Thursday November 13, 2008 - update notes

The thing is we, GW players, make up numbers. We have absolutely no idea what the real numbers really are, we conjecture and rationally theorise, but in the end the "common theory" is just a possibility (one among others) and we can't really say it's the reality.

I already said before that Regina, Linsey or someone who know the real numbers should explain clearly the reasoning behind this decision, it does not seem right to simply say "we didn't do it so as to not screw the economy" (it seems like something you read on Guru all the time, thus doubtful). And given the length of the update notes (GG Linsey), I think this update deserves that.

/agree on the protector/guardians getting one NM or HM book. But I also agree with Shasgaliel, it's the door open to more QQ and "unfairness". Anet has at one point to stop pushing the line where players want it to be.

Less work? Are you talking about PvE skills? If so, then that's totally another discussion...

I too fail to understand how new players need "less work" for their protector and guardian titles.
Although, I did hear rumors of Leah Stone actually moving faster than a sloth.

"Logically shown" is a very subjective term. The problem here is that we cannot easily prove their reasoning to be wrong since we do not know all the premises. If they elaborated a bit more on "why it would be bad for the economy".

We base our reasoning on our observations only when it will take a few min for them to write a query which will provide them with all the price changes/fluctuation every time something giving money was added to the game. For us it is just guessing.

This stupid rare example seems to be common even on guru. Take all the mission runners from example. Take all the mission helpers. There are also people who were doing missions for fun not for the title. To have books filled you do not need masters/bonuses etc. So title grinders should be awarded and those who did the missions for fun not?

There is another perfect way. Remove those books from the game. No books no problem?

Other issues were answered perfectly already

How can logic be subjective?

There is more than one "logic" and there is no universal one. Logic of ones arguments depends on what is seemed as logical by the other. What is logical for me might be not logical for you. This can happen even if we agree which logic to use. So it is all subjective and naming something logical does not make it different or more true cause at the same time other can name it illogical - that is why I was referring to subjectivity. Someone studying philosophy would be able to explain it in a better way than me.

(A=because people do NOT understand logic) AND (B=logic is used as an excuse to justify your point of view)

(I've been using in my research something called "subjective logic" but you can also look at modal logic, etc.)

The only logical thing here would be that we have all the numbers of the GW economy, and 1) this is not going to happen (because Anet does not have the resources and even if they had, they wouldn't want to publish this); 2) given the inherent dynamic nature of an economy, you need to think it terms of evolution at a given point in time and theorise future evolutions.

Anyway, this discussion has been much longer than the update notes, and we're getting to the point where WoW will be mentioned (Guru's equivalent to Godwin's Law) .

100k faction! give it to them if they want, although I don't think its necessary, just to stop all this QQing.

ps: Question: Can anyone confirm, found out you do not need Master reward to fill the book. true of false?

Look at the notes below any of the books in GW wiki. Myself I did consulate docks recently and I did not bother with masters. I got entry in the book.

Way ahead of you PP, way ahead.
http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...php?t=10337560

I've done a few Tyria missions for the "Young Heroes of Tyria" book - didn't do the mission bonus for any of them, but still got the book entry...

He was implying that because the change was not detrimental it was "ok" - that's why I asked whether there would be no cause for complaints if all further updates were bug fixes only because they would not be "detrimental" either. Somehow I doubt most people would be happy with that.

More proof that the posts of critics are not being read properly.

What did I get for free? I can't remember the last time I ever got something for free, other than there being changes to how titles were arranged, etc.

A complete lie. Please quote where I have said such a thing.

You've just proved my point! Most of us who have been criticising the update have said we'd accept just the XP and faction/whatever - the money could be taken out for anyone who wanted a back-dated book!

Why?

No, don't use silly examples - this is a game, not real-life.

I'm not sure how you can understand why people are criticising the lack of back-dated rewards if you keep ignoring suggestions they make.....

No, the problem was they gave something that would be far more interesting to new/lazy players (and yes, I say lazy if you had the game for years and never finished it) than ones who had played the campaigns through several times in both NM and HM.

woot!!!!

thanks for all the answers

can i have more faction? i did all but one without master lol

Or, to put it another way, ANet gave more options to players still enthusiastic about playing the game, and not ones who just wanted to log in for the cheap thrill of adding a new title to their HoM.

Yes it is a game, so maybe you shouldn't act like it is a real life problem. Can someone explain why if you already have titles for which the books would be used you need compensation now? It is my opinion that it is all simple greed that motivates most of the complaints, nothing about fairness.

Nice try, but if people were still enthusiastic why didn't they complete the campaigns by now? Probably because they weren't enthusiastic about playing the game, or at least those campaigns. The addition of the new books was a bribe to try to get people to play again who weren't, not to reward people who had played or were already playing through.

How is complaining about something in a game acting like it is a real life problem?

Because I'd like to get the titles higher without so much grind?

How is it greedy to want to max a title without grind for doing something that you have already completed? I might as well say that it is selfish and mean-spirited to refuse a reward to someone who has already played through the campaigns, even if they offer to lose the gold reward.

Last time i checked, getting Legendary Guardian doesn't automatically max your Kurzick/Luxon title.

And as i said earlier in this thread (and a different one), this is NOT Fair.
The new players get these rewards for playing normally, in order to reduce the grind.
If we want these rewards, we have to play again - we have to grind, missing the entire point.

To make it fair, we should get the same reward for playing the game normally, it should be retroactive.

We want to be equal.

You seem to be contradicting yourself, in message #571 (also in message #494) you said:

the problem was they gave something that would be far more interesting to new/lazy players (and yes, I say lazy if you had the game for years and never finished it) than ones who had played the campaigns through several times in both NM and HM

Somewhat I doubt that they'd give a "bribe" to certain kind of players by providing a feature that is geared towards other kind of players. I even happen to believe that this has nothing to do with people having done or not done protector's/guardian's. IMHO this update is just an application of EotN principles (e.g., books) to other campaigns (a bit like tweaking part of the code they did for EotN for the 3 campaigns) and spreading more rewards accross the wide range of GW quests, missions, challenges and PvP AB/JQ/FA.

And it seems that the direct effect of that is that there are (a little) more players playing the game, which is IMHO what Anet is aiming at and a net benefit of this update, and why people should stop "shouting" in both directions. Most people here made their points clear already, no need to spread this over dozens of posts again and again.

As you rightfully said, it's just a game, so stop treating this so seriously. (oh and btw I completed the 3 campaigns and extension; haven't finished guardian yet but I'm not rushing as I want to use all the time until GW2, and I don't have much anyway)

P.S.: don't try again the "we want to voice you" (I will repeat one last time that I'm in favor of books being retroactively granted, but rewards would have to be changed; also don't ask me to help explain yourself to others, it's not my job as Earth said), and accept that you have the same right as others to voice your opinion, which is another way to say that your criticisms can also be criticised (or at least, the way you phrase them).

That just covers the money argument. All other remain valid. So I do not see it as proving yet.

This thread is full of arguments for that.

However my favorite so far is that it will remove incentive for veterans to play a game.

Please look at it this way. We already have the titles and some of us do not want to do several of the missions ever again. Books are incentive to do them again. Can you think of any other incentive? I think that is the reason they did not make them retroactive. I agree that it is not the best way to make people happy, it is even far from it but it is still an incentive to play the game. Just for that I would be in favor it. I would like rewards myself. But I think the motivating players to play is more important.

I will use whatever examples I wish to. Just because it is a game it does not mean we cannot use a real life or any other examples as a illustration of a mechanism/logic. I guess the issue is that in real life things you want, do not happen often so it is hard to find a common counter example.

The point is as that understanding others concern does not mean agreeing with them. I do not agree on suggestions because in my opinion they are not justified enough and lead to more problems than they solve. There is a difference between ignoring suggestions and not accepting them.


I think that is it the best part of this update and not a problem: to make "lazy" and new and old people play. The best thing which may happen to MMO is an increase of active people playing. Some previously deserted outpost are now full. Pugs are again possible in several places.

Those who played should have an incentive to play again. That is why I think giving those free additional luxon/kurzick points was not really good.....

I agree. They haven't reduced the grind for faction at all. They introduced new and more ways to gain it, but doing every quest and every mission (NM and HM) won't get you close to maxing the title. Vanquishing all areas will help a bit, but you're still far from there. That means you're going to have to REDO missions/VQ's over and over again, which is grind imho.

Totally true, let's hope that it's only the first (baby) step towards removing the grind. On the other hand, someone could simply say that you can now quite easily get your HoM statues.

Logic and game economy is srs business.

How is it contradictory? A "bribe" is interesting to people who have not yet finished a campaign, but less interesting to people who have done it several times.

One of the most significant EoTN principles is that if you do something you can buy the page back in your book - that was not followed through with this update.

I paid money for this game, so I can complain if I wish. I'm not going to uninstall GW because of it. I may choose to delay purchase of GW2 though.

Did I say you had to?

Sure, if the criticisms are valid and not childish comments such as "you're just like people on benefit".

My point was that you and others had not read my and others' comments in full. If you failed to pick up on the biggest point, that of money, then I was right in that you failed to read the comments properly. I didn't say your other arguments were invalidated.

Sorry, you don't want "veterans" to play anymore? So we've paid up our money to ANet, now we can go away until they want us to give them more money again?

Then why didn't they just come out and say that? It sounds to me like you're fishing for reasons because you don't like the idea that ANet blundered into this without thinking it through.

Except that this is a game so they can do whatever they like that the game allows.

Oh please, this isn't an incentive to play the missions for the nth time!

I agree with most of what you say, but I do take offense with the term lazy just because having the game and not finishing it. I have had the game for over 3 years and have completed just Prophecies and Factions. When I bought the games I had no set time to finish each chapter. My time in game has been divided among missions and quests, farming special drops, AB and helping others with the game. I am in no rush to complete anything and have no real desire for titles unless they come about playing through the game. I play for fun, not for any virtual stature.

No. It's proof that you don't practice what you preach. Worse, you try to dismiss all opposing opinions with "you didn't read what I said". We do indeed read, we simply disagree and don't value your opinions as highly as you do.

Such a short memory. You got a load of free faction and an increased faction cap just for logging in. Or are you going to tell me you never did the Factions missions? I also suggest you visit the update notes page, to see all the other nice stuff that came in the update.

The comment wasn't aimed specifically at you, but regardless: You don't have to say it explicitly, in quotable text. You didn't lose anything, quite the opposite... yet here you are, complaining. Therefore, you are one of the people who I categorise as greedy and ungrateful.

Free stuff is cool - but if I don't get any, I don't come on here to complain bitterly about it, or try to dream up arguments to justify why I should have moar free stuffs plox.

Because my original topic from which this discussion started was not aimed at your suggestion, which did not include money reward, but about the concept of retroactivity.


This part was referring to your solution. I was not clear enough there. I meant that giving those rewards will remove the incentive for veterans to play the game. Anyway it should be obvious from the latter part of my post.


I do not know why they did not. In my opinion they put some grind in the game with this books which is against the community wishes so they kept low profile. But it is just a guess.


Some mission outposts are cluttered with people. I guess for some it is a sufficient incentive. Might be that the rewards are still too low. Anyway giving stuff for free will not make people play the missions while increasing rewards for them will. Not all of them of course. Anyway I see it working and I am happy. I just hope it will last long enough.

With all the arguing in this thread, can we at least agree on the fact that its a step in the right direction and ArenaNet is trying? Every update this game has ever had has been complained about, but I am thankful to the small group of people who still work on GW1.

Fudging a feature into EotN, after it went live, because people complained they'd made progress before acquiring a book, was a "significant EoTN principle"?

You're really talking out of your , now.

Amen.

You think?? The only official statements out of Anet have been shaky at best. I will tell you right now the economy argument is a joke on so many levels, and the reason they won't bring it up again it because they know it is too. The argument that they can't technically do it is also a joke because we know it has been done in EOTN. It has even got to the point where Linsey admitted it is unfair, and yet people are still sitting here trying to claim it is fair.

Also I am tired of people saying "well it brought a lot of players back to play the missions therefore it is good". How do you define what is good? The update is still unfair regardless of what else it did. The ENTIRE POINT of the update was to reduce grind, yet it INCREASES grind for players who have already done the missions. Seriously how the hell can people not see this clear point?

New players need less work to get the new rewards, not the titles. Think of it this way: if I have done all the missions twice previously, it means I have to do the missions 3 times to get the same reward as somebody who has done it once.

People who are driven by goals should be rewarded, not punished, when they reach those goals. In this update the people who were driven to do the missions previously are punished by having to do them again for the same rewards. I don't think anybody is asking for more than being able to turn in 1-2 books depending on title, because that is what we know Anet is capable of doing.

As for removing books from the game, please do. Remove titles while they are at it...of course that would never fly.

Completely 100% disagree, but this isn't the place for a logic debate.

Are you kidding me? This update is the epitome of unfairness. Whatever you may think about the update as a whole and how it did or didn't make the game better is irrelevent to the point that the update is completely unfair. Calling people who realize this fact "greedy" is ridiculous.

Finally someone with reason!

I thought the entire point was to reduce their grind based game...

You simply aren't going to motivate many players to go through the entire game all over again. As I said before, if they gave me a million gold I wouldn't do them over...because to me it is GRIND based. I enjoy NO grind, not MORE grind.

Also using your logic, what if we turn in these new books only for Anet to release a new update in the future saying we get MORE gold for doing the missions ALL OVER AGAIN (and those who did them previously for these books don't count)?? Is that considered incentive too? I seriously think thats a joke...its just incentive to keep recycling the same content over and over. In the eyes of many that is called grind, something that should be minimized.

Somebody else with reason! People are just fishing for reasons for this update to be considered fair...and yet even Anet reps are acknowledging it isn't fair and giving no good reasons why it should be considered so. Lets drive this point home one more time....whatever you think about this update being good for the game is irrelevent to the point that it is blatantly unfair and increases grind where it was meant to reduce it.

Yet another person calling people who dislike the update "greedy". LoL.

Its not incentive for me or anybody I know personally. Its great that some people are playing the game again, but it completely goes against what the update was meant to do, and it just feeds in to the fact that Anet possibly WANTS their games to have more grind.

I want a bookcase in my HoM. The books in themselves don't do much for me. I don't see any reason to fill them except as a vanity item. Putting them on display in the HoM makes a lot of sense to me.

People are just fishing for reasons for this update to be considered unfair. A-Net could have done more, but they didn't. That's their prerogative. I don't see it as unfair, I don't see any sky-is-falling injustice, or people being indiscriminately punished. I see an update with a ton of good stuff.

Yes, because that's exactly what I think of them. So what?

Did you have a point to make, or did you just quote me to pad out your post?

The thing is... people are so convinced they are "right" that they will ignore any arguement, no matter how logical, that flies against them. You are all stubborn... and well, lets just say nobody here is going to be given a judgeship any time soon.

Learn to listen to and acknowledge other people's points. If you aren't going to, then why bother posting? If you aren't going to be convinced, and they aren't going to be convinced, why waste time arguing about it? Neither side is even listening to the other anyway.

No, I say people don't read what we write when they trot out the economy concern after we've said several times we'd be happy to give up the cash.

Sorry, you disagree that removing the financial reward for handing in a back-dated book would resolve the concern on the economy?

Couldn't care less about the faction cap. As for the faction itself, I lost all the Kurzick faction I got because I spent it on my Luxon title track (where I'm much more ahead). I had also EARNT that faction by doing those very things you would receive it for completing/taking part in.

Ah, so if I don't lose something I can't complain. Well that's a load of rubbish.

Ungrateful. I'm ungrateful because I can get something by repeating what I have done more than half a dozen times and took me hours each time? What are you smoking - I want some!

Err, no, you said (I'm not quoting you, but it's essentially what you said) "I am reading your comments" and then you said "retroactivity is not possible because it would affect the economy". Either you failed to read my comments or you failed to take them on board. There is no point going on about the economy if a solution has already been proposed.

Why are you guessing? Regina passed one comment which was "economy problem". That has been refuted. So officially ANet has no reason not to bring in our changes. If they want myself and others to accept the changes as they stand, I think that we would like to see an official announcement that addresses the points we've made. With all due respect I'm not going to be convinced because of comments you or other players make. ANet can do their own work.

Yes. But just because some are happy does not mean the rest/the minority should be satisfied.

Again, it wouldn't be free because we already earnt the rewards by playing these campaigns. Also, whilst it might not induce us to play these campaigns again at least with our existing characters that have already done those missions, it certainly would make us feel valued and convince us that ANet seeks to RETAIN players and not just cast them aside once they've handed over heap-big-money for all their products. Because at the moment my view of this company is that once you've paid up, that's it.

At least the pay-per-month games have to keep things interesting because otherwise they'll lose their cashflow. ANet just want you to trust them that they won't forget you. Why should we trust them after this debacle?

It may not be, as it's not because it was done in the context of an expansion that you can "retroactively" apply the new methods to previous content. There's been new source code with EotN and this update is probably not just a matter of applying a straightforward "getRetroactivePoints" procedure from EotN to a "propheciesDB" database from Prophecies. I'm sure this update required quite a lot of fiddling in the source code from the 3 campaigns to work (yep, if they had more resources working on GW1 they could do better, yet they don't, but they still produced this update).

More exactly, she said (strangely I can't find her quote on the wiki discussion page but it's still in my post #387 in this thread), like someone did here, that it'd be unfair to give reward equivalent to doing missions one time to those that did all missions several times, or in other words you open the doors to more QQing. I'll put again here her post:

The problem is that we have not tracked how many turn ins people have done or what they turned in for, so we can't even remotely guess how much you should be credited. Without that information I just don't think it's a good idea to randomly give out points.

This kind of thing is the nature of all online games and it's not an easy thing to compensate for. Keep in mind that it's a two way street, though. Players that have been playing a game for a long time get advantages as well as disadvantages by playing content that has been changed. For instance, after this update the HFFF won't be the easy thing that it has been for a long time. Many players have taken advantage of it for ez-mode farming but newer players won't have that benefit and will have to actually play through content to farm points. Does that mean that we should be making guesses at how much faction they could have earned along with the rest of the people trying to advance the title and give it to them? I think not.

I know that it can be a bummer to have changes made to the game that make activities that you had previously done more rewarding for people that do them after you. You are left sitting, thinking "man I already did that like a 100 times and NOW you decide to give me a cookie for it?" which is why we are making an effort to have as many of the changes we are making be retroactive. However some things just can't be reliably done so rather than potentially create more problems, a call has to be made. At this point, well over a year after that change was made, I don't think that it is a good idea to try to guess at who turned in faction, what they turned in for and how much. So we are not going to be crediting players for possible turn ins they made over a year ago. I'm sorry this isn't the answer you are looking for, but I do think that it is the right one. =/ - Image:User Linsey Murdock sig.jpgLinsey talk 17:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It's fairly simple: each person that speaks expresses his own point of view (plus sometimes those of friends, guildies), but most of the time it's one's own good that we're talking about. But not always.

On the first point, a better presentation of the update is "propose less boring ways to grind" (but it doesn't change the fact that grinding is a player's choice, no one and surely not Anet forces you to do so). On the second, I don't see how it increases grind at all, because we have the same situation plus more rewards.

Like I said above, what are you talking about? PvE skills? How can it be easier for anyone since we all have access to the same game features (missions and rewards)? I don't understand at all your example, please rephrase.

Title-grinders are driven by goals...

You seem to consider it "punishment" by the simple fact of "not having a retroactive reward", but this is a (logical) fallacy. Punishing would imply doing something directly to those that did the missions, like removing their title, or indirectly by forcing them to redo the mission, which is not the case (no one forces you to redo missions).

Again, /agreed on this one, but with adjusted rewards for everything (while the "it'll impact heavily the economy" excuse seems wrong, no one in its mind can reasonably say that it won't have an effect on the economy). Unless Anet produces clear evidence that it'd impact heavily the economy.

And this answer is the epitome of "blowing things up beyond reasonable proportions". I mean, no disrespect to all those disappointed by this update, but it seems that posts from this side of the argument get an excessive and very emotional reaction. I know that some of you keep on repeating that you give logical explanations, but most of the time you don't (see my request for a better example above, it may well be that you have a point but you haven't phrased it clearly, or I'm very bad at understanding it!).

Similarly to your "who defines what is good" argument above, you can't claim to define what is fair because it affects you or others, or you agree to the points of other people here. What if we realised that people who've done LG before and want retroactive rewards were only a very small minority? Would it be fair to force this issue onto the whole population? (I mean, we've seen posts from people who said they don't mind)

And you think it may happen in one go, after one update?

Fairness is an evolving and multi-faceted concept anyway. There's not a universal definition that will stand against time and the diversity of the GW population. As Linsey said, a line has to be drawn and while it's never, ever perfect, it's probably as fair as Anet can ever do. (and I guess fairness is also a matter of perspective, this argument we're having would be completely ridiculed if Anet were to provide evidence that it'd have a major impact on the economy)

Without being from Anet, you have no way to know what the update was meant to do exactly, you just try to infer that from bits and pieces we grab here and there, including comments from people here. I'm for example convinced that it was to drive people back to playing, which it did, but I don't really care because it seems that overall people are reacting in a positive way to the update.

I see it as an update with some good stuff as well, but that completely ignores the points I made. The unfairness doesn't need to be fished out, its right in front of your face.

I made several points and you ignored every one of them.

Its called a forum. Whether or not people want to listen to the facts is not my problem.

Sorry, no. I've made myself perfectly clear. So now you are reduced to putting words into my mouth and trying to infer extra meaning that isn't there.

Again, putting words into my mouth.

You didn't lose anything AND you gained stuff.
Arguing for even more free stuff is simply greedy.
Arguing for more free stuff minus the money is just a little less greedy.

Maybe...but if it is completely impossible they should just come out and say it is completely impossible. Instead we get "it would be bad for the economy" which tells me it is possible but they didn't want to do it.

I cut out the important parts and bolded them.

1st bold- I see no advantages for long time players doing missions since the missions have not changed.

2nd bold- Here she admit that it is unfair.

3rd bold- If they are making an effort to make changes retroactive why not this one? Its either it is impossible to do or they really believe it affects the economy. Which one is it?

4th bold- They don't have to guess...they simply use the titles for 1-2 turn ins (as almost everybody agrees would be fair).

Grinding is not a choice for players who have already done the missions and want the reward! Meaning if they have already done the missions they now have to grind to get the reward as opposed to others who only have to go through once. See what I mean?

I don't agree with titles...BUT if you are going to have them in the game at all for goal driven players, then why piss off those goal driven players by saying their previous accomplishments mean less than what others are doing now?

They didn't punish them directly, they punished them indirectly if they want the reward. See my previous paragraph.

I'm not emotional. As I said I don't really care one way or the other. I'm just pointing out some obvious facts that people are ignoring. Yes the update in general seems to be good, but there are bad parts to it and this is one of them. (And what example do you want?)

If it was a very small minority then that would be an even more reason to implement it as the economy argument would go even farther out the window (although it is bad even if the majority is huge) and the whole population would not be affected whatsoever.

No I don't think they can reduce all grind in one update...but that was the major point of this update as has been stated by them. So why do something that takes away from the major point of the update? Doesn't it seem counterproductive?

Which I can guarantee they will never do so it is irrelevent.

Actually I was pretty darn sure they said this would be a grind reducing update, as hfff and titles was obviously the main focus of the update and talking points of the update before it was ever released.

Excuse me? Greedy?
We played the game naturally just like the new players, and yet they get more rewards than us, we have to grind for the rewards they get by playing naturally.
We don't want more than what we earned, we want the same reward they get, since we did the exact same thing.
This isn't being greedy, we want to be equal.

If Anet would give a good reason for not giving us retroactive rewards, then the situation could be different.
And yet, we know they could reward us retroactively, we know they didn't, and we still didn't get a good reason for this.

We keep stating the facts that show why this update is unfair, and how it could be fair, nobody managed to prove us wrong or even get close to it.
We ask if Anet got a good reason for screwing us, we didn't get a good reason.
Economy? simply don't give us the gold reward, give us the faction.
Cannot track our achievements? proven wrong, we can see it on our map, on our titles and on our Hall of Monuments, they might not be able to track how many times we completed these missions, but they CAN track we did them at least once on each mode, we should get retroactive rewards at least for that.

Our point stands - this update is unfair, Anet could make it fair but chose not to for no good reason, we have the right to complain.

FLAAAAAAAAAAAAAMEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE WAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously what happened to this thread? It's worse than a political debate in here. You've got idiots on both sides trying to convince each other that either the update is amazing or it sucks and should be removed or whatever, but at the end of the day you're all just idiots arguing on the internet.

Log off the forums, and maybe go play the game. Just go play the game. While you do this, keep in mind that it is a GAME and it's supposed to be fun.

The odd thing, though, is that even if you hate the new update and you rail against it day and night on the forums, you're still playing the game, which I suppose makes you a hypocrite. If you disagree with the game so much that you feel the need to get into a flame war on GWG, then maybe you need to retire and find a new game.

The other side of the coin is just as retarded. If you love the new update, why do you care if someone else doesn't? Anet isn't going to take the books away from us just because some jackoff decided he doesn't like it and felt the need to bitch about it. You're wasting valuable time arguing with children, time you could spend actually enjoying the new update. So you, too, should shut the hell up.

Regardless of how "unfair" (OMG a VIDEO GAME is being UNFAIR THIS IS CLEARLY THE END OF TEH WORLDZ) you think the update is, it is what it is and there's no going back. So deal with it. Adapt, change with the times. If you find yourself unable to reconcile yourself with the game as it exists today, then quit.

As for me, I'm going to go steamroll my 4th copy of Shiro's Return HM with my guild. I, for one, enjoy the revitalization, especially the incentive to get back to Cantha. I've Vanquished, Protected, Cartographered and Guardianed there, and I was beginning to miss it. Helping guildmates through with missions they need to do to nail their titles as well as see all the scenery again (yes I agree the story falls apart, but the art is impressive) is a very welcome update. I'm going to go enjoy it.

I'm Amazed that people are still arguing about this it has been almost a week. Please let it die. We will have to agree to disagree. This is soooooo not worth carrying it on for a week past the update? Is it? It seems right now it is more along the lines of difference of opinions now, and THAT will never change. Save Yourselves and pixels. :-D



Carpe Diem

I only see one idiot, that sees some things that nobody EVER said. Nobody said that books should be removed, because they help new players.

Quitter boy, quitter boy. If life is too hard, and if you don't adapt, quit it. Don't try to change it.

People said same thing about Ursan. And what happened to Ursan carebears? Well, you don't see anyone using UB nowadays.

That. And we don't want gold, maybe except for Tyria. We do want, however, FACTION. Because 8k Sunspear faction is still a lot, my Ranger would be r5 or r6 already.