Quote:
|
Originally Posted by agentnull
So, the same thing that happened with the Tengu Mask, then? I thought it was unfair then as well.
|
That Friday, I had work, then had to head to Rutgers for a 7 pm call, for an 8 pm curtain of the show I recently performed in. I missed the entire event for the Tengu Mask. I had 245 Naga Fangs, apparently. Do you see me pissed off about missing it, though, and demanding recompense? No, because I had better things to do (a theatre production, then drinks with the tech crew at a local pub) than sit around in a crowded town and get a mask for a whole bunch of little trinkets.
Quote:
|
Well, they're also armor. Armor is customized to the player who crafts/gets it. Though it sucks, it makes sense.
|
Armor only in the sense that people wear it. The fact that people wear it does not mean it has to be Customized.
And another thing about calling them Armor...they had no AL, going out in it was almost certain death (because surprisingly, the head piece does matter! lol), and generally, starter gear was better than the Pumpkin Crown. Hell, you could wear nothing at all and have the same rough time as if you were wearing the Crown. The Pumpkin Crown and Santa Hat were barely Armor. In fact, I wouldn't even consider them Armor in the first place.
Quote:
|
Candy Canes remove DP. They'd still remove DP if they weren't sellable. That's what I meant when I said they had a use.
|
That's not much of a use, though, because let's consider, for a moment, if the Candy Canes were Customized, or at least Non-transferable. The following scenario:
Player A has 75 Candy Canes. His guildie, Player B, only had 1, and he's used it already.
During any single PvE mission, no character will ever need to use more than 2 Candy Canes. Player A is perfectly fine, but Player B's DP has worked back up to 40%. Let's say they're having a rough time doing Ring of Fire.
Under a Non-transferable system, Player A's 75 Candy Canes are useless to both Player A and Player B. Player A doesn't need a Candy Cane, and Player B needs one, but can't get one from Player A, due to the Non-transferable system.
But under the Transferable system we have for the Candy Canes, Player A's Candy Canes are incredibly useful, and that usefulness is entirely dependent on the fact that Candy Canes are Transferable.
Quote:
|
Is that what A-Net said? If it is, please show me.
|
They follow you around. You can "call" them. You can trade them. You can sell them. You can collect them. ANet hasn't come out and said it, but do you honestly believe the intent wasn't at all Pokemon-esque, especially when all things are considered? Just think about it.
Quote:
|
I thought the Minipets to reward characters who were a year old. Like I've already said, I'll get mine later.
|
And it looks like they're transferable, anyway. A total collect/trade Pokemon type of approach with them.
Quote:
|
People who don't shell out the money to buy the CE don't have a chance to get the new pets without buying them.
|
Whoa, whoa, whoa....what is this.....do I believe what I'm reading? Are you...yes. Yes, you are...
You're saying that the CE Minipet is unfair because people who didn't pre-order/buy/whatever the CE don't have a chance to get the new pets...pets that were released solely for those who had pre-ordered/bought/whatever the CE.
If that really is what you're saying, then ANet themselves just punched a huge hole in your entire argument. The CE Minipets are available to everyone. To those who purchase the CE, the Minipet is there immediately. To those who didn't purchase the CE, they can buy them in-game (or get them for free, if the CEr is a friend).
Either way, those people are still able to buy and are still buying the Minipets, because they can either go with the CE itself, or they can get it from a CEr, in-game. And that is the entire purpose behind making the CE pets transferable between players: so the trade/collection system of the Minipet is not limited.
I think that's the end of your argument, don't you think so? Other people, what do you think?
Quote:
|
I meant Customization literally, as in "Customized for (player name)." I made that pretty clear in one of my earlier posts.
|
Yeah, but as far as I'm concerned, if you're arguing that items should be non-transferable, you're arguing for an Account-wide Customization. There's really no way around that, man. You tell me such and such an item should not be able to be transferred between two different players, I'm going to call a spade a spade and tell you you're advocating Customization...and Customization to an awful, extreme extent, to boot.