Guild Wars 2

Roven Leafsong.8917:

cegorach.5624:

In terms of the work vs equality argument, the reason I mention it is because it is common theme over and over:

- people saying the ‘manifesto’ was all about equality

vs

- people claiming ascended gear is awesome as it rewards the ‘hard work’ and ‘skill’ they have demonstrated as opposed to other players

See, I’m not sure the latter claim is made very often at all – perhaps you can correct me though. That latter claim seems to be what a lot of people against the idea of new gear project onto those who do not agree with them. (And I note that not only did you place requirements of skill and work inside inverted quotes to indicate they were debatable, but you also included a competitive comparison to other players.)

Isn’t it possible that some people support Ascended gear because it gives them something meaningful to do at end-game, it’s an extra challenge to overcome, or because the extra progression towards anything is satisfying to achieve? Isn’t it possible that your first claim about ‘equality’ is equally as debatable as ‘skill’ and ‘hard work’?

Again, I see the ideological conflict as Competition vs Advancement. I even think that explains why the negative feedback tends to outweighs the positive, because as a game with a significant PvP component, GW2 will probably tend to attract more people motivated strongly by Competition than less PvP-capable MMORPGs.

I did see that claim made repeatedly, especially in a few of the ‘gearscore’ threads/argument.

Though some of those seem to have disappeared…

It was one of the motivations for making the thread.

Roven Leafsong.8917:

cegorach.5624:

Had you considered that you may suffer an internal contradiction between some of your ‘progressive’ ideas and those that you may consider to be ‘conservative’?

I know I do, and I’d suggest most ‘progressives’ within Western society also do.

I’m not sure what you mean by internal contradiction? I’m sure that I hold some values and beliefs that would be considered “conservative”, and none of the values and beliefs I consider “progressive” are absolute. Is that what you mean by contradiction?

So the point of the thread is to discuss how that occurs. How you would view things in game differently to RL – and of course it relates to how most of us find that our self-declared positions tend to be closely tied to the environment in which they are being exercised.

I don’t think anyone (unless I missed it) was making a communism/capitalism direct line, more to do with the broader philosophical bent that informs those idealised ideologies.

That was my mistake then, I was responding to your original post in which you related the division over Ascended gear to the difference between the value of “only those who work hard should be rewarded” (which I flippantly called capitalism, or more accurately the value of hard work giving you proportional rewards) and the value of “everyone deserves an equal chance and should be supported in order to reach their potential” (which again I flippantly referred to as communism, or the value of everyone having an equal proportion of rewards regardless of work).

I shouldn’t have mentioned those complex political ideologies because I know that’s not quite right, but my point was that those two broader perspectives don’t seem to reflect the issue over Ascended gear. It doesn’t seem to me like the core issue is work vs equality, so real-world values over work vs equality seems less helpful.

Yep, that’s what I mean by contradiction, and I am referring to the process of investigating those, which can be very interesting

In terms of the work vs equality argument, the reason I mention it is because it is common theme over and over:

- people saying the ‘manifesto’ was all about equality

vs

- people claiming ascended gear is awesome as it rewards the ‘hard work’ and ‘skill’ they have demonstrated as opposed to other players

I agree it’s not a perfect fit so this thread is about discussing where it does and doesn’t fit and then how that translates to real world values.

Roven Leafsong.8917:

I think relating attitudes to an extra few items added to a videogame to attitudes towards the well-being of other people is problematic. Interesting, perhaps, but problematic all the same.

As an example, I consider myself quite a progressive person – I value ethics and social justice strongly, I try to live a vegan lifestyle to reduce suffering as much as I can, and I vote for social and economic policies that tend to benefit the community as a whole over certain individuals or interest groups. On the other hand, I don’t really mind playing games or watching movies which involve or discuss killing, destruction, capitalism and individualism – provided I can find the enjoyment that I’m looking for. Sure, I may seek out media that have at least some resonance in places with my values, beliefs and interests – for example, I usually play MMORPGs because they generate complex social and political gameplay that can’t be dynamically simulated in single-player games – but I don’t just play games where no virtual living creatures are harmed.

Personally, I would say that the opposing values at play in the furore over Ascended gear aren’t necessarily ‘capitalism’ (work) vs ‘communism’ (equality). That would seem somewhat ridiculous given the amount of work that separates different levels of players, or the work involved in map completion, or in attaining any gear set, or so on (in fact, any activity in the game could be described as work).

Instead, I wonder if the issue has arisen because there are two competing motivations of play that are at odds with each other. Nick Yee in his paper Motivations of Play comes up with 10 motivational factors for why people play MMORPGs, separated into three broad categories: Achievement (comprised of Advancement, Mechanics, Competition), Social (comprised of Socializing, Relationship, Teamwork) and Immersion (comprised of Discovery, Roleplaying, Customization and Escapism).

Clearly additional tiers of stats or gear will have little to no impact upon the Social or Immersion motivations (except for perhaps slightly improving the satisfaction from Customization). I think it will have a fairly significant and contradictory effect upon the Achievement motivations though:

• Yee defines Advancement as “The desire to gain power, progress rapidly, and accumulate in-game symbols of wealth or status”, and I think that Ascended gear would be viewed very positively by anyone with a strong aspect of Advancement motivation. They will have potentially more power and avenues of challenging progression to achieve it, along with better symbols of status through the difficult-to-obtain armour.
• Yee also defines Competition as “The desire to challenge and compete with others”, and I think that Ascended gear would be viewed very negatively by anyone with a strong aspect of this motivation. The introduction of Ascended gear has set back the relative position of those without it, and made it more difficult to ‘be on top’ with maximum power. I suspect it also negatively affects the perception that “player skill” should be the most important thing when considering the fairness of any challenge through the prism of comparison with competing players.

Neither motivation is right or wrong, they just represent different reasons to play. I don’t think I have a problem (or much excitement) over Ascended gear myself because I don’t think Achievement is a big part of my motivations (or maybe I have equally balanced motivations between Competition and Advancement).

Had you considered that you may suffer an internal contradiction between some of your ‘progressive’ ideas and those that you may consider to be ‘conservative’?

I know I do, and I’d suggest most ‘progressives’ within Western society also do.

So the point of the thread is to discuss how that occurs. How you would view things in game differently to RL – and of course it relates to how most of us find that our self-declared positions tend to be closely tied to the environment in which they are being exercised.

I don’t think anyone (unless I missed it) was making a communism/capitalism direct line, more to do with the broader philosophical bent that informs those idealised ideologies.

Naoko.7096:

Yeah, mmo needs to relate to human nature.
It must be built around human nature.

Some players said that games are supposed to be a leisure. I agree and disagree on this. In console games where it’s the world that only one player exists, yes it can be a leisure. However, mmorpg is a virtual reality with massive people. A world of virtual reality is a reflection of the real world. Human nature inevitably exists in-game. If some forgotten, life itself is a game. A good mmorpg revolves around both leisure and human nature.

It can be evidently seen. Players wants to feel special by standing out in crowds. Players want perfection and completion. Players wants to have something that 90% of the population doesn’t have. Players want to climb higher and higher. If we achieve some sort of rare item of use that most do not have, we feel like a “winner”. I believe everyone has some form of adhd traits in us. These are all human nature.

Imo back before 15th November, gw2 was pretty weak in playing around human nature in the game. I see that they’re already making efforts to improve in the basic needs of players. After the fractal and ascended release, they must have noticed in their database that their online players concurrency has increased.

“We’re very excited about the new content, and from the reactions we have seen, so are many of you. Players have already spent an incredible amount of time in the new Fractals dungeon, and their reaction to it has been phenomenal.” – by Chris Whiteside

Source: https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/chris-whiteside-on-the-lost-shores-and-beyond/

Keep up the good work.

I disagree that this is fundamental human nature, though I’ll add your point wasn’t possibly articulated well to the discussion.

You said ‘people want to feel like winners’ as being human nature.

I don’t think that is the case.

Some people simply don’t.

Some people definitely don’t if it means others suffer, or feel bad.

Some people want EVERYONE to feel like winners, not just themselves.

Some people want themselves and those they care about to feel that way but don’t care about others.

And it goes on.

You’re describing one end of the spectrum – the ‘I got mine’ crew – as being definitive of human nature.

I’d say that’s one extreme end of a spectrum.

So my question is about how that entire spectrum translates to and from a game world.

Mayam.8976:

I’d say the application of the two ideas is mutually exclusive if we’re speaking of MMOs in general. Just by the simple laws of nature one who puts in the “work” to be the top dog rarely also has the resources (mainly time) to do so in real life. This isn’t always the case but in general.

As far as options allowing one to be rewarded without hard work? Well I suppose they would be the exceptions to that rule. I suppose one could be a Columbian drug lord or the next Bernie Madoff and be “top dog” financially and what not in real life and still have the spare time to do the same in MMOs. People with disabilities I guess? I had a broken back a couple years ago and had nothing to do but play games most of my day (especially in the winter).

I wouldn’t say this could really be the case in GW2 though, at least in today’s incarnation. We aren’t required to rope together 40 people at the same time and march them into some raid dugeon for hours every week and for month after month to complete that “best in slot” gear set up to be the e-bully on the e-block. Oh, and only so that they can do so again a few more months down the road to get the next “best gear set up”.

I don’t know maybe some can pull that off, in my experience though, putting in that amount of time and effort in a game invariably meant other facets of my life were neglected. In your early 20’s though, going to school, working a kitteny monotonous job, living on ramen and beer and a girlfriend who is in pretty much the same situation in life and doesn’t expect much from you, there isn’t a lot to neglect anyway!

Well, I think you may be missing my point.

I agree that the ‘elitist’ people are likely to be those who lack the time in real life to put in the ‘hard work’ to get ‘rewards’.

My question is though whether that is how they think – particularly in relation to others.

That kind of cognitive dissonance operation is very common in extreme viewpoints – for example, you don’t need to look far in terms of political views to see that most people advocating extremes on either side are horrendously hypocritical.

Latte-sipping communists and Tea Party hoverround dwellers ranting about healthcare are both clear examples of people preaching ideals they are a lot happier to impose on others than take on themselves.

And I’d argue that games are a great enabler of this, given the disconnect from reality.

If you’re a basement dwelling neckbearded l88tist who would rather raid all day than get a job, it’s not a stretch to imagine the cognitive rebound of you pouring scorn on others who refuse to do the ‘work’ to have uber gear like you do, for example.

And I wonder about the other direction – are those in-game egalitarian folks exactly the same outside?

Fritz.5026:

cegorach.5624:

So you would have a problem in real life about an option that would allow you to be rewarded without working hard?

I am curious why you think an online game should have easy access to fun while real life shouldn’t.

reading things like this makes me die a little inside.

on one hand you have real life where people go through school, get jobs, live, love, and die.
on the other hand you have a video game that people purchased for entertainment.

…and then you seriously ask why people view them differently?

you cannot go into a store and purchase a new life in a shrink wrapped box for 60$ for starters…

Actually Fritz, you can stand up from your computer, take a deep breath, and purchase a new life right now.

What you think, and the choices you make from this second on, define your ‘life’.

If these are relatively static, you will feel like you are living a ‘rigid’ life (of course you won’t be).

You can change them quite radically should you so desire, and bingo, there’s your new life.

Leave your wife, quit your job, go herd kittens in Tibet or be a mercenary in the Congo.

The number of options available to any human are almost limitless – the only boundaries are willpower, imagination and desire – wrapped up in a cocoon of social and ideological programming.

This is also true when it comes to approaching a video game.

I am guessing the OP has never watched commercial television otherwise they would be bankrupted after purchasing item after item that was spruiked to them.

On a more serious note, someone who is unable to avoid forums in which they claim they are incredibly swayed by commentary and who allows the opinions of others to utterly redefine their reality in terms of personal enjoyment of a game really should be seeking professional psychological help. Especially if they are demanding that those with differing opinions not be free to voice them for fear of ‘warping’ their view of reality.

I think astral just raised an interesting point that I would like to dovetail into this -

some people want to be ‘better than others’.

I often see a correlation between the ‘some people are better than others’ and the ‘elitist’ viewpoint as opposed to the ‘no matter what, all people are equal’ and an ‘egalitarian viewpoint’ in terms of how ‘work’ is rewarded.

Both have starkly different views of what constitutes a work/reward system and both tend to skew it in terms of what suits their own position best.

I wonder if this is the same for video games?

thisolderhead.5127:

In the interest of fairness, the next one time event with huge rewards should be held on a Monday at 2am PST

Equality does not make for equity, and there are other threads out there where the hurt are still hurt, and the reasonable people have lost interest.

From this and other posts I am guessing you vote conservative?

Please feel free to answer in my other thread about how your values translate to the game https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/This-isn-t-about-gear-but-human-nature/first#post830579

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

cegorach.5624:

Nice ants comment

You’ve named a handful of things that you enjoy. But there are probably millions of moments in your life just as enjoyable that bring pleasure without requiring ‘work’ (note that it’s not ‘work’ if you enjoy it).

My point is that from quite a few philosophical standpoints, the ‘all rewards must come from hard work’ is a pretty dubious notion. It’s part of the Protestant work ethic mythology that has been heavily propagandised into American ideology, as well as a few other nations.

I fully accept that many people believe it to be a fundamental aspect of reality, in the same way I fully accept many people believe a deity of their choice is a fundamental aspect of reality.

I don’t accept that people believing it makes it a fact, far from it.

So what I am getting at with this thread is whether people who have that rather extreme ideological view – ‘all rewards must come from hard work’ – apply it equally to virtual environments or not and if not, why?

I can concede that my being raised in America probably contributed a lot to my work ethic and my world view. I also agree my belief does not make it a fact. However, the laws of science do disagree – everything must be created out of something. Laws of conservation of mass and energy. I’m not a physicist, and I only did 4 years of college but I at least remember that.

I also believe you can love your work. Just because it pays the bills doesn’t mean you have to despise it, or at best tolerate it.

If you love what you are doing, I’d say that’s not ‘work’

At least in terms of what is being discussed here.

And as someone who knows some world class physicists, there’s plenty of arguments saying that it is not necessarily the case that everything must be created out of something!

havellian.4073:

If the game is actively putting in mechanics that can be used by people to label others as inferior, there will be unhappy campers all over (of course it boosts the fun of the stroking population though ).

So it’s not really ‘unhappy campers all over’ is it?

Some folks ‘got theirs’ and are quite happy with that.

I’m curious if they would act the same way in real life.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Waar Kijk Je Naar.8713:

cegorach.5624:

Now I am a foreigner, so be aware that most of my posts use sardonic humour that is nigh undetectable by many populations.

Foreign to what?

We’re all foreigners.

He probably means “not a native speaker of English”?

I mean foreign as in ‘Americans often get really, really angry when they can’t tell that I am taking the mickey’

Kazzuki.5704:

however his agreement to join the game, should act as a binding act of honor to participate 100% , anything less should be approached individually and have no avenue to voice criticisms on topics pertaining to game participation, all else is free speech.

Why?

Did God say that and I missed it?

Are there tablets or engraved wooden bowls that spell this out as a fundamental truth of reality?

Jokes aside, what I am getting at is what you are saying is simply an opinion on how things should work, albeit an opinion you hold very strongly.

Do you apply that strength of opinion equally to online environments or do the rules change? And if so, what causes that change?

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Well, there’s the thing . . . I don’t just receive pleasure from those things consumerism can get me. I won’t deny they’re pretty fun and I definitely enjoy having spent money on games. (Not just this one.)

On the other hand, I enjoyed learning how to cook a risotto. I enjoyed checking out a renaissance faire. I enjoyed going to visit friends one year for Thanksgiving and basking in their camaraderie. I enjoy my work. I enjoy the appearance of a cleaned and straightened house, along with the smell of fresh laundry. I enjoyed going camping growing up, and earning the right to do so without my parents supervising me.

All of these things require effort, even if it’s not on my part. None of it is “free”.

Edit: Actually, to explain why I say that, the thing about sitting under the tree? I have a tree in my backyard, but I also live in a part of the US where there exist an abomination known as “fire ants”. I could go out there at random and sit under the tree and look at the sky . . . but I would rather go out there after I spread ant killer pellets so I don’t come in with bite sores on my back and legs.

Nice ants comment

You’ve named a handful of things that you enjoy. But there are probably millions of moments in your life just as enjoyable that bring pleasure without requiring ‘work’ (note that it’s not ‘work’ if you enjoy it).

My point is that from quite a few philosophical standpoints, the ‘all rewards must come from hard work’ is a pretty dubious notion. It’s part of the Protestant work ethic mythology that has been heavily propagandised into American ideology, as well as a few other nations.

I fully accept that many people believe it to be a fundamental aspect of reality, in the same way I fully accept many people believe a deity of their choice is a fundamental aspect of reality.

I don’t accept that people believing it makes it a fact, far from it.

So what I am getting at with this thread is whether people who have that rather extreme ideological view – ‘all rewards must come from hard work’ – apply it equally to virtual environments or not and if not, why?

Kazzuki.5704:

I love when people take the approach of exclusion that proceeds with I am only playing this game for fun; but then expect the remaining community to be inclusive with one’s own position.
The fact is , you cannot use that approach, because not everyone adheres to your premise. While you feel that a game is an activity different from life, others may view their avatar as an extension of their character , unrestricted. Noone enjoys the friend who says lets play football together, but then does not give it any modicum of effort to, for lack of a better word, play… even though he agreed to join in the game. Ever thought about it that way?

Why does that make a difference?

Does your view that ‘effort’ or ‘skill’ make your desire to play more valid than his?

Why is that?

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

It is about human nature and social behaviors . . . what this has turned into is another excuse to employ being selective and trying to say it’s necessary. This isn’t the only instance of it, this didn’t just pop up overnight, we just got a new reason to point to and go “because of this”.

This happened in the previous Guild Wars game, as much as people want to shout that it’s different now. It happened in this game before Ascended ever was an inkling in the players’ eyes.

I don’t know how to describe myself politically, but here’s the thing. I think if you want something nice, it takes effort proportional to the object you want. This isn’t about making money to afford it (it could be, but could not). If you want to have a great little garden to sit in then you have to put the effort in (OR barter with someone to put the effort in) . . . it just doesn’t happen. If you want to read a book, you have to read the book (in the case of some, you probably will need to go back and read it again). If you want a piece of artwork to admire, then it requires someone to make it. If you want to own a car that gets 50 mpg (miles per gallon) then you need to put the work in to find it. (Note: I am not sure if such a car exists, I totally just made up a number there.)

If you want to produce or have something, work must be done in order to have it happen. Objects do not just spontaneously generate, free of charge. In the case where you deal with another person, they will most times expect something in return. Even if it is intangible, such as “your friendship” or “your good will”.

I don’t think this is strictly true, though I accept that many people believe it is.

I think ‘good things’ are very much a state of mind and as such don’t necessarily require ‘work’ to achieve.

If your value set says a massive house, big screen TV and a bucket of icecream is the height of achievement, then yes, you will probably need to work a lot in order to gain the money to purchase these things.

If your value set gives you as much pleasure from sitting quietly under a tree watching some birds fly by, then no, hard work isn’t required in the same way.

On a base line philosophical level your argument is sound but once you start upscaling I think there is a lot of room for consideration on both sides of the fence.

Xandax.1753:

The game mechanics are what supports or encourage or even enforce ‘human nature’.

It’s also a game and not real life. People rarely play games to mimic real life and rarely do real life ‘politics’ and ‘attitudes’ actually apply to a computer game.
‘Work hard’ in a computer game is quite a strange idea. However it springs from a time where this players and developers of genre didn’t know better and didn’t have the technical abilities to make it better.

The game shapes the community.

I’d argue a lot of people’s values in games mimic those in real life and as a result the community shapes the game as well – at least the perceived community, or the community chosen by the publisher as the key demographic.

Leaving real life aside for a second, that’s clearly happening with GW2 at the moment. A very large number of people are unhappy with the game based on Values – not performance issues or bugs, but value-based problems with the structure of the game.

So my questioning is whether this strong values-based perception is something that people keep utterly disconnected from the real world.

I recall the many articles when GW2 was first launching about the amazing community spirit arising from the fact the game both supported and encouraged co-operative activity, a basic change in gaming value structure from ‘traditional’ models.

I think what we are seeing here is the same principles at work, just from another (opposite?) direction – an exclusive value set as opposed to an inclusive value set.

zargnath.9524:

IRL I would actualy say work hard to get rewarded. But the problem is I play this game for fun. I have already payed 60$ to have fun and I would prefer not having to grind to have fun when it would be possible to create an option that wouldn’t force me to grind before having fun.

So you would have a problem in real life about an option that would allow you to be rewarded without working hard?

I am curious why you think an online game should have easy access to fun while real life shouldn’t.

Azjenco.9425:

Tenshi.3598:

And to stick with hats: in horizontal progression, you work hard so you can buy a prettier hat. Or because you collect hats. Or (whatever you fancy doing with hats :P).

In vertical progression, you work hard, so that you can buy a better helmet, so that you can work harder and get a better helmet, so that you can work harder and get a better helmet, so that…

I see what you did there. You tried to make your own stance seem better by calling the opposite side “pretty hats”, while your own view has “helmets”. Who’d want to get a hat when you can get a helmet, right?

But in your example you made it seem like an endless road that doesn’t amount to anything in the end. You’ll never get anywhere. Sure, you’ll always have goal, but there the only point is adding numbers on top of your old numbers, while your worker for bigger numbers, that’s waiting just in front of even bigger numbers…

The point of horizontal progression is meaningful choices. Where you get gear with differences in how their stats are applied to an item. You’d actually look at you old item and the new item, and then need to decide which works better for you. While the vertical system has an endless out with the old climb, it promotes throwing replacing items, not choosing items.

I think you totally misread Tenshi’s post.

The point being made is that horizontal progression is a question of being able to make choices in a way that suits whatever style takes your fancy, and can be stopped/started whenever you want without ‘losing’.

While the vertical progression is a never ending hamster wheel. The ‘endless road’ referred to was in the vertical progression, not in the horizontal progression.

I played GW2 because of it’s innovation in terms of game structure.

Recent changes make me extremely concerned that this is likely to see a reversal as the WoW $ is courted when Pandaria’s gloss wears off in a day or so.

So I have been playing the closed beta of an Asian MMO that is being ported for a western audience (you should be able to work it out if you look around) and I am utterly amazed at the amount of innovative features it has. It may not have the slick UI but it makes up for it in crafting, social and questing gameplay that is well ahead of GW2.

It’s also as pretty, if not prettier than GW2.

Now I am a foreigner, so be aware that most of my posts use sardonic humour that is nigh undetectable by many populations.

But with a relative degree of seriousness, I’d like to put forward the argument that the issue dividing the community – vertical gear progression through the Ascended mechanic and what will almost certainly follow – is something that divides the world on a larger scale.

Quite simply, it’s a conflict between an egalitarian viewpoint (everyone should have an equal chance for enjoyment) and that of an elitist viewpoint (only certain people should benefit under circumstances I dictate, generally those favourable to me).

This is an argument repeated time and time again, in almost every area of endeavour.

You have the bleeding heart libruls on one hand, who apparently want the world to spiral into a socialist nightmare by forcing hard working folks to sacrifice, so that the less worthy can be on an equal footing.

Then you have the fascist conservatives, whose ‘I got mine and I ain’t got use for you unless it’s cleaning my pool’ worldview is rapidly destroying the planet and winding us back to the dark ages of repression that have imprisoned humanity for most of its history.

On a slightly more serious note, I do wonder if these arguments – if not necessarily dictating a condition of total adherence – do see an online/offline correlation.

If you’re someone who in real life believes that only those who work hard should be rewarded, is that a view you will transpose onto a game and vice versa?

If you believe that everyone deserves an equal chance and should be supported in order to reach their potential, do you apply that to both online and offline activities?

I’d be curious to hear from people who are strongly progressive or conservative in real life but reverse their position in an online game.

SevenBitBrian.8413:

cegorach.5624:

Allow me to summarise:

I got mine, rest of the world gtfo.

USA, USA, etc.

I mean seriously. It’s not about ‘taking a chance’ if the event is held at 2am your local time.

The ‘I got mine’ mentality isn’t very nice. Demanding an event be one-time only on a very flimsy principle of luck-based elitism is pretty yuk.

Rather than loosening your screws and accepting that a few occurrences that allow, you know, the majority of the world to participate is actually conducive to a better game for everyone in the long term.

It truly takes very little for MMO companies to cater to timezones outside of the US.

Some of them have shown this. Those that don’t, well, they’re kind of lazy and useless.

You should learn to read, or at least what summarize means. Because I actually said I didn’t get mine, I got almost no loot, and I also said that they should either rotate the time zones or have it start at diff times on diff servers.

I can read perfectly well.

‘I got mine’ doesn’t refer to loot. It refers to the fact you can practically participate – while the majority of the world can’t.

‘Rotate time zones or have it start at diff times on diff servers’

So not a one time event then?

Because a one time event happens at…one time.

Allow me to summarise:

I got mine, rest of the world gtfo.

USA, USA, etc.

I mean seriously. It’s not about ‘taking a chance’ if the event is held at 2am your local time.

The ‘I got mine’ mentality isn’t very nice. Demanding an event be one-time only on a very flimsy principle of luck-based elitism is pretty yuk.

Rather than loosening your screws and accepting that a few occurrences that allow, you know, the majority of the world to participate is actually conducive to a better game for everyone in the long term.

It truly takes very little for MMO companies to cater to timezones outside of the US.

Some of them have shown this. Those that don’t, well, they’re kind of lazy and useless.

Mists of Pandaria is the last gasp for WoW. In the next year or two, it will haemorrhage players like no tomorrow as the technology behind it just becomes too outdated to be justified away.

Meanwhile, GW2 should allegedly be getting well into its lifecycle.

WoW’s mechanics are set up for pavlovian button pressing folks – who are psychologically simple to control and manipulate due to their response to simple cues and fear of change once behaviours are in place.

Any business manager worth his salt would be advising ANet to prepare a nice, welcoming, familiar environment for the MMO gerbils to hoover up these millions of simple folks as they leave WoW in ever-increasing numbers.

It’s simple logic to see there is more profit in catering to that readily-established and proven profitable market than to invest money in progressive ideas that may or may not work. If there wasn’t such a huge, clearly manipulable market then it might be worth the gamble as it could pay off bigtime. But Blizzard has brainwashed a very large number of these people into parting with cash non-stop for a very constrained treadmill experience – so it’s common sense to aim for that rather than build a new market, especially a market that may actually demand innovation and forward progression rather than recycled content.

There’s no conspiracy, there’s business choices. I’d not be surprised if the devs have a somewhat different view to other people in the company but in the long term, guaranteed $$$ tend to win out.

I’m level 60 and far from a hardcore player.

I use D/D and SB or pistol (but never need to switch).

skills are signet of shadows, ambush or blinding powder, caltrops or shadow refuge, thief’s guild. Signet of malice for heals.

20 points in trickery and acrobatics, rest building up shadow arts. Traits to drop caltrops on dodge, heal when spending init, gain might when dodging and gain vigor on stealing.

Cheap yellow daggers, green outfit with +cond damage.

pull a buttload of mobs.

roll back, dropping caltrops. turn back, deathblossom through the middle of them. deathblossom and roll back and forth through them over and over, stealing when init gets low.

take a step back and watch the whole pack of them fall over dead from blood loss.

I kill groups as fast as more ‘op’ classes, I just look exponentially cooler when doing it.

You warriors can stand there and swing your toy while I somersault over, over and around, looking AWESOME (and not getting hit).