Guild Wars 2

Bertrand.3057:

Zaklex.6308:

I think you have a personal axe to grind, I see no problem with them wanting to allow anyone that has purchased the game and had an active account to continue to post on the forums. Also, as Pixelpumpkin pointed out above, they were unable to log into the game for 2 months due to personal reasons…just what exactly do you see as their attitude towards their customers anyways…other than being accommodating.

My problem was Mark admitting they considered restricting people who had purchased the game but had not been active from participating on the forums. That and the attitude that there was a real issue with attention-seeking individuals pretending to be inactive and that he deemed it worth his time to be labeling players in this way.

He stated reasonable and proven facts. The fact that the discussed it is reasonable. The reasons the chose to take a different route show that there priorities are in the correct place.

There is a real issue. As he stated, it is a fact that players lie for attention. Call it labeling if you lile, but when the label is a proven favt, I fail to see justification for your anger.

I agree with the company’s stance on this matter and applaud them for considering various possibilities for improving the game/forum experience even if some of the considered options are determined to lack merit.

However

Mark Katzbach.9084:

as some have mentioned, they have seen players making posts about having quit the game, yet see those same players on their friends list logging in daily. If you’re posting about how long ago you quit the game, yet log in daily, that’s attention-seeking.

“They” say that they have quit the game, others say that they added the first group to their friends list and say that the first group are logging in daily. Two different people each say something but only one of them is being implied to have engaged in dishonest behavior.

That said,

Thank you for the information. I really appreciate your willingness to share some of what went on behind the scenes back then.

chemiclord.3978:

phys.7689:

the fact you considered it tells me your priorities arent really that great.

How would it be all that terribly different than how sub games restrict forum presence to people still paying an active subscription?

Now you just sound like someone looking for reasons to pick a fight with Arena.net.

the difference is that anet isnt selling a subscription, they marketed and sold the game as a buy 2 play model, which means in general you are supposed to get access to the service for the price of buying the game.

the situation would be more analagous to people not being able to post in a subscription game who have not played in awhile. Also its clear from his sentences, that his express purpose in doing so is to suppress what he feels are malicious comments.
This means, its not about whether they play or havent played, its more about the content of the message, and them not playing is a means to an end of suppressing it. Also note, free 2 play games never utilize this strategy, and they didnt even pay the developers.

So yeah, its different and its bad. Not even saying subscription games doing it is a good thing, but it means the intent is less about people who payed for the game speaking their mind and communicating, and more about creating a certain environment, regardless if its accurate or not.

Now this is subjective, but i specifically find it sad that the only reason they didnt do it, is because it is not feasible to implement. Essentially, if they could edit out people who say things that are perfectly within the forum rules, but distasteful to the company they would.

Other people may see that is cool beans, but ehhh i think it defeats the purpose of a forum*
*a place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.

phys.7689:

which means in general you are supposed to get access to the service for the price of buying the game.

The fact that one can be banned from the forum without losing access to the game demonstrates that, “the service,” is the game, not the forums.

Forum access seems likely to be restricted to those who have purchased the game not because the forums are a part of the service that is the game itself but because it is a good way to avoid some of the worst of the trolling that occurs due to game rivalries.

You pay for the service that is the game. You get access to that service. The forums are a privilege not inherently a part of the service.

@ lordkrall

I understand your frustration with some players who never post anything good about the game. However, a blanket banning based on lack of logins is both:

• An attempt to stifle dissenting opinions. I’m against this on principle. The game is either strong enough to stand on its own merit, or it isn’t. As far as those who abuse the forum rules, well, there’s a system for that.
• A ’restriction" that is easily circumvented. People “dedicated” to negativity will just reinstall and log in, whereas those who do not log on for other reasons (say you work so much you are too tired to play much, but can post from a phone) would also be impacted.

Based on both reasons, I do not support this idea, and am happy that ANet does not.

Sorry phys but I don’t agree with you here.

There are many people who get disenfranchised for a reason or even just no reason. They’re bored. They’ve done everything. Something happened that annoyed them. Their guild disbanded.

And they find another game that they like. To those people, with nothing at all to lose, they can come here and say literally anything. Doesn’t matter if it’s good or true or right. They can say anything.

I’ve seen people who haven’t played the game for months complaining about stuff that’s no longer a problem. I don’t think that’s helpful or constructive.

There are probably people still complaining about ascended gear and “gear grind” when only that single tier of gear has actually been released.

I agree that the disadvantages to banning inactive players is less than the advantages of keeping them, but I’ve often wished people who don’t really know or understand what the game is about should just stop posting.

Because it accomplishes absolutely nothing.

Vayne.8563:

*(1)I’ve seen people who haven’t played the game for months complaining about stuff that’s no longer a problem. I don’t think that’s helpful or constructive.

*(2)But I’ve often wished people who don’t really know or understand what the game is about should just stop posting.

Because it accomplishes absolutely nothing.

1-just people have not played the game in months does not mean that they could not give valuable feedback, someone who actually left due to principle, and keeps an eye on the forum’s to see if/when any changes are taking place can still provide feedback. If they are abusing their posting privileges, then there is already a system set up for this.
Fortunately, Anet is not willing to simply infract people for not immediately agreeing with individuals. Notice I am NOT saying that all players who “left” fall into this category, but some do.

2-Oh? and what pray tell exactly is “the game about”? I thought that was the great joy of guild wars, was that you could play as you wish. Are you trying to imply that there is a dictated way on how people should actually play it? If so, who does the dictation? You? Anet? me? HA! I don`t want it, and Anet is wise enough to avoid it where they possibly can.

Nube one one seven.7039:

Vayne.8563:

*(1)I’ve seen people who haven’t played the game for months complaining about stuff that’s no longer a problem. I don’t think that’s helpful or constructive.

*(2)But I’ve often wished people who don’t really know or understand what the game is about should just stop posting.

Because it accomplishes absolutely nothing.

1-just people have not played the game in months does not mean that they could not give valuable feedback, someone who actually left due to principle, and keeps an eye on the forum’s to see if/when any changes are taking place can still provide feedback. If they are abusing their posting privileges, then there is already a system set up for this.
Fortunately, Anet is not willing to simply infract people for not immediately agreeing with individuals. Notice I am NOT saying that all players who “left” fall into this category, but some do.

2-Oh? and what pray tell exactly is “the game about”? I thought that was the great joy of guild wars, was that you could play as you wish. Are you trying to imply that there is a dictated way on how people should actually play it? If so, who does the dictation? You? Anet? me? HA! I don`t want it, and Anet is wise enough to avoid it where they possibly can.

Yes the game is actually about play as you wish. That’s what the game is about. So when people come in and talk about stuff like adding a full on gear grind to the game, who exactly does that help?

Vayne.8563:

Nube one one seven.7039:

Vayne.8563:

*(1)I’ve seen people who haven’t played the game for months complaining about stuff that’s no longer a problem. I don’t think that’s helpful or constructive.

*(2)But I’ve often wished people who don’t really know or understand what the game is about should just stop posting.

Because it accomplishes absolutely nothing.

1-just people have not played the game in months does not mean that they could not give valuable feedback, someone who actually left due to principle, and keeps an eye on the forum’s to see if/when any changes are taking place can still provide feedback. If they are abusing their posting privileges, then there is already a system set up for this.
Fortunately, Anet is not willing to simply infract people for not immediately agreeing with individuals. Notice I am NOT saying that all players who “left” fall into this category, but some do.

2-Oh? and what pray tell exactly is “the game about”? I thought that was the great joy of guild wars, was that you could play as you wish. Are you trying to imply that there is a dictated way on how people should actually play it? If so, who does the dictation? You? Anet? me? HA! I don`t want it, and Anet is wise enough to avoid it where they possibly can.

Yes the game is actually about play as you wish. That’s what the game is about. So when people come in and talk about stuff like adding a full on gear grind to the game, who exactly does that help?

And if they feel that that makes the game better? You can wish that someone would post or not all you like, but that does NOT change the fact that their feedback, even if it goes against everything the game was originally designed for, is any less legitimate than yours. Nor should they simply be arbitrarily banned from giving feedback. It also does not give you the “right” to belittle or personally attack other customers simply because they are concerned enough with a change, and invested in the game enough, to come comment on their concerns. And note, that this last part is not aimed at you Vayne, but is something I think that a lot of what most posters would call “white knights” need to remember.

Those customers who have not played in a while and come to speak their opinions about why they aren’t coming back are probably ones that Anet should be closely listening to: especially as more and more customers are falling into this category.

If Anet were to ban anyone from posting, it would be better to ban those who defend Anet no matter what actions Anet takes. It’s (ironically) these people who hurt the game far more than those the OP wants to ban.

johnsonade.9547:

phys.7689:

Mark Katzbach.9084:

This is something that we had considered in the past, but opted against because it unfairly works against lapsed players who want to ask what’s changed since they last played and players like Pixelpumpkin who may, for personal reasons, be unable to log into the game, but still want to interact with the forums and stay up to date on the game.

It’s also worth pointing out that some people use claims of quitting the game as an attention-getting tactic, when in fact they are still quite active. Putting in this type of restriction would just push those people to claim they only log in to keep their forum privileges active.

the fact you considered it tells me your priorities arent really that great. People who bought the game and still feel the need to voice their concerns even in an annoying way, are probably giving feedback about what people who left the game are looking for. You just look at them as telling you things you dont want to hear. Anyhow doesnt

Well I’m okay with the fact they considered it because those worst case players keep a ball of toxicity building, flame and talk down to anyone they don’t agree with them, case and point posted above. Questioning a dev’s priorities on their own forum reeks of gamer privilege. Like literally screw your future gem purchases and your “supporting the game” if you can’t be constructive and not hurl abuse at the dev team and then hound them to produce more content on the same breath. There are literally tons of other things for retired players to do besides hassle people about a game they don’t play anymore. It’s getting pretty nasty on reddit and a couple gaming sites. Lots of abuse towards a certain staff member who may be in charge of gem store decisions along with the regular toxicity that’s been building up over time. Using the ban hammer is okay, but that requires vigilance and active moderation where having preventative measures in does stop some garbage before it starts. But as Mark mentioned, it’s a non-issue now.

you are more concerned with suppressing opinions you dont like than you are concerned with honest discourse. I agree that some people cross the line and go ballistic, but that really isnt the majority of negative opinions, and it isnt even the majority of people who claim they arent playing. A lot of the people who go ballistic actively play.

So what this all goes back to is trying to suppress negative viewpoints. Problem is negative viewpoints and positive ones, and everything in between paint a truer picture, and give more information. Nothing is really gained by suppressing non infraction able posters who spent money on the game. Their opinion is actually just as valuable as someone elses, though it speaks to a different viewpoint. (that of someone who left, but is generally still engaged enough to return)

But the biggest problem is that you and others place too much value on your preconcieved perceptions, and categories of posters, evaluate the posts merit based on the post itself, not based on how long its been since he played, or any other reason that is not really relevant to the content of the post.

Lord Kuru.3685:

Those customers who have not played in a while and come to speak their opinions about why they aren’t coming back are probably ones that Anet should be closely listening to: especially as more and more customers are falling into this category.

If Anet were to ban anyone from posting, it would be better to ban those who defend Anet no matter what actions Anet takes. It’s (ironically) these people who hurt the game far more than those the OP wants to ban.

Right, so you have a list there of people who do that? Even Vayne isn’t that way.

I would have to say this would be a very bad Idea…. I know several people from other games that were in the military on Active duty in a War Zone.. Now tell me just how any one would feel if they did get a bit of time to get on the forums here, but not be able to play the game ???? I think my self I would be very PO’d…

My own feelings about recent game changes notwithstanding, I have to concur with Mark here. The vast majority of cases of players who claim “Your game sucks! I’m quitting!” are usually just people who say that in order to try and inject urgency into their post. In truth, they have no intention of quitting at all; they just think it’ll make their grievances seem more important.

The people who DO quit a game for good because of changes they don’t approve of usually do so quietly. They just stop logging in and never look back.

Mark Katzbach.9084:

It’s also worth pointing out that some people use claims of quitting the game as an attention-getting tactic, when in fact they are still quite active. Putting in this type of restriction would just push those people to claim they only log in to keep their forum privileges active.

You can check all 3 of my accounts if you like. I haven’t played for months, but I would love to return once ANET pulls its head out of it’s underworld. And if my continued posting here helps them accomplish that milestone, so be it.

Heh…
This entire thread is amusing, I must say.
I can certainly see what the OP means by stopping people who haven’t actually played the game in months and months and whose only interest is just trolling these forums.
However, as it has already been said, that idea was shot down long before now…

I honestly don’t think, if such a system was in place, it would stop many who are hellbent on being jerkwads here… It just gives them one more hoop to jump through (and not a very difficult one, at that.)

The concerns brought up about those who can not log into the game for extended periods of time are certainly justified.
However, as a military veteran myself, I’ll simply say the thought of logging into gaming forums like these while I was deployed was, honestly, not very high. In fact, often I wasn’t even thinking about such things (and I was an avid City of Heroes player back then too.)

Finally (and this is my opinion, take it or leave it) the over all negative reaction to the very idea just makes me shake my head.
Nowhere did Krall suggest that people with only positive views and feedback should be allowed to post. But wow, some people sure took that and ran with it all the way to the Hyperbole extreme, now didn’t they?
To me, it all sounds like people getting foaming-at-the-mouth furious at the very thought of being unable to be a complete kitten while giving their opinion…

I’ve said it a thousand times, and I’ll say it a thousand more…
Give your opinions and feedback, positive or negative… Don’t be an insufferable kitten-bag about it.

Mark Katzbach.9084:

I should also add that the considerations for this feature were over two years ago when we were launching the forums and determining what type of restrictions to put in place.

Ahhh, now that makes a difference.

I mistakenly interpreted your first post as suggesting that this was under consideration as a reaction to forum negativity (as that was a major point in the OP of this thread). Had that been the case, it would have given the impression that your solution to unhappy players would have been to simply silence them rather than address their concerns, and I think that was what caused some of the initial bad reactions to your post.

Clearly it was just a simple misunderstanding. I get it now. Thanks for taking the time to jump in here and post. I am really liking the new forum team initiative.

Oh, and to the topic at hand: No. Just no. We can’t silence people simply because we don’t like what they’re saying. If they’re breaking forum rules, however, we have legitimate reasons to silence them. Working as intended.

Bertrand.3057:

Zaklex.6308:

I think you have a personal axe to grind, I see no problem with them wanting to allow anyone that has purchased the game and had an active account to continue to post on the forums. Also, as Pixelpumpkin pointed out above, they were unable to log into the game for 2 months due to personal reasons…just what exactly do you see as their attitude towards their customers anyways…other than being accommodating.

My problem was Mark admitting they considered restricting people who had purchased the game but had not been active from participating on the forums.

Oh, you’d rather he didn’t admit it? Because the fact they have considered it was a given.
Personally, i think Mark was really reasonable in his explanation, and i don’t get why it should cause such strong reaction.

Actually I’m all for restricting access to forums to active players. And to ensure that it is effective any poster who claims to have uninstalled the game or only logging on to maintain forum rights should be treated the same. Both should be banned permanently from the forums.

Those who have become inactive due to personal circumstance may write in to be re-instated. But only so long as they have never claimed to have uninstalled the game or logging on just to comment on the forums.

Beware, expressing an opinion about the OP and his overwhelming love of the game will earn you an infraction. Not surprising really…

I’m amazed anyone can support the idea that only people currently active in the game should be ‘allowed’ to post in the forums. The level of censorship and the mindset behind it beggars belief.

It’s ‘bury your head in the sand and everything will be all right’ sort of attitude. Anet should be canvassing disaffected players and those who have left to find out what they did ‘wrong’ that made that huge number of players leave. Instead we have the OP suggesting and being backed up by an Anet employee the exact opposite, to try and create forums that just sing the praises of the game and don’t tolerate any expressions other than blind adoration and obedience.

Nube one one seven.7039:

Vayne.8563:

Nube one one seven.7039:

Vayne.8563:

*(1)I’ve seen people who haven’t played the game for months complaining about stuff that’s no longer a problem. I don’t think that’s helpful or constructive.

*(2)But I’ve often wished people who don’t really know or understand what the game is about should just stop posting.

Because it accomplishes absolutely nothing.

1-just people have not played the game in months does not mean that they could not give valuable feedback, someone who actually left due to principle, and keeps an eye on the forum’s to see if/when any changes are taking place can still provide feedback. If they are abusing their posting privileges, then there is already a system set up for this.
Fortunately, Anet is not willing to simply infract people for not immediately agreeing with individuals. Notice I am NOT saying that all players who “left” fall into this category, but some do.

2-Oh? and what pray tell exactly is “the game about”? I thought that was the great joy of guild wars, was that you could play as you wish. Are you trying to imply that there is a dictated way on how people should actually play it? If so, who does the dictation? You? Anet? me? HA! I don`t want it, and Anet is wise enough to avoid it where they possibly can.

Yes the game is actually about play as you wish. That’s what the game is about. So when people come in and talk about stuff like adding a full on gear grind to the game, who exactly does that help?

And if they feel that that makes the game better? You can wish that someone would post or not all you like, but that does NOT change the fact that their feedback, even if it goes against everything the game was originally designed for, is any less legitimate than yours. Nor should they simply be arbitrarily banned from giving feedback. It also does not give you the “right” to belittle or personally attack other customers simply because they are concerned enough with a change, and invested in the game enough, to come comment on their concerns. And note, that this last part is not aimed at you Vayne, but is something I think that a lot of what most posters would call “white knights” need to remember.

Saying people don’t get the game isn’t belittling them, no matter how much you wish to say it is. It’s an observation. We’re allowed to make observations. It’s what we do as humans.

Calling it offensive is an observation on your part, but it’s not intended to be offensive. Frankly, I find your post far more offensive than anything I’ve posted here.

I do like the idea.
I also agree with Mark that it would be not effective for various reasons.
Best thing sometimes is to allow toxic players to knee jerk their way to complete loss of credibility as demonstrated by a couple of posts above.

What about some sort of tag that tells you how long ago the player logged in? Not specifically, of course, but past certain thresholds (3 months, 6 months, a year). They can still post, but you’d know that they don’t actually play.

Eg.

Olvendred.3027
(Last in-game more than 6 months ago)

lordkrall.7241:

After all the critique which quite often involves people that have outright claimed that they haven’t played for months or even have the game installed I was thinking about the question in the title.

Would it be possible to only allow active accounts (such as having been logged on the last x days/week) to write on the forums? Everyone would still be able to read of course, but I have a feeling it might create a better environment for everyone here if you actually had to actively play the game in order to join in on the discussions.

As seen with the NPE change there were massive amounts of hatred posted, quite much of it from people that didn’t even try it before (either due to not wanting to start over or due to not actually playing anymore).

Any thoughts about this?

(Oh I know people will hate this thread, if only on principle because I created it, but thought it was worth a shot to see what people thought about it.)

Terrible idea!

I like the forums better than the game, so you could say I bought the game for access to the forum.

Olvendred.3027:

What about some sort of tag that tells you how long ago the player logged in? Not specifically, of course, but past certain thresholds (3 months, 6 months, a year). They can still post, but you’d know that they don’t actually play.

Eg.

Olvendred.3027
(Last in-game more than 6 months ago)

A tag would at least let us know whether someone who says they stopped playing has actually stopped playing. It’s funny to think a percentage of people simply lie about that.

Vayne.8563:

Olvendred.3027:

What about some sort of tag that tells you how long ago the player logged in? Not specifically, of course, but past certain thresholds (3 months, 6 months, a year). They can still post, but you’d know that they don’t actually play.

Eg.

Olvendred.3027
(Last in-game more than 6 months ago)

A tag would at least let us know whether someone who says they stopped playing has actually stopped playing. It’s funny to think a percentage of people simply lie about that.

But what does it really matter? Seriously, the only reason I could see that somebody would want to know another person’s last log-in (which of itself doesn’t tell us anything about that person’s last gameplay experience … they may as well just have logged in to reset the timestamp) would be to discredit that person’s opinion by claiming they don’t know what they’re talking about.

Sure, there are subjects that are hard to give substantial opinions on unless you have experienced them first-hand (like the NPE, which I was very torn about at first, but have found to be very enjoyable once I tried it, but then I’ve always enjoyed leveling new characters and the system has only improved that experience for me ). A last-login-timestamp (no matter if exact or approximate) doesn’t tell you anything about whether that other person who did log in recently has actually experienced what they’re talking about either.

To me, a “last login”, no matter the form, says no more or less that a person’s level, achievement points counter or whatever. I know there are people around who claim that all of these give you a good clue as to the other person’s experience, but I’ve seen too many people in-game with vastly different numbers and experience levels to try to draw conclusions from these numbers. Last login doesn’t look any different in that respect (and as such, wouldn’t make a good metric to distinguish active from inactive players for forum posting priviliges, which A-Net seems to confirm above).

Wetpaw.3487:

lordkrall.7241:

After all the critique which quite often involves people that have outright claimed that they haven’t played for months or even have the game installed I was thinking about the question in the title.

Would it be possible to only allow active accounts (such as having been logged on the last x days/week) to write on the forums? Everyone would still be able to read of course, but I have a feeling it might create a better environment for everyone here if you actually had to actively play the game in order to join in on the discussions.

As seen with the NPE change there were massive amounts of hatred posted, quite much of it from people that didn’t even try it before (either due to not wanting to start over or due to not actually playing anymore).

Any thoughts about this?

(Oh I know people will hate this thread, if only on principle because I created it, but thought it was worth a shot to see what people thought about it.)

If I remember right this game is buy to play, all including with my initial purchase.

They can give warnings and bans for abuse, but logging into the game itself has nothing to do with the fact I paid for this game.

That would only apply to the game itself, it does not cover blog or forum access, these are completely separate from the game and supplied free, if they wanted to they could run the game without forums and nobody would have any claim.

As to my opinion on the OP, if this were any other MMO forum I would agree that it needs restrictions, but compared to other MMO forums this is the most polite and tame forum I frequent, it’s to be fair quite a credit to our community and it really does not need restricting.

Baldrick.8967:

Beware, expressing an opinion about the OP and his overwhelming love of the game will earn you an infraction. Not surprising really…

I’m amazed anyone can support the idea that only people currently active in the game should be ‘allowed’ to post in the forums. The level of censorship and the mindset behind it beggars belief.

It’s ‘bury your head in the sand and everything will be all right’ sort of attitude. Anet should be canvassing disaffected players and those who have left to find out what they did ‘wrong’ that made that huge number of players leave. Instead we have the OP suggesting and being backed up by an Anet employee the exact opposite, to try and create forums that just sing the praises of the game and don’t tolerate any expressions other than blind adoration and obedience.

I do not agree with silencing free speech. I am however against what I consider to be trolling. And that to me is define by those that make unrealistic demands of development team. And who do not appreciate that running a mmorpg is not a perfect science – such as people that complain about bugs. We all wish there were none but it is part of the reality of gaming.

There are many shades of grey and you sir only seem to see only in black and white. I would suggest you re-read what you written and realise maybe for the first time who is actually the blind one.

lordkrall.7241:

Would it be possible to only allow active accounts (such as having been logged on the last x days/week) to write on the forums?

What next – only being able to write on forums if earned x AP during the previous week? And then, only if bought x GEMs? Where one should draw the line in discriminating customers?

Apart from that, there’s an equal chance of having a portion of “white knights” who’re not really logging in or playing but like to stay on forums just to defend and seek attention. What gonna happen to those?

I’m glad that ANet has a sensible stance on at least this point.

No. These customers bought the game which means they could always come back should circumstances change to their liking. Forums give Anet feedback which they desperately need whether they enjoy it or not.

Not every post is going to support your personal feelings about the state of the game, or mine, and that’s a good thing. I bought the game but I am one of millions that did as are all of you and just because we are “active” doesn’t make our views or critiques more valid than someone who stopped playing. The changes to the NPE were not done for us they were done to try to hold on to or bring back the very same people you’d like to silence.

It’s a shame that Anet actually admit to contemplating removing feedback from those players.

Obvious plan to silence criticism is obvious (and highly ineffective).

Astralporing.1957:

Bertrand.3057:

Zaklex.6308:

I think you have a personal axe to grind, I see no problem with them wanting to allow anyone that has purchased the game and had an active account to continue to post on the forums. Also, as Pixelpumpkin pointed out above, they were unable to log into the game for 2 months due to personal reasons…just what exactly do you see as their attitude towards their customers anyways…other than being accommodating.

My problem was Mark admitting they considered restricting people who had purchased the game but had not been active from participating on the forums.

Oh, you’d rather he didn’t admit it? Because the fact they have considered it was a given.
Personally, i think Mark was really reasonable in his explanation, and i don’t get why it should cause such strong reaction.

If you look at his first post, which is the one that elicited the negative reactions, it omits the possibility that inactive players might have valuable input as one of the reasons for rejecting the OP’s idea. Then it compounds that omission by pointing the finger back at inactive players in highlighting a specific sort of abuse (By definition, inactive players aren’t actually responsible for this abuse, but this kind of statement does condone suspecting anyone who admits they’re inactive as being such a fraud). With the clarifications he made it’s easier to see why his comments weren’t necessarily hostile.

Funny, the forums already restrict access to those that have purchased the game. I’m sure the Devs responsible considered many, many different designs and limitations when first creating the forums.

I’m not sure why people jump to such negative conclusions when a Dev/Team Member posts. I certainly though Mark was referring to the initial start-up of the forums. Remember when we could only access them at certain periods of time?

As for showing ‘last logged in’ time, that doesn’t seem much different than what so many Guild Leaders begged for….and received. I guess that information means something sometimes, but not others. /shrug

One more barrier propped up against lapsed players is one more obstacle to bringing them back. If they’re engaged, they’re more likely to come back citation needed.

Honestly… I sure could do without all the pointless, whiny, content-devoid attention seeking posts. They contribute absolutely nothing and make those involved look silly.
But I understand why this suggestion isn’t a solution and would punish players who might legitimately have something to bring to the table, can’t currently play or just want to get back into the game. They obviously take priority over the attention-seeking crybabies.
Maybe give us a “block” option, though, so we can filter these types of posts and users if we don’t care for them.

The complaints about the initial dev response don’t make sense. Many things are considered and then rejected. Some ideas are good, some bad. Duh. It’s perfectly natural. Get real.

Olvendred.3027:

What about some sort of tag that tells you how long ago the player logged in? Not specifically, of course, but past certain thresholds (3 months, 6 months, a year). They can still post, but you’d know that they don’t actually play.

Eg.

Olvendred.3027
(Last in-game more than 6 months ago)

That’s actually a good idea. Or instead of stating last active color the names based on login re: Last Feature Pack or something. At least that way you have an idea if the guy ragging on X change/Y feature has actually logged in to see it (ie; NPE )

The internet isn’t perfect. People lie, people say absolutely putrid things. It causes panic, drama, you name it. We’ve seen the community shoot down suggestions just because of the way the rest of the community would react. (Ex. In-game marriage because people are afraid of guild drama and map-chat dating.)

This is what the OP was probably considering. This is what the devs considered.

The idea wasn’t to subdue negative feedback. It was to remove non-feedback, trolling and lies that only serve to bury our more legitimate threads.

(I don’t know if you guys realize this, but when you tell us you “quit the game” every 3 posts, you’re not annoying the devs, you’re annoying us as well.)

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Lord Kuru.3685:

Those customers who have not played in a while and come to speak their opinions about why they aren’t coming back are probably ones that Anet should be closely listening to: especially as more and more customers are falling into this category.

If Anet were to ban anyone from posting, it would be better to ban those who defend Anet no matter what actions Anet takes. It’s (ironically) these people who hurt the game far more than those the OP wants to ban.

Right, so you have a list there of people who do that? Even Vayne isn’t that way.

I do. One opened this thread for example. Others I won’t name, but I don’t understand why you can’t wrap your mind around the idea that just as some people are too harsh on GW2/ANet others are too… shall we say forgiving? I mean,if there were people siding with the developers of “games” so bad they were taken out of Steam one would take for granted a similar behaviour with an actually good product such as GW2.

On-topic: the suggestion would take away my ability to post as I logged in last time around december 2013 (just fyi) and while I don’t particularly care (I mostly read) I think it would be unfair for a number of reasons already mentioned. If you so much care for a healthy forum I’d say lets start banning people whose post history is mostly dismissive one-liners (one likes to hang around SAB threads) or pictures of dead horses because they are just as useful as “the sky is falling” crowd.

Since Mark has left an official clarificaton that this will not be in the game why drag it on and on?

I don’t see what the question if someone plays actively has to do with his or her opinion. For me an argument doesn’t become stronger only because someone claims that he hasn’t logged in for months. On the other hand if I agree with someone why should he suddenly be wrong in my opinion just because he hasn’t played for some time.

When I read that someone quit because xyz then I can either understand that reason or I can’t.

Bertrand.3057:

Mark Katzbach.9084:

This is something that we had considered in the past, but opted against because it unfairly works against lapsed players who want to ask what’s changed since they last played and players like Pixelpumpkin who may, for personal reasons, be unable to log into the game, but still want to interact with the forums and stay up to date on the game.

It’s also worth pointing out that some people use claims of quitting the game as an attention-getting tactic, when in fact they are still quite active. Putting in this type of restriction would just push those people to claim they only log in to keep their forum privileges active.

This is really your attitude towards your customers?

Thanks for being honest, at least.

To you and phys, there is nothing wrong with what he said. Most mmos block out former player trolls when their subscriptions run out. And some even delete attention getting “I’m quitting the game” posts.

Blackhearted.1264:

So basically you just want to censor a large portion of the critics cause you can’t take a game and company you love being judged for their horrible decisions?

I expect it would only censor a small portion of the critics. Not that I’m arguing in favor of it, by any means.

I think if most people get to the place where they uninstall, it’s only a matter of time before they don’t have the investment to keep posting on the forums. There may be the odd exception, but on the whole, I expect most of the critics either still play regularly, log on periodically to make sure they will still have access to the semi-temporary content someday, or at the very least have the game still sitting on their computer somewhere.

With how cheap memory is nowadays, it’s far more of a hassle to re-install a game than just leave it there if you have any shred of hope that you’ll return to it some day.

Vayne.8563:

A tag would at least let us know whether someone who says they stopped playing has actually stopped playing. It’s funny to think a percentage of people simply lie about that.

Only if it told you average game time per week or something of that sort. With the way the LS is now working, if you have any interest in the game (which presumably critics have or they wouldn’t bother even posting any more) you should at least be logging in for every LS patch.

So people could honestly say they haven’t played the game for six months, but still have “Last logged in, 2 weeks ago” tagged under their forum name.

As far as Mark admitting they considered it, I see no reason to get on ArenaNet’s case. When you are developing/designing anything, you consider a lot of options. Even ideas that seem ridiculous at first are worth weighing to make sure they don’t have something useful hidden in them.

They considered it, found the negatives outweigh the positives, and decided against. It’s actions that matter, not whether someone thought about doing something.

Gibson.4036:

Vayne.8563:

A tag would at least let us know whether someone who says they stopped playing has actually stopped playing. It’s funny to think a percentage of people simply lie about that.

Only if it told you average game time per week or something of that sort. With the way the LS is now working, if you have any interest in the game (which presumably critics have or they wouldn’t bother even posting any more) you should at least be logging in for every LS patch.

So people could honestly say they haven’t played the game for six months, but still have “Last logged in, 2 weeks ago” tagged under their forum name.

---

As far as Mark admitting they considered it, I see no reason to get on ArenaNet’s case. When you are developing/designing anything, you consider a lot of options. Even ideas that seem ridiculous at first are worth weighing to make sure they don’t have something useful hidden in them.

They considered it, found the negatives outweigh the positives, and decided against. It’s actions that matter, not whether someone thought about doing something.

Hell, I’ve been logging in daily – but that’s in an attempt to collect some form of contact info from my friends/guildies so that when DAI goes live we can play together. Can’t check in-game mail without logging in.

A last-logged-in would show that I’m a daily player. Something that gave average time per week would show about 1h, total.

What I wonder about more, is how either statistic validates (or not) my opinion and contribution to things?

stale.9785:

Gibson.4036:

Vayne.8563:

A tag would at least let us know whether someone who says they stopped playing has actually stopped playing. It’s funny to think a percentage of people simply lie about that.

Only if it told you average game time per week or something of that sort. With the way the LS is now working, if you have any interest in the game (which presumably critics have or they wouldn’t bother even posting any more) you should at least be logging in for every LS patch.

So people could honestly say they haven’t played the game for six months, but still have “Last logged in, 2 weeks ago” tagged under their forum name.

---

As far as Mark admitting they considered it, I see no reason to get on ArenaNet’s case. When you are developing/designing anything, you consider a lot of options. Even ideas that seem ridiculous at first are worth weighing to make sure they don’t have something useful hidden in them.

They considered it, found the negatives outweigh the positives, and decided against. It’s actions that matter, not whether someone thought about doing something.

Hell, I’ve been logging in daily – but that’s in an attempt to collect some form of contact info from my friends/guildies so that when DAI goes live we can play together. Can’t check in-game mail without logging in.

A last-logged-in would show that I’m a daily player. Something that gave average time per week would show about 1h, total.

What I wonder about more, is how either statistic validates (or not) my opinion and contribution to things?

Those particular statistics don’t, imo. They’re too amibguous. A statistic showing you last logged in 6 months ago, or a year ago, might mean something though.

stale.9785:

What I wonder about more, is how either statistic validates (or not) my opinion and contribution to things?

Yeah, reminds me of when someone posted to the forum that there should be a restriction that people could only give feedback on Queen’s Gauntle if they had defeated Liadri or criticize crafting if they had managed to complete an Ascended weapon.

I was dumbfounded.

Recent play is no guarantee of understanding what’s in the game any more than lack of recent play is a guarantee of ignorance.

Vayne.8563:

Nube one one seven.7039:

Vayne.8563:

Nube one one seven.7039:

Vayne.8563:

*(1)I’ve seen people who haven’t played the game for months complaining about stuff that’s no longer a problem. I don’t think that’s helpful or constructive.

*(2)But I’ve often wished people who don’t really know or understand what the game is about should just stop posting.

Because it accomplishes absolutely nothing.

1-just people have not played the game in months does not mean that they could not give valuable feedback, someone who actually left due to principle, and keeps an eye on the forum’s to see if/when any changes are taking place can still provide feedback. If they are abusing their posting privileges, then there is already a system set up for this.
Fortunately, Anet is not willing to simply infract people for not immediately agreeing with individuals. Notice I am NOT saying that all players who “left” fall into this category, but some do.

2-Oh? and what pray tell exactly is “the game about”? I thought that was the great joy of guild wars, was that you could play as you wish. Are you trying to imply that there is a dictated way on how people should actually play it? If so, who does the dictation? You? Anet? me? HA! I don`t want it, and Anet is wise enough to avoid it where they possibly can.

Yes the game is actually about play as you wish. That’s what the game is about. So when people come in and talk about stuff like adding a full on gear grind to the game, who exactly does that help?

And if they feel that that makes the game better? You can wish that someone would post or not all you like, but that does NOT change the fact that their feedback, even if it goes against everything the game was originally designed for, is any less legitimate than yours. Nor should they simply be arbitrarily banned from giving feedback. It also does not give you the “right” to belittle or personally attack other customers simply because they are concerned enough with a change, and invested in the game enough, to come comment on their concerns. And note, that this last part is not aimed at you Vayne, but is something I think that a lot of what most posters would call “white knights” need to remember.

Saying people don’t get the game isn’t belittling them, no matter how much you wish to say it is. It’s an observation. We’re allowed to make observations. It’s what we do as humans.

Calling it offensive is an observation on your part, but it’s not intended to be offensive. Frankly, I find your post far more offensive than anything I’ve posted here.

Please re-read, I never said “saying people don`t get the game is belittling them”, my point was that just because you do not agree with feedback does NOT give you the right to belittle them. Secondly, read the comment immediately after, where I specifically state that this is a comment aimed at the forums in general, and not at you specifically. And, finally, we are allowed to make observations, it`s when these observations break forum guidelines that moderators are (theoretically) supposed to step in and act. When the observations go from constructive to just attacking people within a thread because they do not agree with you. And this behavior is not limited to any side, or any individual. A note on intent: Moderators have no sense of humor, so something that “isn`t meant to be offensive” usually is still infractable at their discretion. Finally, please do me a personal favor, and actually read what I say if you bother to quote me, as opposed to just posting what looks suspiciously like a knee-jerk reaction, I`m sure that there’s plenty for you to disagree with without misquoting.

Edit: lol intractable

It matters if they reject an idea because of X and Y but not X, Y and Z because that means if you solve X and Y then you can go ahead and put the idea in place even if Z is still an issue. That is what the first post by Mark amounted to, and a lot of people have voiced their concern here over Z, referring to presently inactive players who want to contribute to discussions about the game’s development. I have seen the attention-seeking posts and I agree that it’s not productive, in fact as I understand it a policy exists against the “I quit” posts.

I can certainly understand why ArenaNet would have considered such a restriction, and why it ultimately wasn’t feasible.

The concept of forum access “expiring” if you don’t log in for an extended period of time is the NORM in online gaming, primarily since people who no longer play the game rarely have anything valuable to add as their game experience is frozen in the past and therefore not up to date with the game as it exists now.

I also find it a bit humorous when people claim they stopped playing x months ago but still log in to the forums to complain about the game. I’ve quit a few MMOs in my time, and the day I stopped playing was always the same day as the one I stopped reading/posting on the forums (I didn’t even leave the obligatory “I’m quitting” post). If you’ve “quit” (i.e. no intention of returning), then guess what? Your opinions on the game direction are no longer relevant.

mtpelion.4562:

If you’ve “quit” (i.e. no intention of returning), then guess what? Your opinions on the game direction are no longer relevant.

Isn’t the implication usually “I quit, but I hope some day the game changes enough to make me want to come back”?

In which case, the opinions are still relevant.