I would play GW2 more if it was a subscription-based MMO. [MERGED]

[Riaenvyr.2091]

7 hours ago, voltaicbore.8012 said:

I'm saddened that the discussion here is still active. OP @Aodlop.1907 is self-admittedly unfamiliar with PvE. To quote them from this thread they started,

  

 

While one need not be a super veteran with max mastery and 36K+ achieves to have a valid opinion, to say that you know nothing about the part of the game where the huge portion of rewards (and revenue for ANet) come from, then proceed to talk about improving reward structure.... is just dumb. Sorry, it is.

 

We let someone completely un-knowledgeable troll us into giving @Riaenvyr.2091 the opportunity to practice adding completely superfluous, meaningless, and dare I say narcissistic verbal flourishes to their posts. Time to let this one die, folks.

That's why You tagged me, to "let it die"? 😄
Come on, I'm just patiently waiting for something worthwhile to show up, there's absolutely no need to play an enabler.
Not like there's anything new to respond to here, anyway.

It might've very well been a troll comment. Just like everything You've ever written.
But the origin of an idea has absolutely nothing to do with its value. That's why we can entertain, understand, and dismantle arguments of people we hold dear. And why ad homs aren't a valid point to make. The only thing Aodlop risked was inaccuracy, which was brought to light and corrected.
There was this thread a couple of weeks back bringing up the idea of the armor designs in the game beings sexist, which was almost unanimously torn apart to be a troll, because Jadea happened to post it on April 1st. Sine misericordia.
I guess You've heard of the Infinite Monkey Theorem by now - the idea that, given enough time, a monkey typing randomly would eventually write Hamlet (or anything, for that matter). Would it be any less of a Hamlet? It would, duh, but Aodlop's punctuation is actually quite on point.

You, though, @voltaicbore.8012, You sounded like You've had Your own head on Your shoulders. Guess I was proven wrong in this thread for once, after all.
Well, no, Obtena hurt more. Must be the profile picture. But at least I learned not to take anybody's word for anything, hm?
I'm not somebody who would break beneath shouts of people who can hardly blow out a candle in their own outstreched arm, and You can bet Your squad's cherished pitchforks that I won't stop standing up for truth just because somebody refuses to comprehend or admit it, and most certainly with no lesser flair. The world is cruel. It doesn't have to be ugly.

You know, it strikes me as utterly beautiful how absolutely impervious some skulls are to any questions about their beliefs.
And I'm the one getting flamed for calling this community a hivemind.
Could've at least taken basic chemistry, colored the flames a bit.

A lot has been said over those 18 pages. Whoever gives a bag o' beans will read at least 'till the part where the holy cavalry arrives and starts bashing the heathens, which is, what, the second page?
I'm saddened that the discussion here isn't active since then, although simply watching a master of his craft at work is always a delight to witness, AND there could be something to be gathered from his numerous defenses thanks to the more detailed insights, regardless if it looks like he's styling on a gang of toddlers.

To be honest, the third person perspective feels horrible, but what would I not do for such a wonderful audience?

[Maikimaik.1974]

11 hours ago, Riaenvyr.2091 said:

You know, it strikes me as utterly beautiful how absolutely impervious some skulls are to any questions about their beliefs.
And I'm the one getting flamed for calling this community a hivemind.

Or maybe your opinion is just incredibly unpopular. 

We've given you enough explanations on why your opinions and suggestions are disliked by the community, it's not our fault that you continue to ignore them. 

Edited May 18, 2021 by Maikimaik.1974

[Riaenvyr.2091]

4 minutes ago, Maikimaik.1974 said:

Or maybe your opinion is just incredibly unpopular. 

We've given you enough explanations on why your opinions and suggestions are disliked by the community, it's not our fault that you continue to ignore them. 

That's entirely correct, and exactly as irrelevant.
The popularity of an opinion has no bearing on its validity.
You can get Your whole crew screaming and shouting that gravity doesn't exist, and You still won't start flying.

So if the goal of a discussion is to change, suggest, or simply even discuss different perspectives of something, ignoring every "I don't like it" is the sole logical course of action, especially if the reasons have been debunked over and over again and the next response is "I don't like you".

In simpler terms, Your community means nothing to me. The ideas do.

[Maikimaik.1974]

31 minutes ago, Riaenvyr.2091 said:

That's entirely correct, and exactly as irrelevant.
The popularity of an opinion has no bearing on its validity.
You can get Your whole crew screaming and shouting that gravity doesn't exist, and You still won't start flying.

So if the goal of a discussion is to change, suggest, or simply even discuss different perspectives of something, ignoring every "I don't like it" is the sole logical course of action, especially if the reasons have been debunked over and over again and the next response is "I don't like you".

In simpler terms, Your community means nothing to me. The ideas do.

Because you act like nobody has given you any valid criticism, let's summarize all the arguments against your proposal:

 

- some people cannot afford to pay a subscription

- a p2p model would start to become much more expensive than Gw2's current model after a few years

- some people think there are enough rewards in the game already

- some people agree that there aren't enough rewards, but don't mind it if that means they don't have to pay a subscription

- there's no guarantee that a p2p model would cause more rewards to be achieveable ingame

- Gw2 is extremely casual friendly and a p2p model wouldn't work with that kind of game

- Gw2 would possibly be a completely different game if it was developed with a p2p model in mind

- everything on the gem store is available through gold to gem conversion, so some people believe that also counts as ingame rewards

- some people prefer farming for gold to convert to gems over other grinds seen in p2p games

- some people believe that Gw2 wouldn't have been able to attract a large enough player base to sustain itself if it was p2p

 

Tell me how those arguments aren't valid criticisms.

Edited May 18, 2021 by Maikimaik.1974

[Stalkingwolf.6035]

imo the only problem is that they put features in the game to sell stuff in the shop aferwards.

Gliderskins, Mountskins, Build Templates Slots.

 

but you can take 12€/$12 every month and buy gems. Convert them into gold or buy stuff from the shop.

[kharmin.7683]

3 hours ago, Riaenvyr.2091 said:

The popularity of an opinion has no bearing on its validity.
You can get Your whole crew screaming and shouting that gravity doesn't exist, and You still won't start flying.

 

Not a great analogy.  You seem to be equating opinion with fact. 

[Riaenvyr.2091]

29 minutes ago, Maikimaik.1974 said:

Because you act like nobody has given you any valid criticism...

Never thought I'd ever quote my father's songs, but here we are; "slepému farby nevysvetlíš" - can't explain colors to a blind man.
But having a summary on each page raises the chance of people seeing something of note instead of the flood of back pats, doesn't it?
Thus, en garde! Once more.

And I'll respond to everything, even though several of Your points "against [my] proposal" are literally quoting my own statements, which I haven't yet decided whether I should be flattered by because You agree with them, or because there's so little to argue against in the first place that You had to shoot Yourself to make the score look more impressive.
Will get back to You once I figure it out!

 

36 minutes ago, Maikimaik.1974 said:

- some people cannot afford to pay a subscription

- a F2P game isn't free to make or maintain; people who don't pay for services of entertainment they're using are leechers at best and thieves at worst
- also, some people can't afford personal jets, how is that an argument?

 

1 hour ago, Maikimaik.1974 said:

- a p2p model would start to become much more expensive than Gw2's current model after a few years

- varies from person to person, and also depends on whether the game has enough compelling rewards to get regardless of the cash shop because Newton's first law of motion: an object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force; people function basically the same way - unless they feel bad in the moment, they loathe changing anything, no matter how beneficial it will be in the future, which is why smoking, obesity, and global warming, to name a few, are such deadly issues nowadays
 

 

1 hour ago, Maikimaik.1974 said:

- some people think there are enough rewards in the game already

- some people don't; eye for an eye

 

1 hour ago, Maikimaik.1974 said:

            - some people agree that there aren't enough rewards, but don't mind it if that means they don't have to pay a subscription

- again, some people don't; tooth for a tooth
~ also, putting previous three points into a fourth point just to make the list look longer might work on high school teachers, but such people shouldn't be in charge of bringing up the future generations to begin with, so that's -50 DKP for trying to impress ME with high heels (unless You're Liana Blackburn, but that's more about the enthralling passion)

 

1 hour ago, Maikimaik.1974 said:

- there's no guarantee that a p2p model would cause more rewards to be achieveable ingame

- there are only two guarantees in life: death and taxes, as the old wisdom goes, the former, ironically enough, looking much more vulnerable to defeat than the latter, but such arguments of semantics have no merit; yes, invoking absolutions is pointless, what does it matter?
- in the more realistic sense, there actually is a guarantee, granted ANet's goal is to be profitable for more than the first month, because since a monthly fee is an added barrier for entry, people must feel like the content is worth it to come back for
 

 

1 hour ago, Maikimaik.1974 said:

            - Gw2 is extremely casual friendly and a p2p model wouldn't work with that kind of game

- yeah, the question is what came first - the egg, or the chicken - because, as meaningless as words are to companies, every business always follows money, 'cuz capitalism, and nobody would ever start a project with the assumption that it's meant not to work, not just for maintenance or updates, but that people require to literally avoid content with the intention of hoarding it, so it can last for a longer period of time; once it's forced by the playerbase, tried, and actually shown to work, sure, but to begin with such a mindset is ridiculous
 

 

1 hour ago, Maikimaik.1974 said:

            - Gw2 would possibly be a completely different game if it was developed with a p2p model in mind

- first page, 20th response (21st post, including the OP) - I was the first one to bring this very point up, so You'll have to explain to me how exactly is my proposal going against my proposal, because precisely as I said F2P and sub-based games have different structures, I also pointed out that the entire playerbase would most probably be completely different

 

2 hours ago, Maikimaik.1974 said:

            - everything on the gem store is available through gold to gem conversion, so some people believe that also counts as ingame rewards

- the point of contention was never that the Gem Store exists, or that we're officially able to trade in-game gold for a premium currency, but that the items awarded through gameplay are purposefully made to be of lesser quality to incentivize using the Gem Store; once again - the path, not the destination
 

 

2 hours ago, Maikimaik.1974 said:

            - some people prefer farming for gold to convert to gems over other grinds seen in p2p games

- some people don't; what's next... kidney for kidney?
- but since I got bored of this - still valid - argument, look at it this way: logically, the only reason why gold farming would be preferred by the company to support in lieu of in-game rewards is revenue, because getting stuff people like through gameplay means nobody would buy stuff from the Gem Store, 'cuz why would they, which is the company's singular way of avoiding being disbanded, very bluntly showing that the quality of people's experience is, as Obtena pointed out, virtually irrelevant to the company as long as they're getting paid, and no harm, no foul - that's just the nature of the beast named capitalism, just looks pretty weird that somebody would actually defend that they're being fleeced
 

 

2 hours ago, Maikimaik.1974 said:

              - some people believe that Gw2 wouldn't have been able to attract a large enough player base to sustain itself if it was p2p

- another one of those word-for-word things I've said before, even in the very same first post of mine in this thread, and just as such I've nothing to say against it, except... I have to repeat myself for everybody new who comes in too late to be able to be bothered by reading everything, why would You repeat me for myself so I repeat myself about repeating myself?
I always liked the idea of having a hall with mirrors on each side to create an illusion of infinity, though... Hm!
 

 

2 hours ago, Maikimaik.1974 said:

Tell me how those arguments aren't valid criticisms.

They're not invalid (save for those few that aren't criticisms at all), but once an idea is proven false for one reason or another, it doesn't stay relevant.
It's been tested, drawn, quartered, cremated, and the ashes scattered by the wind. People looking to learn shouldn't run around, catching random specks of dust and inhaling them with devoted reverence.
The useful thoughts are kept, the outdated ones are discarded. That's what I'm here for: progress. Standing still never solved anything.


You're so insecure about Your own arguments, however, that every single of those points referring to people uses "some".
Which is, in truth, a good thing, because it clearly shows that You're arguing for the sake of arguing or to get in the good graces of the community, and not because You're a moron, denoting an issue of emotional magnitude, not a lack of intellect.
Doesn't mean I'm going to applaud the decision, of course, but I can be much more sympathetic.
To You personally, that is. The arguments will get the same treatment as always. Is this a reverse ad hom?

Still have to wonder what causes some people to break down and seek any comfort available while others take the spite in their stride to push the fight through the tide.

Heh. Words worth chanting to a march's rhythm.
...Horrifying.

[Riaenvyr.2091]

5 minutes ago, kharmin.7683 said:

Not a great analogy.  You seem to be equating opinion with fact. 

If it's taken out of the context, most certainly.
But the idea was exactly to point out that no matter how many people dislike me, my words won't become less true solely on the basis of hate.

[Maikimaik.1974]

49 minutes ago, Riaenvyr.2091 said:

You're so insecure about Your own arguments, however, that every single of those points referring to people uses "some".
Which is, in truth, a good thing, because it clearly shows that You're arguing for the sake of arguing or to get in the good graces of the community, and not because You're a moron, denoting an issue of emotional magnitude, not a lack of intellect.
Doesn't mean I'm going to applaud the decision, of course, but I can be much more sympathetic.
To You personally, that is. The arguments will get the same treatment as always. Is this a reverse ad hom?

I was starting to write an answer because you have some valid objections but after reading this I really don't feel like wasting my time arguing with you anymore and I urge everyone to do the same. You reacting like this to a simple summary of counter arguments proves that you are absolutely arguing in bad faith. You obviously have no interest in coming to a mutual conclusion or, what's more likely, to simply agree to disagree.

This is ridiculous.

Edited May 18, 2021 by Maikimaik.1974

[Riaenvyr.2091]

20 minutes ago, Maikimaik.1974 said:

I was starting to write an answer because you have some valid objections but after reading this I really don't feel like wasting my time arguing with you anymore and I urge everyone to do the same. You reacting like this to a simple summary of counter arguments proves that you are absolutely arguing in bad faith. You obviously have no interest in coming to a mutual conclusion or, what's more likely, to simply agree to disagree.

This is ridiculous.

Yes. I'm arguing in bad faith by trying to understand You. Sounds legit.
What was the trigger word? "Insecure"?

[Forum Moderator.5907]

Discussion have derailed into mostly personal attacks. We are now closing this.