Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456789 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 176
  1. #101
    Community Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Enoach View Post
    Wow, did someone **** in your Wheaties.

    Get to know Fawn before you make a judgment like that, you will find they are far from narcissistic and delusional. Maybe laying off the personal attacks might help your case a bit.
    Only someone who can't deal with the facts does what you are attempting to do right now. If it disappears I can rephrase it. I don't care about being popular and you can never make me go away. Think about that.

  2. #102
    Community Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    819

    Default

    Yes. Absolutely.

    Quote Originally Posted by droid327 View Post
    I dont have a problem with them, personally, but I'll support the option to disable them within your own client.

    Cosmetic pets, that is - Owlbear hirelings, Arti/Druid pets, etc. that arent just cosmetic need to stay visible at all times to everyone.

    I dont buy the argument that people wont buy cosmetic pets if you can disable them. First off, you buy them so you can see them yourself, or show them to friends who want to see them...you dont buy them so random strangers in the marketplace who dont care have to look at your Gelatinous Cube. Anyone who would choose to disable pets is not going to think you're any cooler because you have one, so thats a straw man argument. Second off, theres no way to even know that someone else cant see your pet unless they come out and say it.
    This exactly, well said.

    I also would support the "pets off in quests" option, since I don't really care if I see them in public places, but in quests it can be bothersome. Why should others care if I want to turn off pets anyway?

  3. #103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HAL View Post
    Or...we could ask for options. Player input has influenced content in the past, I see no need for a defeatist attitude. And what makes you think I'm upset (nevermind SO upset)?

    First, I don't understand why you both feel the need to "interpret" the feelings of people who object to something. I never said nor used any language to indicate that I was "upset" or that pets were "like nails on a chalkboard" to me. It does not add to the conversation to try to pin feelings on my words that are not there.
    Allow me to apologize for reading empathetically. It was not my intent. I will attempt to refrain from doing so in future. Your feelings in the matter are, of course, your own.
    The newest computer can merely compound, at speed, the oldest problem in the relations between human beings, and in the end the communicator will be confronted with the old problem, of what to say and how to say it. - Edward R. Murrow (1964)

  4. #104
    The Hatchery Enoach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    4,601

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RightToRemainStupid View Post
    Only someone who can't deal with the facts does what you are attempting to do right now. If it disappears I can rephrase it. I don't care about being popular and you can never make me go away. Think about that.
    I seem to have rubbed you the wrong way. Which actually was not my intension. To that end I apologize
    (No this is not sarcastic or dismissive, felt I needed to say that because you seem to be reading in more than what is there)

    I actually did not attack you or even your opinion I disagreed with them. I am not working to sway anyone either way just putting out my opinion.

    However as one that has known Fawn from the time he started to today I know them as a decent person, whom I don't always agree with but do respect their views and musings. So don't play the internet tough guy with me, I'm too old to fall for that.

  5. #105
    Community Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sebastianosmith View Post
    RTRS,

    You may want to grasp the context before getting all bent out of shape.

    This:

    was in response to this:

    The context being this informal poll and the various opinions expressed therein.
    Are you implying that outside of this context people would vote differently?

    Quote Originally Posted by sebastianosmith View Post
    Your reply:

    makes no sense in that light. Unless it was to create unnecessary drama, which is a least tangentially related to my statement.
    My reply was to highlight the hypocrisy of your cynical response that this informal poll isn't a actual vote on whether we should be force fed other people's pets or not. We have been by default, which is why this thread was created in the first place.


    Quote Originally Posted by sebastianosmith View Post
    How to explain the obvious... hum... Well...

    HAL, and you apparently, want to impose a particular worldview on others. You both would like this imposition to be enforced by a second party, Turbine in this case, upon yet a third party; namely other players. Those other players do not want this imposition, just as some do not want what they consider to be an imposition of the other players. This is a classic example of a stalemate of equivalent privileges. Both sides have valid arguments, but one side has precedent. That would be the one with which Turbine has sided; those that want pets displayed. Since this arrangement currently benefits not only the pro-visible pet crowd but, and more importantly, Turbine, I think the precedent will stand as is. This all ties back to having to interact with people of dissimilar viewpoints which was basically the point I was making.
    I'm afraid you're logic is horribly flawed and you really are clutching at straws. How is it an imposition on other players to give everyone the option of customising their own client, when there are no inherent game mechanics affecting issues in question? What we are discussing is a feature that many games support, it seems to me that the people who want a say in how I choose to customise my client, are the ones seeking to impose their will on my freedom of choice.

    You are basing your entire position on the fact that Turbine introduced these features without consulting the playerbase, considering any initiative to modify those features being an imposition on those who are indifferent or support them. Despite the fact that the proposed modifications have no effect whatsoever on how they continue to experience the game and that they can provide no rational argument supporting their position.

    If that logic were to be upheld, then anyone could take any arbitrary initiative, thereby setting a precedent and effectively become immune to any attempt to modify it, no matter how compelling or rational the argument to support the proposed modification. It seems to me that you are being intentionally obtuse and attempting to obfuscate the basic principle of freedom of choice, supported by rational arguments, being proposed in this discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by sebastianosmith View Post
    As for being a "captive audience" and all that other rubbish: How absurd. There is no requirement to play this game. Turbine makes the rules. If you or anyone else finds that to be unacceptable, go elsewhere. You may consider such arguments trollish, but it is fact. No one is forcing you to be here. No one is making you play. There are quite literally thousands of other pastimes that may be more suitable to your demeanor. And frankly, the arrogance displayed in your arguments of "If you're against me, you must be a troll" and "The game should conform to my wishes over any others" is infantile at best. My pug-dog could mount a better rhetorical defense of his views on receiving more treats.
    If you can't mount a rational argument based on facts, what else am I to assume?
    Last edited by RightToRemainStupid; 06-11-2013 at 12:38 PM.

  6. #106
    Community Member Urjak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Malsheem, Nessus, Baator
    Posts
    763

    Default

    yes, but not a high priority

    especially in raids this would help slower gaming rigs and simply make the battlefield easier to assess.
    Argonessen (mains):
    Myriellah (Stargazer II), Xryn (Pale Master), Ryaleen (Air Savant), Mayeena (Assassin)
    Leader and founder of the ShadowThieves guild

  7. #107
    Community Member Tuffmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Clan Gnashtooth's Prison
    Posts
    126

    Default

    Yes

    And I would like to put all that said no on my squelch list
    that Think I should be forced to look at their stupidity I mean pet..
    Aceita - 22 life Monk Completionist -

  8. #108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RightToRemainStupid View Post
    If you can't mount a rational argument based on facts, what else am I to assume?
    Assume whatever you wish.
    The newest computer can merely compound, at speed, the oldest problem in the relations between human beings, and in the end the communicator will be confronted with the old problem, of what to say and how to say it. - Edward R. Murrow (1964)

  9. #109
    Community Member Postumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    SW Wheloon
    Posts
    6,867

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tuffmann View Post
    Yes

    And I would like to put all that said no on my squelch list
    that Think I should be forced to look at their stupidity I mean pet..

    They way the votes are being cast, looks like you'll need to squelch 50% of the players out there. Hope you enjoy soloing.

  10. #110
    Community Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Enoach View Post
    I seem to have rubbed you the wrong way. Which actually was not my intension. To that end I apologize
    (No this is not sarcastic or dismissive, felt I needed to say that because you seem to be reading in more than what is there)

    I actually did not attack you or even your opinion I disagreed with them. I am not working to sway anyone either way just putting out my opinion.

    However as one that has known Fawn from the time he started to today I know them as a decent person, whom I don't always agree with but do respect their views and musings. So don't play the internet tough guy with me, I'm too old to fall for that.
    You don't need to apologise to me, there is nothing personal here, I am only interested in addressing the facts. The only people playing the attack card are those attempting to defend an irrational position.

    Whether Fawn is a nice person or not is irrelevant, I was simply drawing attention to an observed behavioural pattern. Attempts to save face or withdraw from an indefensible position by invoking moderation via feigned offense, will always be identified as such by me.

    That has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with being an ITG. I fully expect a number of these posts to disappear and I'm 99% certain it will have been your doing. Some people are just incapable of dealing with facts without becoming emotionally invested.
    Last edited by RightToRemainStupid; 06-11-2013 at 01:20 PM.

  11. #111
    Community Member Postumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    SW Wheloon
    Posts
    6,867

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HAL View Post
    Player input has influenced content in the past, I see no need for a defeatist attitude. And what makes you think I'm upset (nevermind SO upset)?
    Which is precisely why we have pets in the first place. I find it very amusing that this bothers anyone as I don't even notice them anymore unless a new one comes out that I haven't seen. For instance the frog. I thought it was a bad idea for a pet, but having seen it, it's actually kind of neat.


    And no Turbine will never allow you to turn off the pet display. They are visual advertisements of what is available at the DDO store. You may as well demand to be able to turn off half-elves or cosmetic armor kits or druid/arti pets. Just accept it and ignore it, you'll be much happier that way. If you are letting pets bother you, you are spending too much time in public instances and not enough time playing.

  12. #112
    Community Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Postumus View Post
    Which is precisely why we have pets in the first place. I find it very amusing that this bothers anyone as I don't even notice them anymore unless a new one comes out that I haven't seen. For instance the frog. I thought it was a bad idea for a pet, but having seen it, it's actually kind of neat.


    And no Turbine will never allow you to turn off the pet display. They are visual advertisements of what is available at the DDO store. You may as well demand to be able to turn off half-elves or cosmetic armor kits or druid/arti pets. Just accept it and ignore it, you'll be much happier that way. If you are letting pets bother you, you are spending too much time in public instances and not enough time playing.
    I'm going to have to draw attention to the inaccuracy of your statement as well, the fallacies are coming in thick and fast today. You are attempting to relate two completely unrelated incidents via cause and effect. We were never given the option of influencing how pets would be implimented. That is completely different from players indicating an interest in having pets introduced into the game.

    As for why it bothers other people, sound arguments can be provided in support, but I have yet to see a credible argument supporting the denial of freedom of choice. Which is why I will continue to highlight the consistently disingenuous, spurious mentality of the NO crowd, in their attempts to defend a selfish, irrational, invasive desire to make other players beholden to immature, attention seeking behavior.

  13. #113
    Founder
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    4,612

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sebastianosmith View Post
    HAL, and you apparently, want to impose a particular worldview on others. You both would like this imposition to be enforced by a second party, Turbine in this case, upon yet a third party; namely other players.
    Lets use an example that is already in-game: please explain to me how my turning off player names affects other players. Me turning off names in my client does not affect anyone else. If they want to be named "Ilovejello" they can be happy with their name choice and I can be happy that I don't have to see it. Seems like a great thing to me.

    This "poll" is about the same thing but with pets: who would like the ability to stop seeing pets ONLY IN THEIR OWN CLIENT. Yet you and many others seem to have a huge problem with that idea. Above you say that I'm trying to "impose" something on people. How does my not seeing pets affect other players any more than my not seeing their name?

  14. #114
    Community Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sebastianosmith View Post
    Assume whatever you wish.
    Then I will assume you have withdrawn from the position you have attempted to take in this thread.

  15. #115
    Community Member Ovrad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kayla93 View Post
    This.
    And because of it - its a NO from me.

    I just prefer Turbine makng money of these things, and armor kits than selling - OMG +4 power tome or sth like that. Because I hate power selling.
    And honestly... I bought like 5-6 kits and 2 pets from DDOStore myself... Theyre just so cute.
    You do realize this thread is about disabling them on the client side ONLY for those that choose to? Turbine would still make money by selling more pets to those that find them 'so cute'. But others, like myself who never cared for them would finally stop trying to smack that damn pseudodragon thinking it's a mephit...

    If you like them, great! Continue the buying. But if the only reason you buy them is to shove it in the face of everyone, you might need to rethink the way you spend your money.
    Last edited by Ovrad; 06-11-2013 at 04:19 PM.

  16. #116
    Community Member Dreppo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    297

    Default

    NO, the way the poll is phrased.

    If you meant just the ability to disable the display of cosmetic pets, then I would probably change my answer to YES (even though I'm undecided if I would actually use that option). But I don't think pets that actually affect the game, such as the arti dog or druid pet, should be disablable. If you make those disablable, you may as well make hirelings disablable, and other player characters in the party too!

  17. #117
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sebastianosmith View Post
    Second, aside from isolated and purely self-involved pursuits; what activity does not have the capability to FORCE EVERYONE to view things they may not wish to see? Whenever other humans are involved in an activity, there exists a likelihood one may witness behaviors, choices or actions considered objectionable to some and acceptable to others. That's simply an implicit possibility of interacting with people.
    Ah, but the point you are missing is that there are people who are giving their opinion that not only does this happen, but that it should be forced to happen. Personally I think the world would be a happier place if we all had the ability to simply filter out those things we find annoying. While that isn't really possible in real life, here it is and some seem to think it's a possibility that should be denied to those who want it. Which begs the question; Why?

    Following this logic the /ignore function and ability to turn off undesired chat channels should also be removed. If you don't like dealing with the attention freaks, just don't play.

    I'm all happy for those people that have silly pets to play with if they like. I'd just be a lot happier if I didn't have to see or hear them.

  18. #118
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Enoach View Post
    Currently each of us have the "power" to display or not display pets.. This current poll of a small minority and in most probability not a good cross section of the DDO player base (I'm leaning towards flawed as far as accuracy) seems to show that this is 50/50. But as another poster pointed out a better way of getting "Good" numbers would be to sit in the marketplace of every server and count how many characters go by with and without pets.
    Following this logic, sweeps week should be used to determine the only shows that will be on for the next the next television season. After all which ever shows the most people watch should be the only shows anyone has an opportunity to watch. So if 60% of the people going by in the marketplace have the "pet channel" on it should be automatically turned on for 100%?

  19. #119
    Community Member Tuffmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Clan Gnashtooth's Prison
    Posts
    126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Postumus View Post
    They way the votes are being cast, looks like you'll need to squelch 50% of the players out there. Hope you enjoy soloing.
    That fine with me, 80% of the player base are easly replaced with a hireling anyways.
    Aceita - 22 life Monk Completionist -

  20. #120
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sebastianosmith View Post
    As for being a "captive audience" and all that other rubbish: How absurd. There is no requirement to play this game. Turbine makes the rules. If you or anyone else finds that to be unacceptable, go elsewhere. You may consider such arguments trollish, but it is fact. No one is forcing you to be here. No one is making you play. There are quite literally thousands of other pastimes that may be more suitable to your demeanor. And frankly, the arrogance displayed in your arguments of "If you're against me, you must be a troll" and "The game should conform to my wishes over any others" is infantile at best. My pug-dog could mount a better rhetorical defense of his views on receiving more treats.
    You, and for that matter all those who are voting no, seem to me to be saying that giving other players a reason not to play is a good thing. While adding options to make their (and only their) game experience more to their liking should be avoided at all costs.

    If I feel having the ability to type /showpet off and never see or hear another, IMO, annoying cosmetic pet would make my game better. How does that make anyone's own play experience worse? Also, why do so many feel it would be a bad thing for me to have the ability to do so?

    This is the thing that perplexes me here. Why are about half the people against my having the ability to have a better play experience without affecting theirs in any conceivable way?

Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456789 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.

Reload