Insinuating that is just insulting. What I have said is that some people that use the label „hardcore“ for themselves are being toxic to their own community by calling other people „toxic casuals“, for some reason, thus cannibalizing the instance-going community.

    Your blatant misrepresentation of my post and opinion is pretty toxic, straight up toxic.

    You never gave a definition for what you define as casual or hardcore, and as such I gave one for how I used the terms. If your definition varied, you are welcome to give that differing one, though it will not change any of the facts that:
    1. the main issue here is difference in player skill, which is present no matter in which content but of significant importance in more challenging content
    2. you still approach this entire issue the same way as other toxic members of either side of the spectrum approach it: as binary "us versus them" and no definition you could give would alleviate your wording here
    3. the terms "casual" and "hardcore" are absolutely insufficient to even remotely give justice to the vast amount of difference in player skill or individual approach to this issue. Which is exactly WHY a crude system like KP is in effect in the first place the way it is handled, because numeric values can distinguish

    Hurts when one points out what was actually said, doesn't it? Your wording and approach is part of the problem the community of this game faces, and it does not matter which side of the argument you think you are on.

    So you put words into my mouth that were based on your assumptions and shared all your anger based on that? Wow.You even went as far as insinuating racism. Truly worrying.Casual and hardcore have nothing to do with skill in my eyes.Maybe you should have asked first before assuming things. That‘s key to conversation. This really is part of the problem of this community.You seem to have this „us“ vs „them“ problem. The only „them“ i see as a problem are the ones calling others names.

    @Raknar.4735 said:Also, just getting a static would fix most of the proplems some people here have. Can’t be that hard to create your own group, can it?

    Sure, doesn't this apply to all players? No matter how skilled they are? Couldn't weaker players not also form statics? Does the ability to form a static supersede or benefit a specific group of players?

    Yes this applies to everyone,, nowhere have i stated something else. Are you trying to move the goalpost?

    @Raknar.4735 said:Sure, you have the right do shape your group how you want, but you don‘t have the right to be toxic to others, as simple as that.

    I never claimed anyone has a right to be toxic, but that is not what you said now is it? You gave descriptors and lade the blame clearly on a subsection of the payer base. You literally wrote:

    I didn‘t say you did claim that? It was just a general statement everyone should agree on: Don‘t be toxic.

    @Raknar.4735 said:You’re not entitled to play with good players every time, if you don’t build a static. Oh well, I guess it is hard to socialize for some people, they‘d rather blame the boogeyman „toxic casual“ for their own shortcomings.

    That is by far not the same as stating no one should be toxic.

    Yeah, I blame the subsection of the player base that calls other people names and is toxic, in this case the term „toxic casual“.I also tell them that not everyone will behave how they want, unless they create a static. So to fix their problems with meeting „toxic casuals“, as they call them, they could simply create a static group.

    I was giving a suggestion.

    Kill Proof idea - Let us ping from the Wallet

    in Instanced Group Content

    Posted

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @"YtseJam.9784" said:Titles are not 100% trustworthy, people can buy those. You need some kind of proof that you can beat them frequently :)

    You could just create a static with people you know. 100% trustworthy, and the proof are your past runs with the group.Only like minded players.It‘s not that hard to create your own groups ;)

    Unrelated to op, but related to some other posters:Guess it‘s just easier to complain about „toxic casuals“, even though you would actually never see casuals anywhere near to T4.They‘re just the scapegoat term for some „hardcore“ (LULW) players. Big cope.Hint: The people you are pugging with aren‘t actually casual players, those bad players belong to your same group of „hardcore“ people, you‘re just cannibalizing your own community. Nice job.

    There is no binary switch which makes one player casual or hardcore, even if that is the most easy approach by players, of any part of the community, to easily blame and demonize other players. As such, a vast majority of players who play T4 fractals are in fact casual, if performance and ability is used as definition for someone being casual or hardcore.

    It would also not matter. The term used is irrelevant. The fact that there is a huge discrepancy even ONLY within T4 tier is the actual issue. Mind you the even bigger discrepancy going higher up into CMs. The fact you treat all players as "hardcore" above a certain skill threshold is just plain insulting. That's like saying every single person with a certain shade of darker skin are all black. Way to put all minority groups into one basket (maybe this analogy will make you realize how toxic your statement is, with real world similarities).

    @Raknar.4735 said:You’re not entitled to play with good players every time, if you don’t build a static. Oh well, I guess it is hard to socialize for some people, they‘d rather blame the boogeyman „toxic casual“ for their own shortcomings.

    You mean the same way you just now marginalized an entire group of different skilled players as all being "hardcore" and as such "elitist"? How are you not being toxic at this point in time? Doesn't even matter if you consider yourself casual or what ever, toxic is toxic, and that's the exact mentality which others refer to as "toxic casual". Thought I will agree, the added descriptor is not needed. Strait up toxic suffices in this case.

    To your entitlement argument: every player has the same right to shape and form the groups they want. If one group of players is not allowed to shape and form their groups, no one is.

    So, you didn‘t get my post at all. Nice. I have never said being hardcore is about skill level, not sure where you got that from. Insinuating that is just insulting. What I have said is that some people that use the label „hardcore“ for themselves are being toxic to their own community by calling other people „toxic casuals“, for some reason, thus cannibalizing the instance-going community.

    How you got from there to minority groups with an argument i’ve never actually made is puzzling, that stretch is actually pretty worrying. Your blatant misrepresentation of my post and opinion is pretty toxic, straight up toxic.

    Also, just getting a static would fix most of the proplems some people here have. Can’t be that hard to create your own group, can it?Sure, you have the right do shape your group how you want, but you don‘t have the right to be toxic to others by calling them names for no reason, as simple as that.

    Who do you anticipate will be EoDs main cast?

    in Lore

    Posted

    @EdwinLi.1284 said:Now that woodenpotatoes has collected and uploaded all Sunqua Peak lore items in a video....

    Braham seems like a possible member now due to the potential that a society of Canthan Norns exists in secret within Cantha.

    Thanks, haven‘t checked / read through the Sunqua lore yet, but will make sure to check it out after your comment.Braham is one of the characters I like most of the group (even though many seem to dislike him).

    • Like 1

    Kill Proof idea - Let us ping from the Wallet

    in Instanced Group Content

    Posted

    @YtseJam.9784 said:Titles are not 100% trustworthy, people can buy those. You need some kind of proof that you can beat them frequently :)

    You could just create a static with people you know. 100% trustworthy, and the proof are your past runs with the group.Only like minded players.It‘s not that hard to create your own groups ;)

    Unrelated to op, but related to some other posters:Guess it‘s just easier to complain about „toxic casuals“, even though you would actually never see casuals anywhere near to T4.They‘re just the scapegoat term for some „hardcore“ (LULW) players. Big cope.Hint: The people you are pugging with aren‘t actually casual players, those bad players belong to your same group of „hardcore“ people, you‘re just cannibalizing your own community. Nice job.You’re not entitled to play with good players every time, if you don’t build a static. Oh well, I guess it is hard to socialize for some people, they‘d rather blame the boogeyman „toxic casual“ for their own shortcomings.

    closed due to lack of interest

    in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

    Posted

    @Sodeni.6041 said:

    @Sodeni.6041 said:I really don't know how people can struggle at this "boss". I remember killing him first try when PoF came out (he was stronger back then) and I even got the fast kill achievement first try with my exo condi gear staff/axe/torch mirage. Nothing special imo?

    Same tbh, I don't get how people struggle at things at all. Just do the thing.Like, why do people struggle at Souls games? Just beat them. It's that easy.I can beat them easily on SL1 runs, so why can't they?How do people still wipe and struggle at raid bosses? My static from back in the day did them easily.How do you even fail a mechanic? Just do the mechanic, it's that simple.How do people fall down in jumping puzzles? It's just jumping, can't they press spacebar?How do people still struggle at Classic Onyxia in WoW, when you can kill her with a fully naked group without world buffs?Nothing special imo.

    Don't compare a normal boss from a story instance to a raid boss or something like that. I killed him within a minute I think with just spamming skills but well.

    Well, then don't compare your ability to play games to others. It's that easy!

    closed due to lack of interest

    in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

    Posted

    @"Sodeni.6041" said:I really don't know how people can struggle at this "boss". I remember killing him first try when PoF came out (he was stronger back then) and I even got the fast kill achievement first try with my exo condi gear staff/axe/torch mirage. Nothing special imo?

    Same tbh, I don't get how people struggle at things at all. Just do the thing.Like, why do people struggle at Souls games? Just beat them. It's that easy.I can beat them easily on SL1 runs, so why can't they?How do people still wipe and struggle at raid bosses? My static from back in the day did them easily.How do you even fail a mechanic? Just do the mechanic, it's that simple.How do people fall down in jumping puzzles? It's just jumping, can't they press spacebar?How do people still struggle at Classic Onyxia in WoW, when you can kill her with a fully naked group without world buffs?Nothing special imo.

    Why i think casuals are the most important player in guild wars 2

    in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

    Posted

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @Raknar.4735 said:Except I did play them, and it was a pretty desolate place soon after release and before the multiple nerfs and reward changes. Yeah, the maps were populated after the reward changes, that's what I said.

    The maps aren't populated after the changes, they were more populated before the changes, at least outside meta hour. After the changes players simply go to the maps when the meta is about to start and ignore the maps during the rest of the day.

    Before the changes players didn't even go the the map metas. Gerent was empty.

    It wasn't empty though. Gerent was done daily even before the changes.

    My argument was about HoT having less sales than expected after HoT release, and that clearly shows in the revenue. HoT wasn't recieved well.

    You even posted it yourself: "it seems that the performance of the expansion pack is a bit weaker than what you had expected."Nothing about it states that GW2 going F2P was the reason.

    Nothing states that it was because of how HOT was received either. An expansion for a video game doing badly isn't necessarily because the expansion wasn't well received but because the core game wasn't well received, an expansion needs a core game to succeed and if that core is free you can see the problem.

    HoT didn't do as expected. It didn't do well. The core game was doing better pre HoT than post HoT revenuewise.

    Of course because it wasn't free. Players had to buy the game to see what it had to offer, when it became free that initial purchase wasn't necessary, leading to lower revenue.

    I don't have to post sources, when I was clearly speaking about the revenue, and HoT having less revenue than pre HoT, during the content drought.Your sources don't even back up your claim about F2P hurting the revenue, which was your argument.

    And as I said already, pre HOT the game wasn't free (at least until August 2015). My sources back up my claim very well. I will give you another bit of information, when the game went F2P in August 2015 and until HOT launched, Anet told us they got TWO MILLION new accounts. Which is as many accounts as they got in the previous 31 months combined. Let that sink in of how well received "core" was. This is why the expansion performed worse than expected, the 2 million accounts were supposed to contain expansion sales, but the expansion performed poorly.

    So yeah, expansion was underperforming, like I said. Nothing about GW2's change to F2P tanking the revenue.

    And nothing about F2P NOT tanking the revenue either, you are the one jumping to conclusions.

    You said NCsoft economists said it, which is not true.

    NCsoft said the expansion did poorly. You are jumping to the conclusion that it means the expansion wasn't well received.

    HoT just wasn't recieved well, which is was my original argument.

    Which has nothing to do with the revenue drop of an expansion of a F2P game.

    Except it does when the game was doing better pre expansion.

    It wasn't free pre expansion.

    You were the one that said it was due to the F2P change.I'll quote what you said:"post-HOT the core game became free, which is the reason given by NCSoft themselves for the decline of revenue after the release of HOT."

    And that's exactly what happened. You are the one jumping to conclusions that if the revenue after HOT is less than before HOT it must be because of how HOT was received, ignoring that the game went F2P before the launch of the expansion and ignoring that it got 2 million accounts in that time, accounts that did not convert into paid customers in as high numbers as expected.

    You're the one that claimed NCsoft employees stated that going F2P was tanking revenue, which is stated nowhere.

    It is stated in the links I provided and in my earlier posts. Expansion revenue was lower than expected, gem store income was stable. 2 million free accounts created in just 3 months, you'd expect if the game was any good it would skyrocket in revenue, but it didn't. Because those million accounts did not become paid customers, leading to less revenue. It's simple math really

    I'll say it clearly for you again:No one at NCsoft said the F2P change hurt GW2 revenue in any way. That was just you jumping to conclusions yourself. Your whole argument about F2P hurting the HoT revenues is made up of thin air and not backed by NCSoft economists like you claimed earlier.

    They said HoT didn't perform as expected, which clearly shows in the revenue data.GW2 as standalone game during a drought made more revenue than GW2(free)+HoT.

    If you still can't make the connection, I'm sorry. It's actually so simple.

    Why i think casuals are the most important player in guild wars 2

    in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

    Posted

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @"Raknar.4735" said:Except I did play them, and it was a pretty desolate place soon after release and before the multiple nerfs and reward changes. Yeah, the maps were populated after the reward changes, that's what I said.

    The maps aren't populated after the changes, they were more populated before the changes, at least outside meta hour. After the changes players simply go to the maps when the meta is about to start and ignore the maps during the rest of the day.

    Before the changes players didn't even go the the map metas. Gerent was empty.

    My argument was about HoT having less sales than expected after HoT release, and that clearly shows in the revenue. HoT wasn't recieved well.

    You even posted it yourself: "it seems that the performance of the expansion pack is a bit weaker than what you had expected."Nothing about it states that GW2 going F2P was the reason.

    Nothing states that it was because of how HOT was received either. An expansion for a video game doing badly isn't necessarily because the expansion wasn't well received but because the core game wasn't well received, an expansion needs a core game to succeed and if that core is free you can see the problem.

    HoT didn't do as expected stated by your own sources. It didn't do well. The core game was doing better pre HoT than post HoT revenuewise.

    I don't have to post sources, when I was clearly speaking about the revenue, and HoT having less revenue than pre HoT, during the content drought.Your sources don't even back up your claim about F2P hurting the revenue, which was your argument.

    And as I said already, pre HOT the game wasn't free (at least until August 2015). My sources back up my claim very well. I will give you another bit of information, when the game went F2P in August 2015 and until HOT launched, Anet told us they got TWO MILLION new accounts. Which is as many accounts as they got in the previous 31 months combined. Let that sink in of how well received "core" was. This is why the expansion performed worse than expected, the 2 million accounts were supposed to contain expansion sales, but the expansion performed poorly.

    So yeah, expansion was underperforming, like I said. Nothing about GW2's change to F2P tanking the revenue.

    And nothing about F2P NOT tanking the revenue either, you are the one jumping to conclusions.

    You claimed NCsoft economists said F2P is tanking it, which is factually not true. They never said that.

    HoT just wasn't recieved well, which is was my original argument.

    Which has nothing to do with the revenue drop of an expansion of a F2P game.

    Except it does when the game was doing better pre expansion.

    You were the one that said it was due to the F2P change.I'll quote what you said:"post-HOT the core game became free, which is the reason given by NCSoft themselves for the decline of revenue after the release of HOT."

    And that's exactly what happened. You are the one jumping to conclusions that if the revenue after HOT is less than before HOT it must be because of how HOT was received, ignoring that the game went F2P before the launch of the expansion and ignoring that it got 2 million accounts in that time, accounts that did not convert into paid customers in as high numbers as expected.

    You're the one that claimed NCsoft employees stated that going F2P was tanking revenue, which is stated nowhere.But w/e. Just forum economists being forum economists. Your own sources discredit your claims.

    Why i think casuals are the most important player in guild wars 2

    in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

    Posted

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @"Raknar.4735" said:Source that after the change HoT maps became emptier at "off hours"? The HoT maps were dead from the beginning, hence why they had to up the rewards. Before they weren't even "look at the timer and port there", they were simply "don't play".

    Cute asking for sources when you are the one who made claims first... Then you didn't play at HOT maps at all because when I played they were quite populated. And the actual maps were more populated than after the changes (outside meta hours)

    Except I did play them, and it was a pretty desolate place soon after release and before the multiple nerfs and reward changes. Yeah, the maps were populated after the reward changes, that's what I said.My argument was about HoT having less sales than expected after HoT release, and that clearly shows in the revenue. HoT wasn't recieved well.

    You even posted it yourself: "it seems that the performance of the expansion pack is a bit weaker than what you had expected."Nothing about it states that GW2 going F2P was the reason.

    K, you have none. Thanks.

    I was merely asking because you made claims first. But it seems you have nothing to base your claims on. As for me:From Q4 2015 report:

    GW2 solidified its position as a main revenue driver, by adding on expansion pack sales to
    stable
    in-game item sales.From the Q2 2016 report:all key IPs have posted stable sales, due to continuous content updates and marketing events.I get lots of information from here:

    Some info from the questions themselves:

    it seems that the performance of the expansion pack is a bit weaker than what you had expected.andGuild Wars 2 expansion revenue that appears to be falling a bit

    So. in-game item sales have been stable during the launch of HOT, just as I said. And the expansion wasn't performing as expected, also as I said.

    I don't have to post sources, when I was clearly speaking about the revenue, and HoT having less revenue than pre HoT, during the content drought.

    But here you go, the earning releases showing revenue pre HoT > revenue post HoT: https://kr.ncsoft.com/en/ir/irArchive/earningsRelease.doIn a graph: https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/f2hh6b/ncsoft_and_guild_wars_2_sales_in_2019/

    Your sources don't even back up your claim about F2P hurting the revenue, which was your argument.

    So yeah, expansion was underperforming, like I said. Nothing about GW2's change to F2P tanking the revenue.HoT just wasn't recieved well, which is was my original argument.

    You were the one that said it was due to the F2P change.I'll quote what you said:"post-HOT the core game became free, which is the reason given by NCSoft themselves for the decline of revenue after the release of HOT."

    Any nerf to HoT maps and metas is a HoT nerf?

    All I said that Chak Gerent wasn't nerfed when the others were nerfed. You can find it in the patch notes if you don't believe me.

    Wrong, you said something about a "big HoT nerf" which no one was referring to. Any gerent nerf is still a HoT nerf.You mistakenly believed I was referring to some "big HoT nerf", and not all HoT nerfs.

    Why i think casuals are the most important player in guild wars 2

    in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

    Posted

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @"Raknar.4735" said:Can't be "left to rot" when the playerbase was already avoiding HoT maps like the plague to begin with. The increase in playernumbers came with the new rewards, like you stated.

    Source of the playerbase avoiding HOT maps like the plague? When HOT was released the maps were very well populated and meta events were completed. In fact, after the change HOT maps became emptier at "off hours" and they are still a wasteland when a meta is not running. Which is why I said "left to rot" is accurate when considering "off meta hours". The change actually killed HOT maps and they became a "look at the timer and port there to get rewards when the meta is running".

    Source that after the change HoT maps became emptier at "off hours"? The HoT maps were dead from the beginning, hence why they had to up the rewards. Before they weren't even "look at the timer and port there", they were simply "don't play".

    If we look at revenue during pre-HoT content drought and post-HoT release it paints a clear picture to me how HoT content was initially recieved.

    Pre-HOT the game wasn't free, post-HOT the core game became free, which is the reason given by NCSoft themselves for the decline of revenue after the release of HOT. Gem store sales are stable, game sales are low because conversions are low. According to the data analysts and economists of NCsoft that is. Forum economists might have different ideas.

    I'd actually really like to see the source where NCsofts data analysts and economists outright state that it is due to F2P! Feel free to share.

    And I'd actually like to see your source comparing the way HOT was initially received with their revenue. Feel free to share.

    K, you have none. Thanks. Guess you're just another forum economist ;)

    I‘d also argue that gerent has more player activity post-nerf than pre-nerf, in my own subjective experience, as we haven‘t recieved any numbers on playernumbers during events from Anet. So „left to rot“ is a strong statement to make, when I actually see more people doing it after the nerf than before.

    Nitpicking: Chak Gerent nerf wasn't part of the "big HOT nerf", Chak Gerent was nerfed much much later

    Also nitpicking: neither me nor Thornwolf have mentioned a "big HoT nerf". We, or atleast I was just talking about nerfs to HoT content. So your nitpicking is kinda irrelevant.

    Actually Chak Gerent was nerfed much later and was not a part of the HOT nerfs, feel free to call it irrelevant but it's perfectly relevant.

    Any nerf to HoT maps and metas is a HoT nerf? Sounds pretty reasonable to me. Not sure how the gerent nerf isn't part of HoT nerfs.

    Why i think casuals are the most important player in guild wars 2

    in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

    Posted

    @Thornwolf.9721 said:

    @Thornwolf.9721 said:HoT was amazing but because of the backlash from people who were not the majority it was devastated with nerfs and was left to rot.I would like to think that Anet made the decision to adjust HoT based on something other than your suggested "not the majority". To me, your point doesn't make business sense.

    I‘d also like souces of the HoT nerf being due to a minority.If we look at revenue during pre-HoT content drought and post-HoT release it paints a clear picture to me how HoT content was initially recieved.

    I‘d also argue that gerent has more player activity post-nerf than pre-nerf, in my own subjective experience, as we haven‘t recieved any numbers on playernumbers during events from Anet. So „left to rot“ is a strong statement to make, when I actually see more people doing it after the nerf than before.

    I dont have a source, this is entirely a subjective opinion. I loved HoT when it came out; And to this day I still hate PoF (Note I do not consider living world as part of the expansion, they are linked but I look at what we get for money spent on the expansion. HoT just brought more to the table.) A-net has and always likely will be knee jerky with their reactions; Id like for that to change but its just how they work. Im not saying all the changes were bad but I liked how difficult HoT was and back then I was not as much a WvW player or PvP as guild wars 2 as I've gotten older has offered me more in terms of competitive play. When I was young I just wanted to go out and kill monsters, have a minor story and have cool zones. HoT gave me that, the mastery system, the revenant and E-specs along with tons of really well designed zones and guild halls. PoF to me just handed mounts and some interesting E-specs (Spellbreaker, Renegade) But two out of nine just doesn't cut it for me, HoT had me excited for everything even classes I didn't play at the time.

    Like I've said before if End of dragons is just PoF 2, electric bugaloo then imma skip out on it. PoF really opened my eyes to the fact that A-net is not offering what I as a consumer wants or what I feel is worthy of my money. PoF to me even though it was around thirty bucks, I still feel that is too much for what the inital launch constituted in and I want End of Dragons to be worthy and priced at 60$ so they can make some solid money. But I can't justify that when the expansions really don't feel like expansions; When compared to other games and even when compared to guild wars 1. The second expansion was just more of the same and felt like we were going through the motions and as much as I adore mounts now; We didn't need them and we all know this. PoF litterally was the "mount expansion" nothing more, story was meh and a lot of the content was meh. I have never once gone back to the PoF zones once I was done with them and likely I probably wont go back anytime soon if ever, S4 maps are a different story but again living world =/= expansion in my eyes.

    That's fine! I just wasn't a fan of the majority/minority argument.Voting with your wallet is the best thing you can do as a customer, so if you didn't like PoF and EoD is similiar, what you intend to do (not buying it) is the best thing you can do to send a message. If enough people do that, Anet will notice that in their stats and change direction.

    I liked the PoF story way more than HoT, PoF maps with their reward increase have gotten roughly the same playtime amount HoT maps have gotten from me (Nowadays I only do gerent and the occasional AB, haven't visited Dragon's Stand in months). Many of the PoF e-speccs however were my least favourite feature. I hope they can do better with EoD.

    The only tip i can give you is waiting some time before buying EoD once it releases and checking what people say about it. If you like the direction and want to experience the expansion for yourself, buy it. If not, then don't.

    Why i think casuals are the most important player in guild wars 2

    in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

    Posted

    @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @"Thornwolf.9721" said:HoT was amazing but because of the backlash from people who were not the majority it was devastated with nerfs and was left to rot.I would like to think that Anet made the decision to adjust HoT based on something other than your suggested "not the majority". To me, your point doesn't make business sense.

    I‘d also like souces of the HoT nerf being due to a minority.

    There aren't any because the whole minority/majority argument is silly. The so called "nerf" of HOT wasn't even massive to begin with, in terms of difficulty and mob spawns. They changed champion hero points into veterans so new players in Verdant Brink could get their elite specs unlocked faster, they nerfed exactly one mob in terms of skills (Itzel Shadowleaper), and reduced mob density on walkways leading to different parts of areas. The actual mobs in event areas weren't even touched. It's that players eventually got better at playing the game and when they went back to HOT they found it easier and they... "blame" the nerfs. Oh well

    The biggest change was how meta events work, rewarding players in steps and not only at the end of the meta, and that was a great change for everyone.@"Thornwolf.9721" is right about "left to rot" though, with the new meta reward system there is little reason to stay on HOT maps outside meta events and the population there is indeed very low, until the meta starts. But that's normal for every other map in the game, so not really a problem.

    Can't be "left to rot" when the playerbase was already avoiding HoT maps like the plague to begin with. The increase in playernumbers came with the new rewards, like you stated.

    If we look at revenue during pre-HoT content drought and post-HoT release it paints a clear picture to me how HoT content was initially recieved.

    Pre-HOT the game wasn't free, post-HOT the core game became free, which is the reason given by NCSoft themselves for the decline of revenue after the release of HOT. Gem store sales are stable, game sales are low because conversions are low. According to the data analysts and economists of NCsoft that is. Forum economists might have different ideas.

    I'd actually really like to see the source where NCsofts data analysts and economists outright state that it is due to F2P! Feel free to share.

    I‘d also argue that gerent has more player activity post-nerf than pre-nerf, in my own subjective experience, as we haven‘t recieved any numbers on playernumbers during events from Anet. So „left to rot“ is a strong statement to make, when I actually see more people doing it after the nerf than before.

    Nitpicking: Chak Gerent nerf wasn't part of the "big HOT nerf", Chak Gerent was nerfed much much later

    Also nitpicking: neither me nor Thornwolf have mentioned a "big HoT nerf". We, or atleast I was just talking about nerfs to HoT content. So your nitpicking is kinda irrelevant.

    Why i think casuals are the most important player in guild wars 2

    in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

    Posted

    @kharmin.7683 said:

    @"Thornwolf.9721" said:HoT was amazing but because of the backlash from people who were not the majority it was devastated with nerfs and was left to rot.I would like to think that Anet made the decision to adjust HoT based on something other than your suggested "not the majority". To me, your point doesn't make business sense.

    I‘d also like souces of the HoT nerf being due to a minority.If we look at revenue during pre-HoT content drought and post-HoT release it paints a clear picture to me how HoT content was initially recieved.

    I‘d also argue that gerent has more player activity post-nerf than pre-nerf, in my own subjective experience, as we haven‘t recieved any numbers on playernumbers during events from Anet. So „left to rot“ is a strong statement to make, when I actually see more people doing it after the nerf than before.

    How many Jormag are there?

    in Living World

    Posted

    @Raknar.4735 said:

    @Greattyphoon.3120 said:So just one? Why use 'they' if there is only one? (sorry, not native English speaker here)

    Yes, there is just one Jormag. They is often used in English to refer to people without distinguishing between genders (for example when you don't know what gender the person you are referring to may be). So as an example, I would say over the internet about someone who's gender I don't know, they like GW2, instead of he/she likes GW2.

    Ah okay I think I might understand. When I learned English, I was told "they" is always plural, and neutral singular was "it". But thank you for the explanation. Why not use "it" since Jormag is a dragon is also confusing to me. But thank you.

    Yeah "it" would probably have been a more clearer meaning option here.

    YEP. While Taimi and Gorrik (and Anet) started using „they“ for Jormag in the prologue magazine describing the EDs, due to Aurene being gendered, we haven‘t heard from Jormag directly what its preferred pronouns are (and I doubt Jormag even cares).Until then, Jormag will just keep being a sentient natural disaster to me. A danger that has to be contained. So „it“ or simply „Jormag“ it is.

    Actually, after looking into it a bit more, Anet even tells us that Jormag doesn‘t care, as long as it benefits from it.„Jormag is fine with you perceiving Jormag in whatever way best persuades you to want what Jormag wants“Source: https://twitter.com/tomabernathy/status/1176063546855055360So yeah, using whatever pronouns you desire for Jormag is fine.

    Messed up edit, came out as double post.

    How many Jormag are there?

    in Living World

    Posted

    @Atomos.7593 said:

    @Greattyphoon.3120 said:So just one? Why use 'they' if there is only one? (sorry, not native English speaker here)

    Yes, there is just one Jormag. They is often used in English to refer to people without distinguishing between genders (for example when you don't know what gender the person you are referring to may be). So as an example, I would say over the internet about someone who's gender I don't know, they like GW2, instead of he/she likes GW2.

    Ah okay I think I might understand. When I learned English, I was told "they" is always plural, and neutral singular was "it". But thank you for the explanation. Why not use "it" since Jormag is a dragon is also confusing to me. But thank you.

    Yeah "it" would probably have been a more clearer meaning option here.

    YEP. While Taimi and Gorrik (and Anet) started using „they“ for Jormag in the prologue magazine describing the EDs, due to Aurene being gendered, we haven‘t heard from Jormag directly what its preferred pronouns are (and I doubt Jormag even cares).Until then, Jormag will just keep being a sentient natural disaster to me. A danger that has to be contained. So „it“ or simply „Jormag“ it is.

    Why i think casuals are the most important player in guild wars 2

    in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

    Posted

    If a player is a „casual“ doesn‘t actually say a lot about the content they play or how skillful they are. It‘s more about how much time they spend ingame and how invested they are.I‘d consider someone that 24/7 farms in SW way more hardcore than someone that only logs in once a week to raid (THAT‘S pretty casual ;) ).

    Well, that is unless you‘re using „casual“ as some sort of derogatory term.

    what about focus

    in Revenant

    Posted

    I'll take anything that isn't a sceptre.Focus could be interesting, but I'd like it combined with a MH weapon that isn't a sceptre.Dagger or Axe would be great, if we're going the 2x1hander route.Revenant already lacks weapons, only getting an OH with 2 skills would suck.

    Hard Mode, Heroic Mode, Ect...

    in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

    Posted

    @Linken.6345 said:

    @moony.5780 said:After playing GW1 again...i really really miss hardmode in GW2 :( I love running around in the old GW2 maps...but i wish i could at least choose to be 5 lvl below instead of 2 lvl above. It would already be enough for me to have then +50% more Magic find for that debuff :)

    Well, necromancers are pretty easy mode in the old GW2 maps.

    Considering this thread is almost 3 years old the person you respond to seem to be a nice necro =)

    Exactly :p

    Kicked from a Strike Mission, Commander won't give a reason.

    in Instanced Group Content

    Posted

    @Azertah.5804 said:

    You wasted more time rejoining the group. My time is worth something but so is my self respect. If someone kicks me from a group, I don't want to be part of that group, because kitten them. I'll find a group that likes/wants me. I don't know their group. I mean it's a half an hour wasted? 20 minutes? How long are we really talking about. How much time did you end up wasting? How are you feeling now at the end of the story? You don't sound happy and satisfied to me.

    There's an expression, throwing good money after bad. It's when you invest in something that doesn't pay off, and because you've already invested you keep throwing more money at it, in spite of that fact that you really should know it's not going to pay off. People do this all the time, but I've learned through life not to. It was a valuable lesson for me.

    A leopard might change it's spots, but you just can't count on it, and definitely shouldn't bet on it. If you invested and wasted a bit of time, wasting more time won't solve your problem.I'll note here thanks to the results of the toxic commander. I've stepped off from doing forging steel strike at all anymore, I just dont want to go trough that experience anymore seeing how toxic people can be even in strike missions. Can't even imagine how bad the situation is in raids.

    A sensible choice to make. If you don‘t enjoy something for any reason, there‘s no reason to force yourself through it.Play the content you enjoy, it is your free time, after all. No one should dictate how you spend it.

GuildWars2.com
ArenaNet

©2020 ArenaNet, LLC. All rights reserved. All trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

ESRB - Teen
×
×
  • Create New...