The difference is all the customers who took what you did wrong weren’t all talking to each other. And it does make a difference.
Yes, I suppose that’s a fair point. There is the “mob mentality” thing to consider. However, I’d also point out that I had people yelling at me right to my face, on the salesfloor, and in front of subordinates and other customers. If I was able to get through that, surely ANet employees can endure text on a monitor, especially if it is being moderated.
If the mods are doing their jobs and moderating out all the hostility, and the Dev or Community Team member is making sure not to engage with the hostile ones (so that the mods can more easily do their job of excising them from the thread) doesn’t that go a long way toward fixing the problem?
I do understand that things can get a bit dicey on the internets, but hey, I’m sure that anyone who has started a “We Can Has Mounts?” thread in General Discussion (and suffered through the pitchforks and torches brandished at them) managed to live through the ordeal.
I’m just saying there’s a balance. Many people here have excellent points, and I do see the merit in what’s being said about hostile forum members. I just think that there has to be some middle ground, no?
I worked in retail management for 10 years. I had a lot of contact with customers. Sometimes, when you are trying to help a customer out, they misinterpret what you are trying to say and have a negative reaction. It happens. Sometimes it was the way I phrased something. Sometimes it was just that that particular customer was, well, kind of a jerk and would have been unhappy and complaining no matter what I did or said.
But I never said to myself, “Hey, you know what? Since a few customers react negatively and treat me poorly, I’m just not going to interact with any of my customers at all.”
Why? Because that would be silly.
I keep seeing in various threads ad nauseum that ANet can’t possibly tell us anything because then people will take it as a “promise” and get mad if anything goes awry. And some people do, no doubt about it. But be honest, it is a small percentage of people that do this, and that does not justify excusing yourself from communicating with the rest of your customer base.
I absolutely believe that the Devs and Community Team have every reason to expect to be treated respectfully, and I fully support their right to not engage with those who refuse to do so. So my advice to them would be…don’t.
Don’t engage with the hostiles. Let the mods delete their posts and ban their accounts if necessary. Problem solved.
But using a small percentage of rude people to justify not communicating with everyone else is a flimsy excuse that I could not see working in any other kind of business/client relationship, and it shouldn’t be here, either.
(edited by minbariguy.7504)
Erm, isn’t there a community manager already? Regina Buenaobra?
But I agree. It would be nice to have more interaction from someone in the capacity of a community manager.
I have always been curious about this. I honestly don’t mean this at all in a nasty way, but…what exactly does our Community Manager do? From what I’ve seen, she rarely interacts with the community (at least on the forums…maybe she is more active on other social media that I’m not plugged into?).
I’m actually wondering if ANet has defined the role of “Community Manager” much differently than most other gaming companies. With most games, it usually seems like the Community Manager is right out front, posting on the forums and engaging with the community. But here…eh, not so much. I wonder if they have given her other tasks to perform that preclude her from doing so.
Or perhaps I am mistaken and she is more active than I realize?
I’m 47 on the outside, but inside — you know, where it really counts-- I’m 25. Or 12. Depends on the day.
You all aren’t entertaining or sensationalist enough. Here is a list of reasons for NO MOUNTS that are just as valid as most posted but more dramatic.
1. Mounts will cause seizures
2. Mounts can lead to teen promiscuity.
3. Mounts are vile exploitation of Tyrian animals. They have rights.
4. Too many mounts cause Computer fires. Do you want to lose your home, for a
mount?
5. Mounts will cause racial inequities in game.
6. Mounts will raise your liability insurance premiums.
7. Mounts are devious. They will sneak out and destroy WPs when you log off.
8. One time a Mount bit my cousin, Sanni. Really! Mount bites hurt.
9. Anet would have to hire a choreographer for the Mount.
10. If you are Mounted, the NPCs will hate you. A lot. They will charge for armor repairs again.And the Biggie.. It is a known fact that Mounts can go out of control and portal you to Azeroth.
LOL! I love this post. Thank you for opening up my eyes to the horror that mounts could become if unleashed upon the unsuspecting citizens of Tyria. I had no idea!
You have performed a valuable public service today.
Also, I hear that mounts eat babies.
I think too many people don’t understand my goal:
I DONT want them to change ALL achievements, I just want 1 (or more if they want to) achievement that is really difficult even for the hardcore players.
Everyone else just gets everything how it is.
TYEdit: and around 15% of the players are with me
Ah, there we go. I wasn’t sure what to think of this thread until that was clarified for me. Now that it is…basically, I’m with you.
I’m a terrible player. Not very skilled at all. Probably couldn’t do many of the achievements even as they are now, to be honest (but I haven’t really tried, either; just not my thing). If you were saying that all achievements should be cranked up to a level that you would find challenging, I’d give that a big “NO” vote.
But yes, I agree that there should be time and resources enough to throw the occasional uber-challenge out there for the people who like that sort of thing. Like, all three of you (I kid, I kid!).
I do think that ANet has to be mindful of the kind of rewards they give out for really difficult achievements, though. It should be something nice that players can display to show that they’ve done it, but not something " argh, so freaking cool!!!" that the majority of players who can’t perform at that level are destined never to have. That only creates resentment and more resistance to the idea of elite and challenging content. For example, I thought the Liadri mini was fine. When I see it, I know someone beat her, but I’m not sitting there seething that resources were used to create something so desirable that I’ll never have.
OP, maybe you can start a new thread somewhere with suggestions about what kinds of things make content difficult for you. Someone mentioned that it isn’t just a question of bosses with more DPS and a bigger health pool, but rather a question of interesting and different mechanics that challenge the player. Give ANet some ideas of the kinds of mechanics you would find both challenging and fun.
Good luck!
Backpacks already existed, so “plushy” backpacks are like weapon or armor skins and thus are a very poor analogy to Mounts.
One could also say that a method of travel already exists in the game as well (which, after all, is why people keep being told that they don’t “need” mounts), so I think the analogy isn’t as poor as you’re suggesting.
I would argue that mounts have the potential to be far more obtrusive than backpacks ever were. It’s sort of like noise pollution, or graffiti. The graffiti might be on someone else’s building, but seeing it slathered all over the city bothers people all the same.
And that’s just addressing the cosmetic argument. There’s still the practical side of the argument which as been discussed to death. Mounts are completely unnecessary to the mechanics and gameplay of this game. In fact they would harm the balance of environment size and design by trivializing travel time and geographic obstacles.
I see what you’re saying, but in the end it all kind of boils down to whether or not we have the right to impose what other players choose to display simply because we don’t want to look at it. I do not think that we should have (or even desire) that kind of control over someone else’s actions. When the advertisments for GW2 said “Play Your Way”, I’m pretty sure they meant you play your way, not that everyone else had to play your way, too! (that was a general “you”, not you specifically, Xenon!)
As for the “they aren’t needed” argument, it seems that the argument being made (over and over and over. And over. ) is that mounts aren’t needed because they provide the same function as waypoints. Except that is not true. A mount provides an entirely different game experience. They way you travel is different, the way you look while you’re traveling is different, the sense of immersion you experience is different, and that doesn’t even take into account people’s fondness for collecting new shinies.
If all people wanted was to get from point A to point B, then sure, waypoints fulfill that function. But that isn’t all that people want from a mount. If it were, they’d be happy with the existing waypoints.
Having an opinion that mounts are not “needed” is a perfectly valid opinion. Having the opinion that other people shouldn’t have anything you don’t want to see is, I think, a lot more of a gray area. And it’s one that we should be extremely careful with.
(edited by minbariguy.7504)
I hate looking at silly plushy backpacks. Are they needed? Hardly. Do they fit in with “lore”? Please.
And yet, upon hearing they were to be added to the game, I didn’t storm the forums to spew forth drama and hyperobole at those who were in favor of them.
Just sayin’.
Yet you could have voiced your opinion of plushy backpacks on the forums if you wanted to. Just like the people that would rather not see mounts can do so here.
Just sayin’
Yes, you’re right, I could have. However, I found that it wasn’t such a big deal that I had to go and try to ruin other people’s fun when it really didn’t affect me all that much. I simply avert my eyes and apply tolerance.
Problem solved.
I hate looking at silly plushy backpacks. Are they needed? Hardly. Do they fit in with “lore”? Please.
And yet, upon hearing they were to be added to the game, I didn’t storm the forums to spew forth drama and hyperobole at those who were in favor of them.
Just sayin’.
Removing waypoints is a silly idea and would not benefit the game in any way. But it is a completely separate idea from adding mounts.
And honestly, the idea of removing waypoints would never even have been introduced in the first place if certain people didn’t storm the mount threads with torches and pitchforks shouting “NO! You don’t need mounts because you have waypoints! Go back to WoW!”
Sick of reading mount threads? Don’t click on ‘em. And for heaven’s sake, don’t read them. Some people just can’t handle the stress of the idea someone might get what they don’t want them to have.
See the only reasons pro-mount peopl have are.
1. It would be cool. ( no, it really wouldn’t.)
2. I want it. ( Play a game that has mounts then.)So the pro-mount people since they are wanting the developers to spend resources, that could be spent elsewhere more effectively, and for better value..( balancing skills), need to provide better reasons.
We that don’t want to have mounts only need to provide one.
1. We don’t want them, because we don’t want them.
I think mounts would encourage world exploration, since by using waypoints you skip over vast distances of the game world without even seeing them. So there is a reason besides “cool” and “want”.
Also, no matter what game feature you ask for, there are always people who don’t want/use/need that feature. Just because I don’t like PvP doesn’t mean that I will accuse anyone who does of asking ANet to “use up” resources creating “unnecessary” content.
I certainly don’t think the game needs mounts, but they could be a fun addition for a lot of people. As for the suggestion to remove waypoints to accommodate mounts, I think that’s a bad move. Let people who like the waypoints use them. More options is always better in my book.
so you’re one of these people who do things they don’t enjoy?! Facepalm.
But see, this is part of the problem. When people say they aren’t skilled at jumping (for whatever reason, be it physical disability or simply poor hand/eye coordination), they are being told they need to practice and improve their skill level.
But when someone spends a lot of time trying and failing (and getting frustrated and having a thoroughly unenjoyable game experience), they receive a facepalm for doing something they don’t enjoy? What, then, is an acceptable response to not enjoying jumping content?
Sorry, not picking on you (I promise!) but do you see what I’m getting at?
I’m not even making the claim that I am physically incapable of improving my skill at jumping (though in truth I am horrid at it!). I don’t have a physical disability. Maybe, if I decided that I wanted to spend many unpleasant hours of game time, I could get really good at jumping. But you know what? Being good at something does not automatically mean you enjoy it. And as you correctly stated, why do something you do not enjoy? (Which I find to be an argument in favor of providing options, honestly…)
I loathe jumping. Absolutely despise it. And so for that reason — and that reason alone — I feel completely justified in providing my feedback to ANet that I would prefer the jumping be plentiful and easily accessible for those who enjoy it…and completely skippable for those who do not.
(edited by minbariguy.7504)
@ Marcus Greythorne: I just took a moment to review your posts in this thread, and I agree that you were not one of the people who were insulting the anti-jumping crowd. I think that you voiced your opinions respectfully.
That said, I still find it odd that you (and others) would spend so much time and effort to argue against people having options to make the game more enjoyable for them. I repeat my assertion that it won’t kill us to be supportive of the needs of others, especially in situations where it would not harm us in any way to do so.
In any case, yes, let’s not discuss it all over again. You’ve made your points. I’ve made mine. I suppose it’s time to let the dust settle. :-)
(edited by minbariguy.7504)
But then to see other people admit having issues similar to theirs get jumped by bullies and jerks, who belittle, demean and otherwise insult them. And say that they aren’t worthy to play this game. Then why would they want to post here?
Indeed. What is truly mystifying about this whole discussion is that even though there have been some harsh words from people on both sides of the issue, the entire affair can pretty much be summed up thusly:
Anti-Jumpers: “Hey, we’re having a hard time here. We want the Jumpers to have a good time too, so we’re not asking for the removal of jumping, but could we have some different options so that we can have a good time too?”
Pro-Jumpers: “What?! NO! We couldn’t care less if you’re having a good time, if you can’t do the jumps you’re just a whiner who doesn’t deserve to play the game. No options for you!”
Honestly, it seems like earlier MMO’s had much more of a sense of community, with people who cared about and supported each other. I honestly don’t see much of that on the GW2 forums. Anyone who expresses displeasure with any aspect of the game is quickly piled upon and poked to death with a +5 Greatsword of White Knightery.
Are there people who don’t know how to express their displeasure with appropriate constructive criticism? Sure. And they need to learn what is appropriate, no doubt about it. But if you’re on the “pro-jump” side of this issue and you don’t think that many of the responses to the concerns raised in this thread are not equally as toxic as posts written by people who don’t know how to be constructive with their feedback, you are kidding yourself.
The next time someone requests a feature that you, personally, would not use, but would not result in something being taken away from you…consider supporting it. Or at least consider not shouting the person down on the forums to make him or her feel like garbage for even daring to ask. Honestly, it won’t kill you to be supportive of the needs of other members of the community.
(edited by minbariguy.7504)
Dear ANet,
I do not enjoy the jumpitty-jump. Some people do, and that’s cool. I don’t want to stomp on their fun; I want them to continue to have as much jumping as they desire.
But please remember that many others of us find jumping to be tedious and frustrating, and not even remotely enjoyable. With that in mind, please try to design your content accordingly so that it is fun for as many people as possible. Thank you!
[SNIP]… For example, you can choose to climb or perhaps gather enough resources for an NPC to lend you an airship or a sylvari floating seed pod for so long.
That resource-gathering idea is actually a pretty good one. +1
No one is calling for the removal of jumping puzzles. People are asking them to be optional, so that those who like them can continue to enjoy them, while those who do not can avoid them and still continue to access new content.
Seems pretty fair, does it not?
(edited by minbariguy.7504)
NO ONE is saying that there shouldn’t be any jumping at all.
However…
Regardless of how easy or difficult you think they are, jumping puzzles should never be a mandatory activity that will lock you out of new content if not completed. It is just a bad idea to have content gated behind a jumping puzzle. This is highly disappointing.
(edited by Moderator)
I’m impressed of how the community changed during S1.
Okay, now I’m curious. How did the community change during S1, in your opinion?
I was (am) a bitter critic of Living Story Season 1, and honestly I’m still not thrilled to see them continue down this path with a second season, but…
With the announcement of season two featuring permanent content, I’m willing to give it a try. My biggest complaint was not being able to take my time to complete the content at my own pace, so…with that addressed, maybe it won’t be so bad.
We’ll see.
90% of the LS is skipped by me because the more i get forced in to something the less i care about it, i play a game in my own pace and no dev is gonna force me to do stuff that is filled with rush crap.
isn’t a game made to relax after a hard day, not to worry about work…….
This. Oh, this. So much this.
I have to admit it’s pretty funny that, in other threads, anyone who dislikes having to pay gems for missed living story is completely bashed and shouted down with cries of “But it’s not that much money and Anet has to fund the game somehow so quit your whining!”, while in this thread everyone is like “Zomg! Pay for my content? That’s crazy talk!”
I understand the point here, but is this a real life simulator or a fantasy MMO?
It is a fantasy MMO, that is based in a real world, with real problem, real progression and real changes. Just because it is a game doesn’t mean it must remove everything that is from real life.
Then why isn’t there real permanent death? How far do you want to take this “real life” thing?
Mounts encourage open world exploration.
Instantly teleporting somewhere doesn’t.
Anet from the start have been pretty clear what content they intended to deliver. You buy the game, you get the game, plus frequent living story updates.
I’m not sure where you are getting the:’It’s buy to play, thus expansions’ from. You appear to be redefining the Buy to Play term to fit your own expectations, not the commonly accepted meaning of it.
Er… “from the start”?
Living Story didn’t even exist when this game launched. It came later. If they had told me right at the start that Living Story would be the way new content would be delivered, I would have saved my money and not even purchased the game in the first place.
No content is content if people play it. Doesn’t matter if it’s not around anymore.
Really? You think that a person who is considering playing GW2 for the first time is going to be influenced to buy the game based on content that doesn’t even exist anymore and that they will never be able to play?
No. Just…no.
New players do not care about content that no longer exists. They will not base purchasing decisions based on non-existent game features.
And I will wager that many current players don’t care about content that doesn’t exist anymore, either.
Content is content even if it is no longer available.
Content isn’t anything if it doesn’t even exist anymore.
I despise Living Story with a venomous passion.
If I were to hear that Living Story and it’s buggy, temporary rush was all I had to look forward to for the life of the game, I wouldn’t even bother to keep tabs on Guild Wars 2 to see if my concerns about Living Story were ever going to be addressed.
I’d simply be gone.
Will there be mounts?
No. For traveling long distance, the game will offer the two types of teleports above (waypoints and asura gates), but the INITIAL RELEASE does not have any other methods, i.e. there are no mounts or ships.I hope this closes this issue – DONE! Straight from the horse’s mouth.
I notice you chose to completely ignore the words “initial release”. Funny, that.
It’s pretty obvious by the words “initial release” that he is not saying “no mounts EVER”. Nice try, though.
I don’t understand all the fascination with waypoints. In a game that goes out of it’s way to supposedly encourage world exploration, waypoints specifically push people to actually avoid exploring.
Have a destination in mind? Want to tour the countryside, explore, and enjoy the scenery on the way there? Naaaaaaaaah, just open the map and hit the instant teleport button. Poof! You’re there, or at least nearly so.
Yeah, that’s really exploring the world.
Mounts allow you to actually explore a game world at a useful speed, getting you to your destination quickly, but without sacrificing the fun of traveling the world.
There is really no reason the game can’t have both.
(edited by minbariguy.7504)
do not compare/ confuse living story with expansio packs, real expansion packs will come but make no mistake a person who plays 0 hours does not have the right to anything in game, at all….ever
u dont play, i dont care, end of discussion
Sorry, but giving a company $60 most certainly gives me the right to express my opinion on the sorry nature of Living Story. Also, could you please link to these “real expansion packs” you say are coming? Because they haven’t announced any such thing.
This is a completely worthless “feature”. We need changes to allow us to play the content at our own pace, not to just see what everyone else got to play.
The beauty of the Living Story, however, is that it creates a timeline and a history for the players that experienced it.
Exactly.
For the players that experienced it.
As far as ANet is concerned, though, everyone else can take a flying leap. I find no beauty in that whatsoever.
[SNIP] But making me feel obligated to log in during a very specific period to play the specific LS content or lose the opportunity to experience it forever sacrifices one of the huge advantages GW2 had over the market because of its B2P model and an “endgame” not devoted to the raiding treadmill: the ability of players to play on their own time, in their own way, without feeling like they were missing out.
Yes, yes, and a thousand more times yes. Your entire post is spot-on for explaining how many of us feel, and thank you for writing it. I’ve tried to explain it enough times myself, but honestly I don’t think the devs get it. They have demonstrated a complete lack of comprehension about people wanting to play on their own time.
I wish they would address this. Like you, I feel nothing but a growing resentment.
Honestly, guys, give us something.
Anything.
I am rather sure they DID comment on it, when this was brought up soon after release.
And they basically said something along the lines that they wanted it to feel more epic, and thus made it require a group instead of going in solo.I’ll see if I can find the post again, but I seem to recall that it was something like that.
Here’s what I remember a dev saying about the reasoning for why the last step in your “personal” story suddenly required a group:
[SNIP] …Frankly, the decision to make the final step a 5-man dungeon was made before I joined the story team, so I cn’t provide any insight to the reasoning.
That was it. Not even a “Let me find out and get back to you”. And that was after a LOT of people had been trying to wring an answer out of the devs for quite some time, only to be ignored.
Link to thread is here:
(edited by minbariguy.7504)
If ANet would refund my sixty dollars, I would happily leave these forums and never look back. That is how disappointed I am by Living Story. Since they are unlikely to do so, however, I keep speaking up to let them know how I feel.
I do not understand why they thought it would be fun for me to miss out on content just to enjoy the “thrill” of a “Living World”. All it does is punish people who can’t constantly play through content whenever ANet wants them to.
Further, it was the crappiest “bait and switch” I’ve ever experienced in a video game. GW2 was marketed as a game you could play when you wanted because it had no subscription fees, but it was never mentioned that if you didn’t continue to play you would permanently miss out on content at the rate of every two weeks.
And they’ve admitted that they know many of us are upset by this and claim they are looking into solutions, but they refuse to talk about what it is they are planning. Considering they had a Living Story CDI, that would have been a fantastic place to get feedback on whatever it is that they’re planning, but obviously they didn’t’ want our feedback on it.
I’m ready to just hit the uninstall button from their lack of communication alone. I’m tired of feeling disappointed and bitter. I’d love to give more constructive feedback, but since they won’t discuss the issue, I’m not able to.
So yeah. That’s what I think after a year of Living Story.
“Bioware-style romances” are usually love story sub-plots, not just pointless bang-a-thons. I don’t see the problem with the concept in general. It’s part of the natural progression of a romantic relationship, right?
I find it odd that nobody minds endless violence in their video games, but suggest a story about people loving each other and OMG, meltdown.
I’ve no problem with anyone saying they don’t want romantic story content. In fact, I’m not sure it could be properly implemented in a game structured like GW2. Also, I think it would take up a lot of resources that might better be spent somewhere else.
But see, I can just say that instead of insulting the OP just for bringing up the subject.
ETA: I of course did not mean you were being insulting, lordkrall. I was referring to the person I was originally responding to.
(edited by Moderator)
There are people who enjoy well-told, nuanced, and sophisticated storylines in their games. Romance is a valid theme for this kind of story.
I mean…GW2’s storylines feature plenty of violence. Does that mean this game is only suited to the needs of angry, violent people who just want to kill stuff?
(edited by Moderator)
Living Story. Continuously missing out on content or rewards because I did not complete it on ANet’s time frame is a complete deal-breaker for me.
totally agree with this thread.. i bought gw1 but never played it until yesterday
so i’m hoping arenanet readily makes available the past 9 wintersdays
Sigh…
No one is asking for temporary holiday events to be replayable at any time. Or even the occasional non-holiday special event, for that matter. It is perfectly reasonable to have occasional things that players might miss.
But when your main method of content delivery, occurring every two weeks, is stuff that players can only achieve and/or experience in a limited window of time, that is a problem for a lot of people.
(edited by minbariguy.7504)
Can we combine this thread with one of the thousand other times this has come up?
It’s a Living World, people. Love it or leave it, but don’t try to change it.
Really? So you haven’t made any suggestions for changing the game, ever? Because you totally think we shouldn’t try to change anything about the game? That’s interesting, considering your participation in the CDI threads.
TLDR: You’ve no right to tell others not to try to change things. They paid for the game, too.
And if the LS wasn’t there, then you still would not have logged in for months. Or are you boycotting PvP, Fractals, and WvW because LS exists?
Not true. Living Story just frustrated me enough that I no longer found logging in to GW2 a fun or pleasurable experience at all. If Living Story hadn’t made me feel so stressed out and pressured all the time, I would still be logging in.
I enjoy it. Living Story is the #1 reason why I’m still playing GW2. And I don’t know what “the majority of players” want, but I won’t assume that the majority of players agree with my opinion. You’d have to be some kind of egomaniac to do that.
I am glad you are enjoying Living Story. For me, it is the #1 reason I haven’t logged in for months.
I agree that it isn’t wise to assume what the majority of players want. Hence my call for metrics.
I don’t know.
Personally I don’t play stuff I don’t enjoy, and I was under the impression that it was a rather common line of thinking, but maybe I was wrong.
It really depends on what the rewards are. There are plenty of people who will grind their way through content they don’t enjoy to get the shiny at the end. Personally, I agree with you, though; if I don’t enjoy it, I don’t play it.
Getting metrics on how many people enjoy content would be rather impossible, seeing as it would always be a biased result (while metrics show an unbiased, absolute, result).
Impossible? How so? I recall that there was some discussion in the Living World CDI about in-game polls similar to what was in place during the beta. This would be a rather easy way to get these metrics. When people on the forums give feedback stating that they don’t like Living Story, they are often shouted down by people who are quick to remind them that forum posters are a minority of a game’s player base. So why not let the entire player base speak, then?
I just wish we could get some metrics on how many people are actually enjoying ( not just playing, but actually enjoying) Living Story. If Living Story is such a success, then prove it to us. Show us the overwhelming support for it. If not — and the majority of players do not want Living Story — then admit you made a mistake and put an end to it. Stop trying to shove it at us whether we want it or not.
I won’t hold my breath, though. ANet loves to seek feedback, but seldom admits to making mistakes and rarely changes direction once they’ve committed to a course of action, no matter what their customers say. Sure, they will incorporate player suggestions whenever possible, but not to the point of reversing something they had already planned.
They seem to be pretty convinced that Living Story is what the players want. For their sake, I hope they’re right. Because I’m sure I’m not the only one who never looks back after they’ve decided to leave a game for good.
[SNIP] “I didn’t suggest the game in its entirety is like real life…”
Yes, I realize that you don’t want the entire game to be like real life. So why defend Living Story by telling us that “it’s like real life”, then?
If you don’t want certain things in the game to be “just like real life”, then don’t other people have the right to feel the same about other things in the game?
The QQ about this is getting tiresome.
What is also getting tiresome is the “It’s just like real life” argument. This is an MMORPG, not a real-life Sim game.
You don’t have permadeath, aging, sickness or injuries; you don’t have to pay rent or property taxes to your race’s governing bodies; you don’t have to eat or drink to stay alive, or seek shelter from inclement weather. And so on and so forth.
When you are in favor of all of those things (and anything else associated with real-life existence), then you can tell people to stop QQ-ing.
Yes. They could do away with the ridiculous notion of temporary content altogether. That would fix the issue quite nicely.
much like burning a house down fixes the squeaky door hinge issue.
So we at least agree that Living Story’s temporary content is as annoying as a squeaky door hinge? I’m cool with that. ;-)