Should Lootscaling be removed after the new Rtm policy?

Nude Nira

Nude Nira

Lion's Arch Merchant

Join Date: Jan 2008

inside a tanning bed

It's Raining Fame Hallelujah 【傘回傘】

Me/

07 Apr 2008 at 01:28 - 1241
Quote:
Anet wanted to put some boundaries on solo playing style. They did a good job IMO.
If Anet wanted to put boundries on solo playing, why did they add heroes? Heroes increased the amount of solo playing, because technically, you're playing by yourself...

I love how Anet wanted to decrease solo playing by adding loot scaling, yet added a bunch of heroes at the same time which increased solo play.

and to the loot scale question, /signed.

Loot scaling was added to help stop the amount of bots farming/limit solo play, if i remember correctaly. All i remember it doing was increasing the cost of gold on ebay. People still farmed just as much as they did now, obviouslly not making as much, but they did. There really was no point to LS then, and it's even more pointless now. I miss being able to farm multiple 15k sets in a day. =/

cebalrai

Jungle Guide

Join Date: Mar 2007

Mature Gaming Association

Me/E

07 Apr 2008 at 01:39 - 1242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nude Nira
If Anet wanted to put boundries on solo playing, why did they add heroes? Heroes increased the amount of solo playing, because technically, you're playing by yourself...

I love how Anet wanted to decrease solo playing by adding loot scaling, yet added a bunch of heroes at the same time which increased solo play.

and to the loot scale question, /signed.

Loot scaling was added to help stop the amount of bots farming/limit solo play, if i remember correctaly. All i remember it doing was increasing the cost of gold on ebay. People still farmed just as much as they did now, obviouslly not making as much, but they did. There really was no point to LS then, and it's even more pointless now. I miss being able to farm multiple 15k sets in a day. =/
I don't think you're understanding the concept of solo playing...

There's a huge difference between playing with heroes and playing alone. For one, heroes take a share of loot, just like real players.

Anet never said they wanted to decrease the frequency of solo playing (with heroes or without). Ever. You just made that up.

Limiting bots was ONE of MULTIPLE reasons LS was introduced. And LS did a lot more than increasing gold on ebay. People on both sides of the debate will tell you that. I don't know... you say a bunch of ignorant things and then /sign. This is why a poll is dumb. Uninformed, ignorant people (on both sides) shouldn't have a voice in game design.

Nude Nira

Nude Nira

Lion's Arch Merchant

Join Date: Jan 2008

inside a tanning bed

It's Raining Fame Hallelujah 【傘回傘】

Me/

07 Apr 2008 at 03:40 - 1243
Quote:
I don't think you're understanding the concept of solo playing...There's a huge difference between playing with heroes and playing alone. For one, heroes take a share of loot, just like real players.
Uhh I do understand the concept of solo playing. What I said was that, even though you're playing with heroes, they are computers, they may share loot like real players, however, are not real players. And playing with heroes is TECHNICALLY playing solo, you're not playing with real people, therefore, you are solo, alone.

Quote:
Anet never said they wanted to decrease the frequency of solo playing (with heroes or without). Ever. You just made that up.
Yes, they may not have officaly said it, that would have removed a majority of their player base. But when you add something into a game that greatly reduces your drops while playing alone, that kind of makes people get into the mindset of, "If I'm not getting very many drops, (drops=money) why should I farm?"

Quote:
Limiting bots was ONE of MULTIPLE reasons LS was introduced. And LS did a lot more than increasing gold on ebay. People on both sides of the debate will tell you that.
I know there are multiple reasons to LS, and that one of those reasons was to decrease the amount of bots, but it didn't really do that very well, I don't know why Anet didnt just add the RTM from the beginning? And do I really need to go into what LS has done, when people have done that already? I just stated one of the things it did.

Quote:
I don't know... you say a bunch of ignorant things and then /sign. This is why a poll is dumb. Uninformed, ignorant people (on both sides) shouldn't have a voice in game design.
I don't think any post is ignorant on this topic, because, everyone here does know something about it, because they encounter LS every time they play. And since when did a poll ever hurt anything? However "ignorant or uninformed" people may be, they still have an opinion, and a right to voice that opinion.

Oh and, did I ever say that people should have a voice in game design? No. Stop making things up.

I love how this topic has turned into, someone makes a post, stating how they feel on the topic, and the people that like to flex their e-peen, (just a select few) bash their opinion. Go troll elsewhere, theres better places to do it.

SEMI-WALL OF TEXT FTL.

Creeping Carl

Frost Gate Guardian

Join Date: May 2007

07 Apr 2008 at 07:30 - 1244
Hi ANET. Just wanted to let you know that LS is just fine (but you already knew that) and that not every player is completely ignorant as the ones calling for it's removal. I hope that LS will remain in GW2 as well. Thanks.

Fay Vert

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Apr 2006

R/

07 Apr 2008 at 08:01 - 1245
Crikey, can the pro-LS continent come up with any argument other than "the other side is ignorant" or some other insult?

Have they really lost the debate that badly?

Seems so, but then, when the facts are against you, and you are flat wrong, I guess insulting, trolling and general flame abuse is all you have left.

Can we PLEASE stick to the debates and at least acknowledge that people we disagree with are worth of debating with? (otherwise, why are you even here?)

Gli

Forge Runner

Join Date: Nov 2005

07 Apr 2008 at 08:25 - 1246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fay Vert
Crikey, can the pro-LS continent come up with any argument other than "the other side is ignorant" or some other insult?
Well, if you ignore anything other than the insults...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fay Vert
Have they really lost the debate that badly?
Not really, you just chose to ignore good points we make.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fay Vert
Seems so, but then, when the facts are against you, and you are flat wrong, I guess insulting, trolling and general flame abuse is all you have left.
Not really, but it might seem so if you go on ignoring actual points we try to make.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fay Vert
Can we PLEASE stick to the debates and at least acknowledge that people we disagree with are worth of debating with? (otherwise, why are you even here?)
I agree, It's hard to have a debate if the other party ignores your arguments.

Here's an actual point I made 1 page ago. You'll ignore it again of course, because it doesn't fit your agenda.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gli
Lootscaling was introduced along with Hard Mode. Have you given any thought to the notion that the inflation it's supposed to prevent might not be existing inflation, but inflation that would result from Hard Mode farming with full drops? For example, without loot scaling, all those hordes of people doing raptor runs would add 50k+ gold per hour to the economy just selling junk to the merchant.

Empraim Wainwright

Empraim Wainwright

Ascalonian Squire

Join Date: Oct 2006

EU

Bad Wolf Corporation [WOLF]

E/N

07 Apr 2008 at 09:16 - 1247
I don't farm much so Lootscaling (good or bad) haven't hit me in a way I've noticed.
...but I think in the eyes of anet this dead horse have been beaten plenty.
I'm not saying I'm for or against it (I simply don't know enough about it), but I doubt it'll happen.

T1Cybernetic

T1Cybernetic

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Sep 2005

Wakefield, West Yorkshire, Uk, Nr Earth

Alternate Evil Gamers [aeg]

N/

07 Apr 2008 at 09:52 - 1248
Quote:
Cake is ****ing delicious.
Yeah yeah everyone loves cake!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
But the loot scaling sucks, Remove it...

tmakinen

tmakinen

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Nov 2005

www.mybearfriend.net

Servants of Fortuna [SoF]

E/

07 Apr 2008 at 10:16 - 1249
It would be beneficial for the discussion if people would keep in mind that there are three different markets in the game, each having a different relation to loot scaling.

1. The fixed price market. Removing loot scaling would only have positive or neutral consequences depending on play style. This also gives an absolute worth to the currency.

2. The low end player-to-player market (including trader NPCs). This is the area where LS has its largest effect. Remember that LS controls the ratio of inflow of items to currency. Arguably the market is currently flooded to the rim with items since taking a look at the search list shows that there are anywhere between 10 and 20 times more sellers of items than there are buyers. It is even not a price issue any more, there is just too large an influx of items.

3. The high end market. It is effectively decoupled from gold as a currency, and LS or not, it is out of reach of any casual player, so it shouldn't affect the decision either way.

The middle economy is almost dead, and it will only get worse as the game matures and most people have what they want, item wise, and some remaining objectives require silly amounts of money that players are supposed to gather from each other by selling items, but nobody's buying anything when they already have it. The current model is as stable as a pyramid scheme and it will collapse as the number of new players entering the game grinds to a halt. Even the removal of LS would not prevent it, only soften somewhat.

Also, removal of LS would not cause a runaway inflation, rather a point devaluation of currency, like its introduction caused a point revaluation of currency. The main effect of LS is to control the Gini coefficient of the in-game economy, and it's a matter of opinion, not of hard facts, whether GW should be a socialist (with LS) or capitalist (no LS) economy.

Creeping Carl

Frost Gate Guardian

Join Date: May 2007

07 Apr 2008 at 10:29 - 1250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fay Vert
Crikey, can the pro-LS continent come up with any argument other than "the other side is ignorant" or some other insult?

Have they really lost the debate that badly?

Seems so, but then, when the facts are against you, and you are flat wrong, I guess insulting, trolling and general flame abuse is all you have left.

Can we PLEASE stick to the debates and at least acknowledge that people we disagree with are worth of debating with? (otherwise, why are you even here?)
As Gli said, there really is nothing left to debate when you're ignoring any good points people are making. It's hard to reason with people who stick their fingers in their ears and deny deny deny. Inflation doesnt and never existed in GW? If people are going to delude themselves I can't call it anything but willful ignorance.

tracco

Academy Page

Join Date: Dec 2007

Earth (mega lawl)

Lubricated Volcano Love

07 Apr 2008 at 10:50 - 1251
Greed.
Loot scaling slows the game down a bit. I say keep it.

Sjeng

Sjeng

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Aug 2005

in my GH

Limburgse Jagers [LJ]

W/

07 Apr 2008 at 11:16 - 1252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Creeping Carl
As Gli said, there really is nothing left to debate when you're ignoring any good points people are making.
Oh, and I suppose this is an excellent point you made then?:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Creeping Carl
Hi ANET. Just wanted to let you know that LS is just fine (but you already knew that) and that not every player is completely ignorant as the ones calling for it's removal. I hope that LS will remain in GW2 as well. Thanks.
*slaps forehead* Hey look, I can do that too

Hi ANET. Just wanted to let you know that LS sucks (but you already knew that) and that players calling for it's removal have a right to do so. The anti-farming code was a much better solution. LS is just plain unfair for actual players. There are better ways to discourage bots, without discourageing actual players as you do so often. I hope that you'll do a better job in GW2 from the start, so threads like these can belong to the past. Thanks.

@Carl: I deeply resent your insult. FYI: Calling people with a different view than yours ignorant is pretty ignorant.

Gli

Forge Runner

Join Date: Nov 2005

07 Apr 2008 at 11:27 - 1253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sjeng
The anti-farming code was a much better solution. LS is just plain unfair for actual players. There are better ways to discourage bots, without discourageing actual players as you do so often.
You have it completely backwards. The old anti-farm code screwed actual players while not hurting bots at all. The old code degraded the quality of the drops, not the quantity. Botters weren't bothered by that, while plenty of real players were. Bots just dump their stuff at the merchant for their RMT-able gold anyway, and don't bother spending time to market their special drops.

cebalrai

Jungle Guide

Join Date: Mar 2007

Mature Gaming Association

Me/E

07 Apr 2008 at 11:56 - 1254
You guys still ignore points like these too:

1) Zones with an 8 character limit were intended for a large party. It's poor game design to allow them to be cleared with one. Anet has a right to make sure their original vision is adhered to - or at least limit the incentive to work around their vision. They chose to continue to allow some solo play while making it less of an exploit.

2) People are still making plenty of money.

http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...php?t=10173135

See this thread? People are doing just fine. AFAIK, nobody on the LS-removal side of the debate has addressed this point. Why?

Fay Vert

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Apr 2006

R/

07 Apr 2008 at 12:16 - 1255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gli
Here's an actual point I made 1 page ago. You'll ignore it again of course, because it doesn't fit your agenda.
Sorry, I didn't get around to this (I meant to) but I was finding it hard to wade through 3 pages of insults. This is a recently added point, and also one that hasn't been picked up and supported by other pro-loot nerfers (probably too busy insulting, I don't include you in this Gli).

I actually agree with you here, I do thing one of the main drivers for the loot nerf was that ANet feared what might be when HM was introduced. AI and mob construction being what it was then there is a possibility that there would be a small number of areas that would be easily exploitable by bots or human farmers. This was never quoted by ANet as a reason, but I agree with you that it was a significant concern. This doesn't explain why we have the nerf in normal mode.

Question is, was the loot nerf a good way to deal with this problem? I personally think a much better way to handle this type of problem would be to turn up the heat on the anti farming code. Under the old system, you could do about a dozen runs (it varied between areas from what I observed) unaffected and then the anti-farming code would kick in. You would then get reduced drops for a similar number of runs before the full anti-farming code would kick in and give you very little. I would have liked to see that become something like 3-5 runs and the anti-farming code in that zone becomes absolute. This would be far more targetted at farmers and bots and only affecting that behaviour or repeatedly zoning in, killing the first few mobs and repeating. It would certainly kill the easy exploitable places like the Raptor Nestlings. To farm, you would have to be very diverse, needing more zones, and need to farm larger portions of the map to avoid these effects.

Instead, we had the loot nerf which bulldozed over a massive aspect of the game and gameplay. Part of that problem has now gone with ANet taking other actions (anti-bot reporting/RMT actions etc), something that the loot nerf never addressed (in fact, bots increase in the initial months after the loot nerf until /report was added).

So in short, remover the loot nerf, reinstate anti-farming code*10 and let players play the sort of game they used to enjoy for two years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gli
You have it completely backwards. The old anti-farm code screwed actual players while not hurting bots at all. The old code degraded the quality of the drops, not the quantity. Botters weren't bothered by that, while plenty of real players were. Bots just dump their stuff at the merchant for their RMT-able gold anyway, and don't bother spending time to market their special drops.
I completely disagree with you here.

MithranArkanere

MithranArkanere

Underworld Spelunker

Join Date: Nov 2006

wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigo

Heraldos de la Llama Oscura [HLO]

E/

07 Apr 2008 at 12:55 - 1256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cab Tastic


This is getting really silly.

anti LS give plenty of evidence to support the removal of said LS. i.e. inflation never existing

pro LS: your wrong, so there!
Such evidence does not exist.
Before LS and inscriptions, some weapons, too many weapons had prices over 100k. A price never intended in GW, as the 100k gold limit in trades suggest.

On top of that, Anet and only anet can have real data about how many people has how much gold, and prices in traders are not enough to state inflation.

reetkever

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Dec 2005

Mo/E

07 Apr 2008 at 13:09 - 1257
Quote:
Originally Posted by MithranArkanere
Such evidence does not exist.
Before LS and inscriptions, some weapons, too many weapons had prices over 100k. A price never intended in GW, as the 100k gold limit in trades suggest.
Again, since people never seem to listen... PRICES DID NOT LOWER AT ALL AFTER LOOT SCALING! Prices now are about just as low as just prior to the Loot Scaling.

Sure, if you go WAY back, the prices were higher because of the drop rates and sucky salvage system, but this had NOTHING to do with LS.

LS caused these prices to go UP! When LS was implented, prices were raising like mad. That's why the exemption list was added. If things were going according to A-Net's plan, even 10 Piles of Glittering Dust would've been 100K now cause nobody can farm them and the supply is close to 0.

The exemption list caused the stability of prices (Once again, prices of most stuff are just as low NOW as BEFORE the LS. Only things like Sup Vigor is worth a bit less because of the new Salvage system which was added a bit earlier). LS only makes prices go up.


As for weapons... This is all the fault of the BUYER. If no1 buys weapons for 100K + ecto, no1 will sell them for that price. Oh, and without LS, more people farm so more goldies enter the market, lowering the price. Besides, weapons were NEVER expensive, either. It was easy to find ANY kind of weapon for less than 10K. (Except of course Dwarven Axes, Crystalline Swords etc)

MithranArkanere

MithranArkanere

Underworld Spelunker

Join Date: Nov 2006

wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigo

Heraldos de la Llama Oscura [HLO]

E/

07 Apr 2008 at 15:32 - 1258
Yeah, the fault was of the buyer, but the buyer that pays more, and the buyer that paid more before LS was the one that farmed or bought to gold-sellers, not the one that played without farming.

LS AND inscriptions made those prices to go down. Farmers do not get such much money, so they cannot pay so much, so the sellers had to decrease prices to get the items sold.

Remember that HM was added along some other stuff. And with new armors requiring materials that were not used so much, it was normal to get those prices up.

Now that the income is similar, you don't get such prices. Again, LS proves itself to work.


LS only decrease the difference between playing with farming and without farming.

And since farming is not the way intended to get the cash, and it NEVER was. LS is good.

LS affects everyone, it's not like some people can get more than others.
Onlythose that waste time trading get extra cash, but they have to spend time spamming or posting and waiting for buyers in outposts and things like that to compensate a little bit. They are paid for the communication effort.

If you play normally, it doesn't affect you.
If you farm solo or in reduced parties, you have nothing to complain about, since that is not supported, like running or rushing missions.

Is it really that hard to understand?

Nude Nira

Nude Nira

Lion's Arch Merchant

Join Date: Jan 2008

inside a tanning bed

It's Raining Fame Hallelujah 【傘回傘】

Me/

07 Apr 2008 at 16:08 - 1259
Quote:
I agree, It's hard to have a debate if the other party ignores your arguments.
Umm, we don't ignore your arguments, however, 75% of the time, insults/you are ignorant makes up most of the post, soo when we see you flame us, we have to defend our opinion, thus creating the flame circle going on here. And like I said in my last post, if you play Guild Wars, which most people do, they encounter the effects of loot scaling, which makes your "you are so ignorant" posts stupid because, they are somewhat educated on the issue.

MithranArkanere: you are really the only pro-LS (minus a few others) here that actually knows how to debate without adding ignorant/you're uninformed in your post.

Zahr Dalsk

Grotto Attendant

Join Date: Aug 2007

Canada

07 Apr 2008 at 16:12 - 1260
Maybe we could have an account setting, Loot Scaling On or Loot Scaling Off. You may only choose this once. After that, all people are separated based on which they chose. Still the same district setting but they can't trade between the two player groups, they can't enter explorable areas with members of the other group, etc. And we'll leave it like that for about a month. Then we'll take note of which group is happier.

(Personally, I'd be very happy with having my trading and partying rights removed if it would get Loot Scaling turned off for me. And without anti-farm code returned or any other such grind-enhancing mechanic.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by tracco
Greed.
Loot scaling slows the game down a bit. I say keep it.
You must be a WoW fan. Guild Wars is supposed to be about fun, not about trying to maximize the amount of work needed. I'd rather a fun, fast-paced game than a grind-heavy WoW clone.

Nude Nira

Nude Nira

Lion's Arch Merchant

Join Date: Jan 2008

inside a tanning bed

It's Raining Fame Hallelujah 【傘回傘】

Me/

07 Apr 2008 at 16:25 - 1261
Quote:
Maybe we could have an account setting, Loot Scaling On or Loot Scaling Off. You may only choose this once. After that, all people are separated based on which they chose. Still the same district setting but they can't trade between the two player groups, they can't enter explorable areas with members of the other group, etc. And we'll leave it like that for about a month. Then we'll take note of which group is happier.
Thats a bit extreme...Can you imagine how angry people would be when they waited 15 minutes to start a group in some high-end area, and try to enter and have a message say "Sorry X supports/does not support LS". And if people couldn't trade with each other, that would be absoulte chaos. I'm sure you would see "WTS X Price=X, LS PLAYERS ONLY!"

Why do I always end up on the top of a new page... xD

reetkever

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Dec 2005

Mo/E

07 Apr 2008 at 17:07 - 1262
Quote:
Originally Posted by MithranArkanere
Yeah, the fault was of the buyer, but the buyer that pays more, and the buyer that paid more before LS was the one that farmed or bought to gold-sellers, not the one that played without farming.
Before the Loot Scaling, there wasn't anybody that didn't farm. It was still needed to farm for 1,5K Droks armour in most cases, and farming was fun these days. Sure, there were some poor people who didn't farm, but usually they weren't very far in the game yet or just never expected to buy anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MithranArkanere
LS AND inscriptions made those prices to go down. Farmers do not get such much money, so they cannot pay so much, so the sellers had to decrease prices to get the items sold.
Sellers for weapons STILL have high prices. Req 9 Chaos Axes are still 100K + ecto's, so are the other rare skins. LS didn't help to bring these prices down by 1 bit. In fact, LS didn't bring the price down of ANYTHING.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MithranArkanere
Remember that HM was added along some other stuff. And with new armors requiring materials that were not used so much, it was normal to get those prices up.
I'm talking about the first few hours. There is no way so many people could've had access to the new armours in that time. The cause of the rise in prices was definately the Loot Scaling. Without a steady income of items, everything becomes scarce and will increase in value.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MithranArkanere
Now that the income is similar, you don't get such prices. Again, LS proves itself to work.

LS only decrease the difference between playing with farming and without farming.

And since farming is not the way intended to get the cash, and it NEVER was. LS is good.
Farming IS the way intended to get cash. It might not be SOLO-farming, but Guild Wars has an economy where one does not get enough money by just playing the Storyline. In order to become wealthy, one must farm. If A-Net didn't mean for people to farm, they wouldn't have made armours so expensive, and drops so rare.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MithranArkanere
LS affects everyone, it's not like some people can get more than others.
Onlythose that waste time trading get extra cash, but they have to spend time spamming or posting and waiting for buyers in outposts and things like that to compensate a little bit. They are paid for the communication effort.
This is where you are completely wrong. Hardcore farmers DO make more money than others. They farm stuff that is on the exemption list and can easily make 20K a day. These are the farmers that SHOULD be nerfed - they make more cash than a Casual Farmer who is farming trolls.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MithranArkanere
If you play normally, it doesn't affect you.
If you farm solo or in reduced parties, you have nothing to complain about, since that is not supported, like running or rushing missions.

Is it really that hard to understand?
Playing normally =/= not farming. Farming Trolls was for the Casual player, in other words, the 'normal' players. The Loot Scaling just kicked the casual player in the nuts, decreasing income and increasing prices of stuff. Only the people that want/expect nothing in this game are truly satisfied by the LS, because others can't get anything in this situation, either.


Again, the Loot Scaling does not bear any advantages to ANYONE. Prices didn't go down because of it, and people don't get richer because of it.

Iuris

Iuris

Forge Runner

Join Date: Nov 2006

Crazy ducks from the Forest

W/

07 Apr 2008 at 17:56 - 1263
Nonsense.

Who IS affected by loot scaling? One who plays solo - only farmers.

Who is NOT affected by loot scaling? One who plays in a group all the time - one doing quests and missions.

Before loot scaling, in order to enter the economy, you HAD to solo farm. YOu had no choice - all prices were HIGH. You did NOT earn enough money playing the game normally. It may have been a bit easier to get the money for 15k armor - but it was HARDER to get the money for the RUNES.

I still play the same: full party, questing and missioning. My earnings allow me to purchase 15k armor during the course of a player's campaign. With the runes. It used to be I coudn't even afford a superior vigor rune, because they cost too much. The only thing I could do to earn one was to FARM.

Stop pretending that loot scaling is against the casual player. It isn't. The fixed prices, which are the only thing that got relatively more expensive due to less money in circulation are negligible compared to the price of items that got much cheaper due to the market's general lowering of prices.

ElinoraNeSangre

ElinoraNeSangre

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Mar 2006

Near Seattle, WA

Talionis De Cineris [EXUR]

N/Me

07 Apr 2008 at 17:57 - 1264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fay Vert
Crikey, can the pro-LS continent come up with any argument other than "the other side is ignorant" or some other insult?

Have they really lost the debate that badly?

Seems so, but then, when the facts are against you, and you are flat wrong, I guess insulting, trolling and general flame abuse is all you have left.
Coming from the "I stopped giving a darn about it a year ago" camp, here's my thoughts:

The anti-LS argument seems to consist of "it makes us sad pandas and we don't want to be sad pandas". Both sides have about the same level of fact.

Some facts (I'm sure not all):
-Agreed, LS did not change prices that much for players
-We don't have much data on how it affected hardcore farmers and gold resellers
-LS did not affect anything of actual value (really, it only has to do with piles of gold drops and crappy items - golds, greens, rare crafting materials, lockpicks, lots of stuff is exempt from LS)
-The RTM trading policy will not *solve* the gold seller problem
-In GW, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer; those who hae been around longer and gathered lots from before nerfs have a clear advantage over those that haven't. LS or no, that's probably not going to change.
-The rich don't want the poor to have a chance to be rich because that might displace the e-peen.
-GW on average rewards farming a lot, and rewards casual playing little; LS helps close the gap.
-A person CAN make enough money just playing the game to get what they *need* (1k max armor and collector's weapons).

Why do people think that comparing who is happier (LS or no LS) has anything to do with how it should be? Players will always be happier if they can rake in the bucks. That has more to do with base human greed than it does LS. People will also be happier if you make all skills cost 5 energy, all armor 1k with cheap materials, and every creature drops 500 gold when you kill it. But that doesn't mean it's a good idea.

As I've said, I couldn't care less at this point. I think leaving it alone is the right thing to do, but on the other hand, if they removed it, maybe these threads would go away. Now THAT would make me happier.

Destro Maniak

Jungle Guide

Join Date: Aug 2006

A/

07 Apr 2008 at 18:45 - 1265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nude Nira
Thats a bit extreme...Can you imagine how angry people would be when they waited 15 minutes to start a group in some high-end area, and try to enter and have a message say "Sorry X supports/does not support LS". And if people couldn't trade with each other, that would be absoulte chaos. I'm sure you would see "WTS X Price=X, LS PLAYERS ONLY!"

Why do I always end up on the top of a new page... xD
Maybe you werent in the game at those days the American And European Servers was seperate. There werent any chaos. And Ill be happy not to see people who like lootscaling

Destro Maniak

Jungle Guide

Join Date: Aug 2006

A/

07 Apr 2008 at 18:51 - 1266
BTW Just To ADD:
LS didnt made the people get equal.
And usually people dont want to be equal.
This is why capitalism is prefered than communism

MithranArkanere

MithranArkanere

Underworld Spelunker

Join Date: Nov 2006

wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigo

Heraldos de la Llama Oscura [HLO]

E/

07 Apr 2008 at 19:18 - 1267
The only argument here is that is was added for a reason, and that reason is still valid, and, like it or not as long as the game continues like it is now, with areas designed for parties of fixed members, it will always be valid.

The ones that want extra cash can still get it. And they should add the Xunlai Market to make so easier, but without LS only those that farm and sell to merchants get more cash. And the game was not designed to be like that.

Asking to rmove LS is like asking for all the things Anet will never add to GW1.

Just wait and get GW2. There will be more areas fit to solo play. In GW1 there are only a few of them.

Shadow Kurd

Shadow Kurd

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: May 2006

Netherlands

Scouts of Tyria

P/

07 Apr 2008 at 19:40 - 1268
Chocolate muffins are better

Nude Nira

Nude Nira

Lion's Arch Merchant

Join Date: Jan 2008

inside a tanning bed

It's Raining Fame Hallelujah 【傘回傘】

Me/

07 Apr 2008 at 19:46 - 1269
Quote:
Maybe you werent in the game at those days the American And European Servers was seperate. There werent any chaos. And Ill be happy not to see people who like lootscaling
I was, and that not really the same thing. That guy said there wouldn't be a seperation of the pro-LS and anti-LS.

Creeping Carl

Frost Gate Guardian

Join Date: May 2007

07 Apr 2008 at 19:50 - 1270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sjeng
Oh, and I suppose this is an excellent point you made then?:
I made many posts before that one. And I wasnt the only one who made logical rational points. But you and the anti-LS crowd chose not to listen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sjeng
*slaps forehead* Hey look, I can do that too

Hi ANET. Just wanted to let you know that LS sucks (but you already knew that) and that players calling for it's removal have a right to do so. The anti-farming code was a much better solution. LS is just plain unfair for actual players. There are better ways to discourage bots, without discourageing actual players as you do so often. I hope that you'll do a better job in GW2 from the start, so threads like these can belong to the past. Thanks.

@Carl: I deeply resent your insult. FYI: Calling people with a different view than yours ignorant is pretty ignorant.
Have a right to do so? This is the extreme sense of entitlement that I've mocked before.

And you have it backwards, LS makes a lot more balanced for the average player and narrows the wealth gap between the non farmer and the hardcore farmer. But you'll never understand it and hence there's no point in explaining it any further to you and others anymore.

You guys can cry all you want about LS but it will never get removed. Now I'm just going to post my approval about LS so ANET will apply it into GW2 as well.

Angelic Upstart

Angelic Upstart

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: Mar 2006

South Coast UK

[SBS] [RETIRED]

W/E

07 Apr 2008 at 19:54 - 1271
Quote:
Originally Posted by MithranArkanere
.

In GW1 there are only a few of them.

That statement is categorically wrong, please enlighten yourself and check out the farming thread in Campfire.

MithranArkanere

MithranArkanere

Underworld Spelunker

Join Date: Nov 2006

wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigo

Heraldos de la Llama Oscura [HLO]

E/

07 Apr 2008 at 20:00 - 1272
I said 'to fit solo play', not 'where you can solo play'. I meant places where you enter there Solo only, like Fronis, the Wintersday missions or Tihark Orchard.
I meant 'solo by design', not 'places that can be soloed with a certain build'.

And you will not find much places that can be fully Vanquished solo.
And, of course, there are absolutely not many areas that can be fully vanquished solo by any profession from any campaign.

Angelic Upstart

Angelic Upstart

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: Mar 2006

South Coast UK

[SBS] [RETIRED]

W/E

07 Apr 2008 at 20:03 - 1273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Creeping Carl
You guys can cry all you want about LS but it will never get removed. Now I'm just going to post my approval about LS so ANET will apply it into GW2 as well.
Answer me this, did you ever play GW prior to lootscaling, yes or no.?

Because your logic is flawed beyond belief, in case you havent seen it, the 70% who want it removed are not crying as you put it, but merely stating thier opinion based on thier experience of GW before LS.
Knowing how much everyone one would benefit from it, in terms of not struggling to raise money.

Angelic Upstart

Angelic Upstart

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: Mar 2006

South Coast UK

[SBS] [RETIRED]

W/E

07 Apr 2008 at 20:04 - 1274
Quote:
Originally Posted by MithranArkanere
I said 'to fit solo play', not 'where you can solo play'. I meant places where you enter there Solo only, like Fronis, the Wintersday missions or Tihark Orchard.
I meant 'solo by design', not 'places that can be soloed with a certain build'.

And you will not find much places that can be fully Vanquished solo.
I didnt say there were,

Nude Nira

Nude Nira

Lion's Arch Merchant

Join Date: Jan 2008

inside a tanning bed

It's Raining Fame Hallelujah 【傘回傘】

Me/

07 Apr 2008 at 20:06 - 1275
Quote:
Now I'm just going to post my approval about LS so ANET will apply it into GW2 as well.
So, basically, you're saying your opinion, and those that want to keep LS is the only one that matters? I hope Anet makes GW2 nothing like you want it to be.

Quote:
@Carl: I deeply resent your insult. FYI: Calling people with a different view than yours ignorant is pretty ignorant.
Ignorance=bliss?

MithranArkanere

MithranArkanere

Underworld Spelunker

Join Date: Nov 2006

wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigo

Heraldos de la Llama Oscura [HLO]

E/

07 Apr 2008 at 20:11 - 1276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nude Nira
So, basically, you're saying your opinion, and those that want to keep LS is the only one that matters? I hope Anet makes GW2 nothing like you want it to be.



Ignorance=bliss?
It's not about player opinions. It's about game design. Remember? Just like with 7 heroes.

Game design.

Fay Vert

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Apr 2006

R/

07 Apr 2008 at 20:32 - 1277
Quote:
Originally Posted by MithranArkanere
It's not about player opinions. It's about game design. Remember? Just like with 7 heroes.

Game design.
Not the same.

Show us threads that are thousands of posts long with 70% voting in favor for 7 heroes.

Creeping Carl

Frost Gate Guardian

Join Date: May 2007

07 Apr 2008 at 20:34 - 1278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angelic Upstart
Answer me this, did you ever play GW prior to lootscaling, yes or no.?

Because your logic is flawed beyond belief, in case you havent seen it, the 70% who want it removed are not crying as you put it, but merely stating thier opinion based on thier experience of GW before LS.
Knowing how much everyone one would benefit from it, in terms of not struggling to raise money.
Yes, I've played way before LS. My first exposure to GW was in the betas.

Ok. Maybe not ALL are crying about it. Sorry if you were not. But plenty are. But even though you're the majority (at least on the forums) it still doesnt mean you're right or know what's right for the game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nude Nira
So, basically, you're saying your opinion, and those that want to keep LS is the only one that matters? I hope Anet makes GW2 nothing like you want it to be.



Ignorance=bliss?
Nope. My opinion isnt the only one that matters. I'm just adding my teeny tiny voice despite the roar of the anti-LS mob. I wanted ANET to see that not everyone is unaware (since the word ignorant offends you so much) of what removing LS would do.

And obviously ignorance is not bliss since you anti-LS people are obviously not in bliss.

Savio

Savio

Teenager with attitude

Join Date: Jul 2005

Fifteen Over Fifty [Rare]

07 Apr 2008 at 20:47 - 1279
Quote:
Originally Posted by reetkever
Before the Loot Scaling, there wasn't anybody that didn't farm. It was still needed to farm for 1,5K Droks armour in most cases
No.

Quote:
In order to become wealthy, one must farm.
Lion's Arch says hi.

Quote:
Again, the Loot Scaling does not bear any advantages to ANYONE. Prices didn't go down because of it, and people don't get richer because of it.
In exchange for loot scaling, people got hard mode. Or more accurately, loot scaling was implemented because of hard mode.

As far as inflation goes, prices didn't steadily drop since the beginning of Guild Wars. Factions and its changes was the first time that prices went down dramatically, and it wasn't a constant drop since then.

At any rate, inflation is less of an issue than why solo farmers should get more money. Maybe I'm biased, but giving solo farmers more money isn't the same as giving everyone more money.

Fay Vert

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Apr 2006

R/

07 Apr 2008 at 20:47 - 1280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Creeping Carl
And obviously ignorance is not bliss since you anti-LS people are obviously not in bliss.
You just can't do it can you?

You can't hold up a side of a debate without resorting to insults, why is this? Do you have a problem?