Guild Wars 2

I completed the City of Hope segment of the Living Story yesterday afternoon. Today I’ve just logged back in to discover the rollback and my heart’s sunk. I really didn’t enjoy doing those “challenges” for some reason, and have no ganas to do them again right now. I’ve logged back out again – I’m going to go and find something else to do.

Or, at least, don’t make it so two of the dailies on the same day are “Daily Fractal” and “Daily x-y Fractal”… Those two should be mutually exclusive but they always come up on the same day as each other.

Eidolonemesis.5640:

9. When players choose to Destroy certain items that require typing out a long full name, make players type out the word ‘delete’ instead. It is just as good! Therefore, instead of the text reading, “Enter the item’s name below to confirm before destroying” it would read, “Enter the word ‘delete’ below to confirm before destroying.” (This idea brought to you by Shaaba.5672)

I disagree with this one because it isn’t “just as good”. Making the user type out the name of item forces the user to be sure they’re deleting the right thing. A generic barrier, like “Delete” has no built-in safety that the item right-clicked on was the intended item, and can easily and quickly become automatic and mindless when deleting multiple items, risking costly mistakes.

Historically speaking in MMOs, things like this have been to dissuade players from just running past (effectively skipping) content. WoW had the (much-hated) “daze” mechanic to fulfill a similar end. Basically, if you don’t take the time to avoid aggro, the game penalises you and says “Fight!”

To add a datum, I too received a mail like this today. Here are the headers:

Delivered-To: xxxxx@xxxxx.com
Received: by 10.112.199.199 with SMTP id jm7csp67346lbc;
        Tue, 12 Aug 2014 19:58:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.224.136.200 with SMTP id s8mr2581009qat.44.1407898724853;
        Tue, 12 Aug 2014 19:58:44 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <support@ncsoft.com>
Received: from ncwedge99.us.ncsoft.com (ncwedge99.us.ncsoft.com. [64.25.41.52])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTP id u64si637615qga.50.2014.08.12.19.58.43
        for <xxxxx@xxxxx.com>;
        Tue, 12 Aug 2014 19:58:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of support@ncsoft.com designates 64.25.41.52 as permitted sender) client-ip=64.25.41.52;
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com;
       spf=pass (google.com: domain of support@ncsoft.com designates 64.25.41.52 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=support@ncsoft.com
Received: from ikgpcxxxlbe001v.serv.pci.idc (pcibacklive.serv.pci.idc [172.30.206.138])
	by ncwedge99.us.ncsoft.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8478E24F90C
	for <xxxxx@xxxxx.com>; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 02:58:43 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by ikgpcxxxlbe001v.serv.pci.idc (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77F69488380
	for <xxxxx@xxxxx.com>; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 02:58:43 +0000 (UTC)
To: xxxxxx@gmail.com
From: NCSOFT Support <support@ncsoft.com>
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Verify=20Your=20Email=20Address?=
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 02:58:43 +0000
X-Mailer: Perl script "mailer.pl"
	using Mail::Sender 0.8.10 by Jenda Krynicky, Czechlands
	running on localhost.localdomain (127.0.0.1)
	under account ""
Message-ID: <20140813_025843_021045.support@ncsoft.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="--NC-EMAIL-BOUNDARY--"

I’m glad I found this thread before clicking on anything. I agree with Animal – there’s nothing in this mail to say “This is why you’ve received this mail, if you didn’t ask for it, ignore it…” which would have gone a long way to alleviating my concerns.