Obtena.7952

Exactly. Again, my point is that someone is unable to judge if the person copying is using the inspection feature or not, so the argument about ease of inspection is absurd. If I'm going to take the time to copy someone's look, it's irrelevant to me how easy it is to figure it out. If I'm going to get angry because someone has a look that I created, it's irrelevant to me how easy it was for someone to mimic it. If the only argument is that people can inspect others fashion easily, they are going to have to provide a WAY more significant explanation for why that's actually a problem, especially if the game doesn't tell them they are being fashion inspected (it wasn't clear from the demo if that's the case or not). So, here is the final conclusion. If the only argument people are making is that it's too easy to be inspected, then Anet just needs to not tell people their fashion is being inspected in the first place.

That doesn't make sense ... the offensive part to people is that it's easier for people to copy their fashion? That's a illogical argument because if you put a string of people in front of a fashion judge, the judge would have NO idea how hard or easy it was for those people to come up with their fashions, whether they were copied or not. Let's be honest here. The only issue is that people are offended they can be inspected. That's it. It has nothing to do with ease of copying. People that are so concerned with their fashion are GOING to spend as much time as they need to create their look, whether it was copied or not.

The point is that Anet makes changes to the game all the time that have negative impacts on people's feelings so it's absurd to think that this development is unique with that regard and somehow 'feelings' becomes some significant factor. From another perspective, the decision to add fashion inspect wasn't 'feelings' based in the first place, so it's unlikely to be affect by 'feeling-based' arguments to affect it.

Here is the thing ... sure Anet could add an opt-out function. I'm sure if it's not too much work, they it will be considered if the consequences are significant enough. But that's not really the point. The point is why would they? I've YET to see an argument to add an opt-out for this other than "it hurts my feels if people can see my fashion choices".

You wouldn't believe how fast some people melt if they feel their sense of entitlement is being challenged. For them it actually IS about safety. Somehow they have associated the secrets of their fashion to the worth that it has to them. It's not even about people copying their look. It can't be ... people can already do that and it's unlikely they would encounter person sporting the 'stolen' fashion anyways. SOMEHOW ... it's simply offensive to them that people can look at their choices.

That's the problem. Anyone that thinks shaming Anet with labels to compel change is pretty ignorant, especially if it's flavoured with a dash of entitlement.

Yes it has been. In fact, it always has been, because there isn't a definition for it. It's simply whatever someone wants to think it is. More reasonable players will recognize that Anet selling an expansion isn't P2W. Disgruntled, angry players will label EVERYTHING Anet sells as P2W. But here is the best part ... it doesn't matter what people want to call it or how they want to define it. Arguing what is P2W is not relevant ... it's just a label. It's not going to stop Anet or any other company from selling what they want. The reality will be reflected in how consumers patronize Anet ... and obviously they do that, regardless of whatever snowflakes are being melted over how they are labeling Anet's practices as P2W.

If that someone is attempting to throw shade at the game because of how they want to label it with their subjective opinion of P2W, I would say yeah, that is harmful ... and that's exactly what's happening in this thread. People don't like something about the game, so they associate it with something ELSE that is generally looked down upon. The unfortunate part is that no discussion can be had because the second P2W becomes subjective because people 'feel' it's true, they can never be wrong about it. The fact remains that there is nothing unreasonable about charging people to access content, regardless if that content is a simple skin or an I WIN button. No one is removing agency ... consumers still have the option to purchase things or not. This is the power we have. No one should pretend Anet is our friend or some charity. This is a business, we are its patrons. That's the relationship. If someone 'complains' they don't get to experience something they can readily purchase, that's their problem, which is why the OP's original post is so absurd.

True, but not for the better. Prior to people measuring DPS benchmarks, people were trying to dictate what was optimal based on excel calculations, which were literally demonstrated to be completely inaccurate and nonsensical when applied to real encounters ingame. So the reality is that prior to the existence of Snowcrows/Metabattle, the game WAS much different ... and not in a good way. There are ALWAYS going to be people that game the system; in GW2 case, optimizing their DPS. That doesn't make them or the sites that provide that information bad things for the game. What is bad for the game is when people PUSH optimization on unwilling/unknowing players, for their own selfish motives, then turn around and play the victim when people don't conform this optimal way to play. Welcome to metapushing. At least with Snowcrows and DPS meters, an objective argument can be had about the benefits and value of playing meta vs. not.

No, I don't misunderstand. It IS a choice that they are playing QScrapper. There are OTHER quickness specs they could choose if QScrapper doesn't work for them because 'movement' or some other nonsensical reason. There is no narrative where Anet is forcing ANYONE to do ANYTHING. That's completely absurd considering the lengths that Anet has made to balance the game in the last 2 years in their roles-based system. There IS choice. People need to make better choices for themselves if the choices they made don't work for them. Force movements skills DON'T need to be removed from the game. Players that don't like them simply need to git gud or choose something else.

Hold on ... you have a choice what skills you use in this game so ... the whole thread makes no sense. Don't like forced movement skills? OK, don't use them. 'Being OK' with skills is irrelevant if you can choose to not use them if you aren't OK with them. What you THINK is a bad design decision is just a L2P and/or a 'you making bad skill choices for yourself' issue.

Lots of opinion presented factually here. There is no 'silent majority' Anet should listen to ... Anet SHOULD be using data from the game to determine what content and mechanics works for players and what doesn't. Anet has over 10 years of data to tell them these things. As veteran game designers, they will port 'the good things' to GW3. To be honest, what will make GW3 a success is more about what Anet offers players to get them to spend money on the game. Sure, that's good content, but it's also how willing Anet is to follow the trends of selling things that allow players to 'accelerate' their progression. As for the thread, it's easy for people to look back now and say HoT is the best. I think a more objective look at the data suggests HoT at the time of its release was not the pinnacle of game experience most players were looking for. I think it's looked on positively at this point because we have obvious power creep (which shouldn't have ever happened) and it's simply very familiar with most players. IMO, the success of HoT over the history of the game is due to it's re-play value and not necessarily it's content. I liked the content in PoF the most, but there isn't much reason for me to revisit going there.

Why stop there? We should fire anyone that creates mechanics where we have to do anything BUT press 1. 😆

LAWLWUT? The longtimers don't 'share' and don't want it to be more accessible? Did you post that under duress or lose a bet? That's incredibly obtuse way to think. Cringey. Who do you think is providing you all the information that allows everyone to do the content without learning it themselves? Oh right ... the very people you accuse of gatekeeping to protect their sunken cost. JEEZ.

Game wasn't to your taste? OK ... but that doesn't mean it has a design flaw. But people will say anything to convince themselves it's a problem with the game when it doesn't suit them. Almost like EVERY game should be something they like.