User talk:Raine Valen/Archive 31

Selling Gameplay Advantages: It Is Bad And You Are A Bad Person For Doing It.

→ moved from Feedback talk:John Stumme

Wow, John.
I really can't believe that ArenaNet is doing something so terrible as selling things that increase the number of options available to players. The difference with the mercenary heroes may be small, but it's a horribly slippery slope that you're sliding down; where will it stop?!
I mean, will anet start to sell things as integral to the game as skills? I cringe at the thought! How terribly unfair it would be to require a purchase from players wanting to run some specific build! If someone doesn't want to pay for a skill, they should be competitive without having to pay for it, just like monks without Eye of the North!
Will it go even further, John? Will ANEt attach a cash payment to even bigger things, like access to whole professions?! That's simply madness, John. I know that the people who don't have Factions can't roll Ritualists, but that's completely different, somehow, probably because Ritualists haven't been stapled to pretty much every high-end PvP team build since their conception. Besides, other people have weapon spells and spirits, anyway.
Will they require a payment to gain access to, say, a certain new PvE area, or even a new PvP format? Restricting people's ability to participate based on purchases isn't fair. So far, everyone has always had access to everything, regardless of what they bought! How DARE you change that now?! You're breaking the economy for people without that access, and that's not fair!
There's a precedent for making all of those things free, and it breaks my delicate, sarcastic heart to see you, as a company, deviate from that trend. — Raine Valen 1:46, 9 Mar 2011 (UTC)

ilu Raine. --BriarThe Spider 01:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

cool trolling bro.- Zesbeer 01:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

And this shows why Raine should have not given any seat. 88.153.105.75 02:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Because she's sarcastic? If sarcasm lost you admin privileges we'd have no admins. --BriarThe Spider 02:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

"Because she's sarcastic?" Raine's a she? -- Konig/talk 03:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

She's actually quite bodacious. elix Omni 04:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Does it matter? — Raine Valen 21:21, 9 Mar 2011 (UTC)

...goes double for being opinionated about game mechanics. That said, I tried to focus the topic on technical Clarification and Nuances ...and John took it to the next level. So turning it into *this kind of topic* is no better than the sensationalism PC-Gamer has cooked up multiple times over trivial GW2 tidbits. The initial argument was that Microtran$ aren't Expansions. He made his case and I'm respecting it. Muddying the water on that point will only instigate others into going, "hey, wait a minute, maybe they really are different?". IE: Satire is double-edged, use it wisely. --ilr 02:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Not all microtransactions are expansions, but all expansions are microtransactions, in that they give you access to part of a game that you already own (Guild Wars). They have all, so far, given distinct new appearances (e.g. armor), added professions to the buyer's repitoire, included new skills and mechanics (e.g. Heroes), new game types (e.g. AB and HB), new heroes (Koss, Olias, Zenmai, Gwen), new weapons and att lines, new PvE content — and it has been paid for. One point, specifically, should be repeated for emphasis: each campaign and expansion includes new heroes. Saying that "selling heroes is selling advantages and it's wrong; give us free mercs" is as invalid an argument as "I can't run sabway without prophs; give me Olias for free".

tl;dr: buyable content and functionality has always been part of GW; stop pretending that it hasn't. — Raine Valen 15:01, 9 Mar 2011 (UTC)

I'm also quite curious as to how I've "muddied the water" ; would you care to elaborate? — Raine Valen 21:27, 9 Mar 2011 (UTC)

You don't know what trolling is, I think: if you think that I'm trolling John by wholeheartedly agreeing with him, I really don't know what to say. If anything, you could argue that I'm trolling everyone who's complaining about merc heroes, but I'd be greatly amused to see anyone try to defend that claim. The other alternative is that you think I meant that literally, but I said, in the OP, that I was being sarcastic; perhaps this is the source of your consternation? — Raine Valen 21:21, 9 Mar 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem might have been that for people who don't know you well, people wouldn't be able to identify it readily as a sarcastic joke that fully supports the update. --Lania 21:29, 09 March 2011 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I don't believe Defiant, who I pick only because he carried out the ban, is unfamiliar with Raine's mannerisms. -- Oiseau | 21:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I thought that that might have been the case during the writing, too, so I included "...and it breaks my delicate, sarcastic heart..." to be absolutely sure that the sarcasm was plain. I find it difficult to believe that the sarcasm would not have been woefully obvious to any reader.

That being said, I also have a hard time believing that either Defiant Elements or Jon The Mon are unfamiliar with me, by now. — Raine Valen 21:42, 9 Mar 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, that is the most obvious and theatrical sarcasm I have ever seen on this wiki. Ever. And if people would've actually read it all, they should be able to tell that it's a mocking way to state how things have been. It may not be the most common way to state such a thing, but it appears harmless. Just my two biased Raine-supporting cents. - Infinite - talk 21:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

While I agree that the update was great, and the merc heroes is a good idea on Anet's part, and I think people saying that it's unfair fails to see that "selling ingame advantage" isn't something new, I think that sarcastic post not only read as a hostile act against all who disagree with Anet and their great update, but also an attempted negative characterization of anyone who thinks that "selling ingame advantage" is bad and horrible. That said, I think some people need to not over-react to things and throw the Ban hammer at the first sign of hostility and end up possibly escalating things in the end. I think Raine, DE, and JonTheMon are all superb sysops but banning, and throwing the "ban" word around for something that should be left alone or ignored just seems very aggressive, which is rather uncharacteristic for the GWW sysop team IMO. --Lania 22:08, 09 March 2011 (UTC)

Let us entertain the idea that it was, in fact, a hostile attempted characterization of this implicitly-named group of people. For this purpose, let us take a simpler post that makes a similar hostile characterization:

"You are all wrong."

The above, in four words, casts a negative connotation onto everyone implicitly named and, because it is a direct opposition, is inherently hostile. Is that post bannable? Should it be? — Raine Valen 22:29, 9 Mar 2011 (UTC)

Let me reiterate the fact that I don't agree with the ban that was placed on you. The phrase "you are all wrong" is an statement of opinion that makes no implications about someone's character or thought process. The difference between that short statement and the sarcastic rant is with the sarcastic rant is so long, and it is written from the point of view of someone who dislikes the merc hero update. The characterization of the "author" who disliked the update is quite negative, and if it was a serious comment made by someone, anyone would think that person is a little "un-hinged" to put it mildly. Thus by writing the sarcastic rant in a tone that is overtly emotional, illogical, rambling, and almost schizophrenic; it ends up being an implied personal attack on everyone that dislikes the merc hero update by labeling them as overtly emotional, illogical, and crazy. But that PA IMO is so indirect and roundabout, I just don't see it as a bannable offense, hence why I disagree with the ban. A simple warning would have sufficed I think... --Lania 22:42, 09 March 2011 (UTC)

"it ends up being an implied personal attack on everyone" I think this is the basic gist of it all. And more importantly, the word "implied" is subject to differ per reader. Those who are against the block probably feel the implication was (very likely) rude/insensitive/borderline-trolling, but those who were for the block had a much differenty coloured perspective on the statement and felt they would have to take action. Which is why there will always be (at least) two parties in any discussion revolving around this little "let's not go there" block, because there has always been (at least) two types of readers. It's personal judgement to put this one into the bannable offense section, though, but that is my own perspective. - Infinite - talk 13:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Since when did suppression of free speech become acceptable on GWW? Koda 13:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

You've gotta be kidding me... -Cursed Angel 14:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)