I'm not sure what you're talking about. If I wanted to buy a +40 jillion sword of epic wanking for WoW, I could go to any number of sites, and pay cash for that. I could do it *right now*. I could buy Diablo 2 items *right now*.
Right, and that's entirely irrelevant to my point. It's akin saying that *right now* I can buy various illegal drugs so it wouldn't be a big deal if the US government made them legal. While the ability to purchase such things is factually accurate, it has very little bearing on the importance of a large and powerful body making an about face on a major policy and even going so far as to facilitate the activity that policy forbade.
My point is that whether you agree or disagree with Blizzard's decision, the decision itself is extremely important.
I doesn't matter that this sort of thing was going on underground before, or that Blizzard isn't doing the selling themselves. Their policy has now shifted from "only cosmetic items may be sold" to "all items may be sold, whether they be cosmetic or have actual gameplay value". The fact that this is official is extremely significant.
This has nothing to do with whether this change is good or bad, but everything to do with it being an important break from Blizzard's previous philosophy/policy.
It's not a trivial change. Previously you could only buy purely cosmetic benefits for Blizzard games (unless you were involved in seedy craiglist-style transactions). The shift in policy from only allowing the sale of cosmetic effects to allowing the sale of actual in-game benefits is significant, even if Blizzard isn't going to be doing the selling. Whether you think it's wonderful or terrible, it's a notable change in game dynamics.
Except it's not clear why you can't have the best of both worlds. Being perpetually connected and being able to download games with just a CD-Key are not mutually dependent.
If you specifically mean propaganda created by people in high places, then you're probably correct. However, don't underestimate the power of an echo chamber. A sufficient number of ignorant individuals can create and propagate absolute insanity to millions at a rate which makes the greatest advertising executives and spinsters envious.
Keep in mind as well that the situational awareness and correct reactions required to survive or really accomplish anything on a PvP realm are valuable skills to bring into a PvE context. They alone don't make a good raider, but they are the hardest skills to teach.
At the same time, not all PvE realm players are there because they don't have the mentality to deal with challenges. Some people simply don't enjoy having their play schedule impeded or interrupted at random by other players.
Unless xkcd is being edited into "In Popular Culture" wikipedia sections where it doesn't belong, I see no reason why I shouldn't ridicule someone for getting their pants in a twist over it.
I don't have any problems with people disliking stuff. It's when they draw attention to it like they're the center of the universe and no one else is allowed to enjoy life that I take issue. If it isn't directly or indirectly causing harm, forcing your umbridge on other people is by my reckoning a greater issue than the original "offense".
I think my analogy of someone else eating broccoli/discussing how they like broccoli fits better. You're not being forced to digest xkcd simply because someone suggests you might like it.
Now if people are constantly forwarding comics to you/hotlinking comic in forums you read, that's more analogous to broccoli showing up in your food (which, incidentally, has recently happened to me) and worthy of ire.
I hate broccoli. You know what I do when someone who loves broccoli starts fawning over some dish they recently ate which had broccoli in it? Nothing really, I just enjoy the conversation and talk about something I like in response. I don't even have to mention I don't like broccoli.
It's not like you need to burst a vein every time you see XKCD mentioned somewhere. If you do you can't really call it dislike anymore.
Although maybe I'm doing it wrong. The next time I'm in a restaurant and I see someone at another table with broccoli, I'm going to turn beat red and throw a hissy fit about how horrible broccoli is and how terrible it is that I have to see the stuff in public because of those damned broccoli lovers who think it's some miracle cancer curing vegetable or something. Yeah, that "Don't sweat the small stuff" crap won't be for me anymore. I'm going to make a big deal out of absolutely nothing.
That's kind of like saying you can paint the Mona Lisa by just dabbing the right colors on the canvas. If you want to make something good and avoid making potentially damaging mistakes there's an awful lot of work involved.
Another important point is that the knowledge for changing oil or fixing a pipe doesn't change unless you buy a new car or completely overhaul your plumbing. Every time you build a new computer you have to get up to speed on all the latest developments, find reviews for many individual components, check system comparisons, monitor prices etc. Unless you habitually track all of that in your spare time or plan to just throw a bunch of parts together and hope it makes sense, it's a fairly long and involved process.
Consider Sony's simultaneous lawsuits against Lik-Sang over their PSP sales. Sony didn't sue them everywhere because their lawyers were bored, but because it was economically impossible for Lik-Sang to respond to that. Consider how many human trafficking rings begin with poor families in foreign countries being leveraged against economically, forcing them to send their daughters to "work". You're utterly naive if you think economics can't be used to apply force to a person, institution, or system.
Hell, it was practically the plot of Batman Begins.
You can get slaves for sale without using force. it depends on what constitutes force or fraud as defined by the government in charge of the free market, as opposed to a universal absolute.
It's entirely feasible, and in fact common, for governments to overlook economic force. For example, the RIAA lawsuits. In many cases the defendants can not afford to defend themselves. What is one government's fraud is another's acceptable business practice.
I think you're confusing "free market" and freedom. A country that espouses freedom can't have slaves for sale on the market, can't allow contracts with unconscionable terms etc. A free market doesn't care either way, its only concern is what people have to sell, and what people will pay for that product. If people want to buy slaves, and people have slaves for sale, there will be slaves on the market. In fact, there are slaves on the black market even now, though they are sold for purposes completely separate from cotton picking.
The moment you add any regulation, such as courts, into the system the "free" part becomes heavily qualified, and what you really have is a regulated market.
It's there, it just doesn't get as much attention because the government isn't actively attempting to squelch it.
For example, would we really have cared about potential corruption in the Iranian election for more than a day if it wasn't for the fact that brutal methods were employed to silence dissenters?
While it makes logical sense for EA to make these changes, I think it would probably have helped the situation greatly if they'd done some basic PR about why the changes were necessary.
I think the crucial difference there is that in real-world sports extra money only affords you better players. It's not like an underfunded baseball team has to play with a wiffle bat, while a grossly overfunded team gets to use a bazooka to pitch.
You're attempting to refute, but if you look at your debate logically his counter-point successfully parries your refutation.
Him: Access to downloadable ROMs reduces the potential of a game on the virtual marketplace by reducing the number of potential buyers. You: Access to downloadable ROMs makes these games popular, thereby increasing the number of potential buyers. Him: Nintendo can make those same games popular without downloadable ROMs. Therefore, any popularity gain from downloadable ROMs is effectively nil, and the net loss in potential buyers remains.
If you can get a group by doing it in your current zone, then I'd agree that it's fairly intuitive and obvious.
The point I was making was that if you have to constantly shift between shards and canvass for a group it stops being intuitive or obvious, and it definitely is no longer a trivial effort.
Let's assume that you're right, that there are plenty of quests to be had if you retread old areas. I can't say because I don't play Aion, and I'm not the GP.
What is there, if anything, to tell players that this is how they should play? What indication is there to let them know that there might be some quests available for them back in that village they haven't seen in 10 levels?
If the player is supposed to just figure this out on their own, I posit that Aion wasn't designed well (at least if it intended to attract WoW's audience). Even if Aion gives some indication, the game might benefit from some system by which the player can know for sure there are quests for them to complete somewhere. That way players don't have to be the kind that can pick up every last secret and item from a game like GTA or Zelda from memory without looking at an FAQ.
I think the idea of retreading zones has merit, but only if its properly supported.
Actually, the GP seems very aware of your points. He himself notes that even if an individual could get a Carrier on their own, they wouldn't live for long despite its power, let alone rule the universe.
The key difference here is that anyone can feel like a hero in WoW. In EvE, as you said yourself, in order to be a hero you have to "take risks most players won't". That may be part of the appeal and thrill of EvE, but at the same time it reinforces the GP's point.
There are a few fundamental problems with your idea.
First and foremost, real world demand for resources such as banks, grocery stores and the like is generated based on where people live and work, and the routes in between. In real life, the busy places are those which sit near or on a nexus of these routes and locations. Because only so many people can be fit into a single area, the distribution is largely even, and where it's not competing business will naturally split things up.
In order for the same to be true in most MMOs there would have to be radical changes to very nature of how people travel and live. As it stands, in WoW players bind themselves to a particular Inn and this becomes their home. There is effectively only one inn per faction per neutral city, so all players of a given faction are filtering through the same home. Thus, it doesn't matter how many alternative bank or other resources you spawn, as long as all players enter the city through the same home it doesn't change which resource is closest to home. This resource will always be the busiest no matter how bad it gets.
In order to avoid this you'll have to spawn additional Inns, but this presents its own problems. Players will filter on their own to new Inns, but this requires they're aware of them and willing to put up with relearning where the local resources are positioned. Moreover, the population can quickly expand again, requiring a new inn and players to once again move and relearn their bearings. This continual displacement is neither fun nor productive.
Another issue are the unique locations that can't be duplicated without stretching disbelief. A memorial for an important lore character, the citadel containing the leader of the city, an important dungeon or lore location, all of these things can not be duplicated. Thus, you have to provide a method for players to instantly transport themselves to these vital locations in the city or face the natural inclination of players to plant roots nearest to these important places. The game can keep spawning new inns and resources to its heart's content, but players will avoid the outermost edges like the plague if it increases their travel time these pivotal points.
It's not an impossible problem to solve, and an MMO implementing something along the lines of your suggestion could be interesting, but it isn't a complete solution as it stands.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure what you're talking about. If I wanted to buy a +40 jillion sword of epic wanking for WoW, I could go to any number of sites, and pay cash for that. I could do it *right now*. I could buy Diablo 2 items *right now*.
Right, and that's entirely irrelevant to my point. It's akin saying that *right now* I can buy various illegal drugs so it wouldn't be a big deal if the US government made them legal. While the ability to purchase such things is factually accurate, it has very little bearing on the importance of a large and powerful body making an about face on a major policy and even going so far as to facilitate the activity that policy forbade.
My point is that whether you agree or disagree with Blizzard's decision, the decision itself is extremely important.
I doesn't matter that this sort of thing was going on underground before, or that Blizzard isn't doing the selling themselves. Their policy has now shifted from "only cosmetic items may be sold" to "all items may be sold, whether they be cosmetic or have actual gameplay value". The fact that this is official is extremely significant.
This has nothing to do with whether this change is good or bad, but everything to do with it being an important break from Blizzard's previous philosophy/policy.
It's not a trivial change. Previously you could only buy purely cosmetic benefits for Blizzard games (unless you were involved in seedy craiglist-style transactions). The shift in policy from only allowing the sale of cosmetic effects to allowing the sale of actual in-game benefits is significant, even if Blizzard isn't going to be doing the selling. Whether you think it's wonderful or terrible, it's a notable change in game dynamics.
Except it's not clear why you can't have the best of both worlds. Being perpetually connected and being able to download games with just a CD-Key are not mutually dependent.
This is hilariously old school. A lot of very common surnames have origins in occupations (SEE: Smith).
If you specifically mean propaganda created by people in high places, then you're probably correct. However, don't underestimate the power of an echo chamber. A sufficient number of ignorant individuals can create and propagate absolute insanity to millions at a rate which makes the greatest advertising executives and spinsters envious.
Postcount++
Ban incoming in 3... 2... 1...
Keep in mind as well that the situational awareness and correct reactions required to survive or really accomplish anything on a PvP realm are valuable skills to bring into a PvE context. They alone don't make a good raider, but they are the hardest skills to teach.
At the same time, not all PvE realm players are there because they don't have the mentality to deal with challenges. Some people simply don't enjoy having their play schedule impeded or interrupted at random by other players.
You insensitive clod!
http://idle.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/07/06/169222
I'll have you know I suffered intense emotional distress when I saw the mention of broccoli.
Unless xkcd is being edited into "In Popular Culture" wikipedia sections where it doesn't belong, I see no reason why I shouldn't ridicule someone for getting their pants in a twist over it.
I don't have any problems with people disliking stuff. It's when they draw attention to it like they're the center of the universe and no one else is allowed to enjoy life that I take issue. If it isn't directly or indirectly causing harm, forcing your umbridge on other people is by my reckoning a greater issue than the original "offense".
I think my analogy of someone else eating broccoli/discussing how they like broccoli fits better. You're not being forced to digest xkcd simply because someone suggests you might like it.
Now if people are constantly forwarding comics to you/hotlinking comic in forums you read, that's more analogous to broccoli showing up in your food (which, incidentally, has recently happened to me) and worthy of ire.
I hate broccoli. You know what I do when someone who loves broccoli starts fawning over some dish they recently ate which had broccoli in it? Nothing really, I just enjoy the conversation and talk about something I like in response. I don't even have to mention I don't like broccoli.
It's not like you need to burst a vein every time you see XKCD mentioned somewhere. If you do you can't really call it dislike anymore.
Although maybe I'm doing it wrong. The next time I'm in a restaurant and I see someone at another table with broccoli, I'm going to turn beat red and throw a hissy fit about how horrible broccoli is and how terrible it is that I have to see the stuff in public because of those damned broccoli lovers who think it's some miracle cancer curing vegetable or something. Yeah, that "Don't sweat the small stuff" crap won't be for me anymore. I'm going to make a big deal out of absolutely nothing.
Starting with your comment. How am I doing?
That's kind of like saying you can paint the Mona Lisa by just dabbing the right colors on the canvas. If you want to make something good and avoid making potentially damaging mistakes there's an awful lot of work involved.
Another important point is that the knowledge for changing oil or fixing a pipe doesn't change unless you buy a new car or completely overhaul your plumbing. Every time you build a new computer you have to get up to speed on all the latest developments, find reviews for many individual components, check system comparisons, monitor prices etc. Unless you habitually track all of that in your spare time or plan to just throw a bunch of parts together and hope it makes sense, it's a fairly long and involved process.
Consider Sony's simultaneous lawsuits against Lik-Sang over their PSP sales. Sony didn't sue them everywhere because their lawyers were bored, but because it was economically impossible for Lik-Sang to respond to that. Consider how many human trafficking rings begin with poor families in foreign countries being leveraged against economically, forcing them to send their daughters to "work". You're utterly naive if you think economics can't be used to apply force to a person, institution, or system.
Hell, it was practically the plot of Batman Begins.
You can get slaves for sale without using force. it depends on what constitutes force or fraud as defined by the government in charge of the free market, as opposed to a universal absolute.
It's entirely feasible, and in fact common, for governments to overlook economic force. For example, the RIAA lawsuits. In many cases the defendants can not afford to defend themselves. What is one government's fraud is another's acceptable business practice.
I think you're confusing "free market" and freedom. A country that espouses freedom can't have slaves for sale on the market, can't allow contracts with unconscionable terms etc. A free market doesn't care either way, its only concern is what people have to sell, and what people will pay for that product. If people want to buy slaves, and people have slaves for sale, there will be slaves on the market. In fact, there are slaves on the black market even now, though they are sold for purposes completely separate from cotton picking.
The moment you add any regulation, such as courts, into the system the "free" part becomes heavily qualified, and what you really have is a regulated market.
It's there, it just doesn't get as much attention because the government isn't actively attempting to squelch it.
For example, would we really have cared about potential corruption in the Iranian election for more than a day if it wasn't for the fact that brutal methods were employed to silence dissenters?
While it makes logical sense for EA to make these changes, I think it would probably have helped the situation greatly if they'd done some basic PR about why the changes were necessary.
I think the crucial difference there is that in real-world sports extra money only affords you better players. It's not like an underfunded baseball team has to play with a wiffle bat, while a grossly overfunded team gets to use a bazooka to pitch.
You're attempting to refute, but if you look at your debate logically his counter-point successfully parries your refutation.
Him: Access to downloadable ROMs reduces the potential of a game on the virtual marketplace by reducing the number of potential buyers.
You: Access to downloadable ROMs makes these games popular, thereby increasing the number of potential buyers.
Him: Nintendo can make those same games popular without downloadable ROMs. Therefore, any popularity gain from downloadable ROMs is effectively nil, and the net loss in potential buyers remains.
I don't believe he misread anything.
If you can get a group by doing it in your current zone, then I'd agree that it's fairly intuitive and obvious.
The point I was making was that if you have to constantly shift between shards and canvass for a group it stops being intuitive or obvious, and it definitely is no longer a trivial effort.
Let's assume that you're right, that there are plenty of quests to be had if you retread old areas. I can't say because I don't play Aion, and I'm not the GP.
What is there, if anything, to tell players that this is how they should play? What indication is there to let them know that there might be some quests available for them back in that village they haven't seen in 10 levels?
If the player is supposed to just figure this out on their own, I posit that Aion wasn't designed well (at least if it intended to attract WoW's audience). Even if Aion gives some indication, the game might benefit from some system by which the player can know for sure there are quests for them to complete somewhere. That way players don't have to be the kind that can pick up every last secret and item from a game like GTA or Zelda from memory without looking at an FAQ.
I think the idea of retreading zones has merit, but only if its properly supported.
Actually, the GP seems very aware of your points. He himself notes that even if an individual could get a Carrier on their own, they wouldn't live for long despite its power, let alone rule the universe.
The key difference here is that anyone can feel like a hero in WoW. In EvE, as you said yourself, in order to be a hero you have to "take risks most players won't". That may be part of the appeal and thrill of EvE, but at the same time it reinforces the GP's point.
There are a few fundamental problems with your idea.
First and foremost, real world demand for resources such as banks, grocery stores and the like is generated based on where people live and work, and the routes in between. In real life, the busy places are those which sit near or on a nexus of these routes and locations. Because only so many people can be fit into a single area, the distribution is largely even, and where it's not competing business will naturally split things up.
In order for the same to be true in most MMOs there would have to be radical changes to very nature of how people travel and live. As it stands, in WoW players bind themselves to a particular Inn and this becomes their home. There is effectively only one inn per faction per neutral city, so all players of a given faction are filtering through the same home. Thus, it doesn't matter how many alternative bank or other resources you spawn, as long as all players enter the city through the same home it doesn't change which resource is closest to home. This resource will always be the busiest no matter how bad it gets.
In order to avoid this you'll have to spawn additional Inns, but this presents its own problems. Players will filter on their own to new Inns, but this requires they're aware of them and willing to put up with relearning where the local resources are positioned. Moreover, the population can quickly expand again, requiring a new inn and players to once again move and relearn their bearings. This continual displacement is neither fun nor productive.
Another issue are the unique locations that can't be duplicated without stretching disbelief. A memorial for an important lore character, the citadel containing the leader of the city, an important dungeon or lore location, all of these things can not be duplicated. Thus, you have to provide a method for players to instantly transport themselves to these vital locations in the city or face the natural inclination of players to plant roots nearest to these important places. The game can keep spawning new inns and resources to its heart's content, but players will avoid the outermost edges like the plague if it increases their travel time these pivotal points.
It's not an impossible problem to solve, and an MMO implementing something along the lines of your suggestion could be interesting, but it isn't a complete solution as it stands.