Oh well if it wasn't intended as an insult, then I apologize.  I just thought you were trying to be rude to him.

Valdimere wrote:

Oh well if it wasn't intended as an insult, then I apologize.  I just thought you were trying to be rude to him.

 

He is just being snide in an attempt to strengthen his argument.  No need to apologize to him

Atan@Unrest wrote:

Valdimere wrote:

Insulting someone directly because they don't agree with you is not the way to win your arguments.

 

In all honesty, it wasn't meant as an insult.  I daily deal in digital communication with people that aren't english as first language speakers. My assumption was he didn't understand the conceptual differnces, not that he was ignoring them.

It seemed to me he didn't recognize a difference between time sink and time delay, so I figured since 'time sink' is colloquialism, we weren't on the same page.

On several occasions in this thread I realize now he's using feigned ignorance where I assumed he just didn't understand the concepts.

Like when I wrote the difference is irrelevant? 

Just because I don’t agree with you or have your same dogmatic views on game design does not mean that I am “feigning ignorance” or “lack understanding”.

Andok wrote:

 

Like when I wrote the difference is irrelevant? 

Just because I don’t agree with you or have your same dogmatic views on game design does not mean that I am “feigning ignorance” or “lack understanding”.

You said irrelevant in one breath, and the same in the other.

Atan@Unrest wrote:

You said irrelevant in one breath, and the same in the other.

I did?  Let's see...

Andok wrote:

Atan@Unrest wrote:

Andok wrote:

 

Resorting to snide comments?  Sorry, dude.  Don’t get frustrated when your arguments have no legs – just rethink the issue.

On your other comment on the difference between a time sink and a time delay, the difference is irrelevant.  I’m playing for 30 days either way, so I don’t care what you call it.

No, there is a distinct difference, and my arguement is it is relevant.

I realize you want to trivialize game play and have the two terms mean the same thing. 

I can only assume when you ignore the difference between the two concepts means you lack the understanding of the concepts.  If you do understand the differences then you understand my arguement so you can stop pretending like you do not.  Understanding and not agreeing with me is one thing, feigned ignorance to the concepts being discussed is another.

 

 

 

I wrote that the difference is irrelevant, not that the two terms mean the same thing 

 

"Same" - there it is, right with the word "not".

With four toons on the same account/same server all wanting T8 masters, each can only get one or two RA'd once before the cap is likely raised ... I'm hoping that the market trends downward sharply. Currently even relatively junk M1s are 30-50p each.

I'd also love it if smart loot were truly smart on raids -- I love it when we get the same L80 Ranger master twice in the same run, and the one Ranger present already has it scribed.  =P~~

I still stand by my opinion from pages ago -- I don't think the sky will fall with "time delayed, no effort" RA-given M1s. However, I'd prefer it if periodically during the wait time, the NPC would halt progress until you performed a quest (say 60 mins solo) for them so that there would be a time cost associated with the gain in spell improvement. And if that were implemented, I'd like to see the "per character" restriction removed.

QuestingCrafter wrote:

I still stand by my opinion from pages ago -- I don't think the sky will fall with "time delayed, no effort" RA-given M1s. However, I'd prefer it if periodically during the wait time, the NPC would halt progress until you performed a quest (say 60 mins solo) for them so that there would be a time cost associated with the gain in spell improvement. And if that were implemented, I'd like to see the "per character" restriction removed.

Quests were specifically ruled out for the RA very early on by Kirstie as they are too time consuming to implement. It may be prefered, but its not going to happen.

I suggest thinking about what your second choice would be and posting that.

So I have a question. A Necro friend of mine went afk to grab a beverage in kylong plains near the entrance to Jarsath Wastes. As he is walking back he hears his pet fighting something. and a Master chest drops with Aegeolism in it.

Several months later I made my own templar and I have been soloing in Karnor's Castle in hopes of getting it to drop. I have spent many hours in there and with the huge number of spells available at that level, I have not gotten it.

Did the necromancer put in more effort?

Do I deserve the master more than him? 

I think the answer to both is no.

Masters are a game of luck and all the researchers are doing is eliminating some of the lotto from it. Masters are not required to do anything but they have become a measure of achievement for some people. unfortunately they have become an expectation from some player that those they group/raid with will have them, so SoE is taking steps to let players catch up a little and not be excluded.

I would like some method of questing involved in this but frankly its fine as they are implementing it. not every player plays in the same way and this is a solution that can benefit all players equally without exclusion.

Thank you

Melina@Splitpaw wrote:

So I have a question. A Necro friend of mine went afk to grab a beverage in kylong plains near the entrance to Jarsath Wastes. As he is walking back he hears his pet fighting something. and a Master chest drops with Aegeolism in it.

Several months later I made my own templar and I have been soloing in Karnor's Castle in hopes of getting it to drop. I have spent many hours in there and with the huge number of spells available at that level, I have not gotten it.

Did the necromancer put in more effort?

Do I deserve the master more than him? 

I think the answer to both is no.

Masters are a game of luck and all the researchers are doing is eliminating some of the lotto from it. Masters are not required to do anything but they have become a measure of achievement for some people. unfortunately they have become an expectation from some player that those they group/raid with will have them, so SoE is taking steps to let players catch up a little and not be excluded.

I would like some method of questing involved in this but frankly its fine as they are implementing it. not every player plays in the same way and this is a solution that can benefit all players equally without exclusion.

Thank you

This is exactly how I feel about the whole thing.  It will help the casual gamer as well as the raider.  Everybody could use an extra master once a month.

Melina@Splitpaw wrote:

Masters are a game of luck and all the researchers are doing is eliminating some of the lotto from it. Masters are not required to do anything but they have become a measure of achievement for some people. unfortunately they have become an expectation from some player that those they group/raid with will have them, so SoE is taking steps to let players catch up a little and not be excluded.

I would like some method of questing involved in this but frankly its fine as they are implementing it. not every player plays in the same way and this is a solution that can benefit all players equally without exclusion.

Thank you

Right, but the same thing can effectively be accomplished by the RA working off a master exchange requirement.

If you could turn in any t8 master, or say any t8 templar master for your exchange, does that invalidate the value of the RA you mention?

Providing a means to target your effort in uncovering master abilities isn't being argued against, getting the rewards without investment is.

BTW, we farmed 4 aegolisms, it was fairly easy.  We simply did PoF runs with 5 players fully mastered and a templar missing only this spell.  We repeated the zone and told him not to scribe one until we had got enough for all templars in guild.  Finding the zones / mobs that have a higher degree chance at smart loot, and running them with the same people will yield you your t8 masters with just a few weeks effort.

Doing KC where your subject to 100% random spell drops, is going to take quite a while to get exactly what you want given the shear number of masters your randoming thru.

Welcome to Monopoly with the new "Real Estate Assistant".  What would you like to do?

> use real estate assistant

The Real Estate Assistant asks you which property you would like to have.

> park place

Congratulations!  Park Place has been placed in your queue.  After you pass Go next, Park Place will be given to you by the Banker, free of charge.  What would you like to do?

> roll dice

...

Atan@Unrest wrote:

Melina@Splitpaw wrote:

Masters are a game of luck and all the researchers are doing is eliminating some of the lotto from it. Masters are not required to do anything but they have become a measure of achievement for some people. unfortunately they have become an expectation from some player that those they group/raid with will have them, so SoE is taking steps to let players catch up a little and not be excluded.

I would like some method of questing involved in this but frankly its fine as they are implementing it. not every player plays in the same way and this is a solution that can benefit all players equally without exclusion.

Thank you

Right, but the same thing can effectively be accomplished by the RA working off a master exchange requirement.

If you could turn in any t8 master, or say any t8 templar master for your exchange, does that invalidate the value of the RA you mention?

Providing a means to target your effort in uncovering master abilities isn't being argued against, getting the rewards without investment is.

BTW, we farmed 4 aegolisms, it was fairly easy.  We simply did PoF runs with 5 players fully mastered and a templar missing only this spell.  We repeated the zone and told him not to scribe one until we had got enough for all templars in guild.  Finding the zones / mobs that have a higher degree chance at smart loot, and running them with the same people will yield you your t8 masters with just a few weeks effort.

Doing KC where your subject to 100% random spell drops, is going to take quite a while to get exactly what you want given the shear number of masters your randoming thru.

 

 

Again you are making the assumption that everyone has the same resources that you do. Many people play the game in many ways. 30 plat is nothing to you or me so it might as well be free but for some players it is weeks of work. Try looking at it from someone else's perspective.

Additionally grouping and market dynamics are different from server to server. They are not gonna make an individual cost for each server so unless they can find some method that works for all play styles and all servers, I don't really see them adding a significant cost and instead they are limiting the rate in which these arrive. If they can find a fair and balanced way to implement costs then I am 100% for it. I just dont want the gap between players like us and new players growing wider. we need new blood to be able to have a chance of catching up somewhat or we will soon run out of players to group with as eventually everyone burns out even on the best games.

Melina@Splitpaw wrote:

So I have a question. A Necro friend of mine went afk to grab a beverage in kylong plains near the entrance to Jarsath Wastes. As he is walking back he hears his pet fighting something. and a Master chest drops with Aegeolism in it.

Several months later I made my own templar and I have been soloing in Karnor's Castle in hopes of getting it to drop. I have spent many hours in there and with the huge number of spells available at that level, I have not gotten it.

Did the necromancer put in more effort?

Do I deserve the master more than him? 

I think the answer to both is no.

Masters are a game of luck and all the researchers are doing is eliminating some of the lotto from it. Masters are not required to do anything but they have become a measure of achievement for some people. unfortunately they have become an expectation from some player that those they group/raid with will have them, so SoE is taking steps to let players catch up a little and not be excluded.

I would like some method of questing involved in this but frankly its fine as they are implementing it. not every player plays in the same way and this is a solution that can benefit all players equally without exclusion.

Thank you

I think your a little confused there.

This post is a good argument as to why some form of Research Assistant, master swap OR smart loot system on masters should exist. It is actually a very good argument for any of them.

What it decidedly is NOT, is an argument as to why a cost free system for which to provide players with masters should be added to the game. In fact, it is so far from being that, that the argument you present here can be turned around and used against that idea.

I play a templar, and a fried of mine and myself set the RA to research Aegolism the day the RA came out. I carried on raiding with my guild for the next month, while my friend went on holiday. He came back 4 weeks larter and logged on, we both recieved our Aegolism master the same day.

The bolded part is the part I don't get. Why should all players be included equally when we are talking about end game items? is there an actual reason other than "zomg I want free masterz!!11!one!"

Why should a player that is not activly playing the game at an end game level be given end game upgrades?

Noaani wrote:

Melina@Splitpaw wrote:

So I have a question. A Necro friend of mine went afk to grab a beverage in kylong plains near the entrance to Jarsath Wastes. As he is walking back he hears his pet fighting something. and a Master chest drops with Aegeolism in it.

Several months later I made my own templar and I have been soloing in Karnor's Castle in hopes of getting it to drop. I have spent many hours in there and with the huge number of spells available at that level, I have not gotten it.

Did the necromancer put in more effort?

Do I deserve the master more than him? 

I think the answer to both is no.

Masters are a game of luck and all the researchers are doing is eliminating some of the lotto from it. Masters are not required to do anything but they have become a measure of achievement for some people. unfortunately they have become an expectation from some player that those they group/raid with will have them, so SoE is taking steps to let players catch up a little and not be excluded.

I would like some method of questing involved in this but frankly its fine as they are implementing it. not every player plays in the same way and this is a solution that can benefit all players equally without exclusion.

Thank you

I think your a little confused there.

This post is a good argument as to why some form of Research Assistant, master swap OR smart loot system on masters should exist. It is actually a very good argument for any of them.

What it decidedly is NOT, is an argument as to why a cost free system for which to provide players with masters should be added to the game. In fact, it is so far from being that, that the argument you present here can be turned around and used against that idea.

I play a templar, and a fried of mine and myself set the RA to research Aegolism the day the RA came out. I carried on raiding with my guild for the next month, while my friend went on holiday. He came back 4 weeks larter and logged on, we both recieved our Aegolism master the same day.

The bolded part is the part I don't get. Why should all players be included equally when we are talking about end game items? is there an actual reason other than "zomg I want free masterz!!11!one!"

Why should a player that is not activly playing the game at an end game level be given end game upgrades?

Neither of you earned it. you both carried on doing what you would have done anyhow.

Melina@Splitpaw wrote:

I just dont want the gap between players like us and new players growing wider. we need new blood to be able to have a chance of catching up somewhat or we will soon run out of players to group with as eventually everyone burns out even on the best games.

So, assuming everything stays the same except the RA, how exactly does older players having free masters help new players catch up? Since the mechanism is forced on time and nothing else, wouldn't they be further behind the power curve?