Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 3456789 LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 176
  1. #121
    Community Member Charononus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    5,345

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gremmlynn View Post
    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?
    Because it's free advertising for turbine, and potentially it may loose them sales. If that was to happen where they loose sales they'd probably start some new p2w feature. Alternatively I could be for this if the option to turn it off was sold in the store for 3k some odd tp per toon similar to a tome.

  2. #122
    Community Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Charononus View Post
    Because it's free advertising for turbine, and potentially it may loose them sales. If that was to happen where they loose sales they'd probably start some new p2w feature. Alternatively I could be for this if the option to turn it off was sold in the store for 3k some odd tp per toon similar to a tome.
    That may be a reason why we won't see the implimentation of a feature allowing the disabling of cosmetic effects on the client side, but that's not a reason that anyone in this thread has offered for their decision to vote NO. In fact it is the ONLY REASON why anyone could possibly object to such a feature yet in all these pages of discussion the fact that noone from the NO camp has put that forward, speaks volumes regarding their motivations.
    Last edited by RightToRemainStupid; 06-11-2013 at 07:20 PM.

  3. #123
    Community Member Charononus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    5,345

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RightToRemainStupid View Post
    That may be a reason why we won't see the implimentation of a feature allowing the disabling of cosmetic effects on the client side, but that's not a reason that anyone in this thread has offered for their decision to vote NO.
    It's the reason I've been saying all freaking thread.

  4. #124
    2016 DDO Players Council Qhualor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    10,797

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Charononus View Post
    Because it's free advertising for turbine, and potentially it may loose them sales. If that was to happen where they loose sales they'd probably start some new p2w feature. Alternatively I could be for this if the option to turn it off was sold in the store for 3k some odd tp per toon similar to a tome.
    pretty sure that people who are able to turn off seeing and hearing other players pets would already know that pets can be bought from the store. people would disable them because they have no interest in pets and/or they don't want to see or hear them, even if they do buy pets but don't use them in quests. I cant see how disabling pets would be a loss to Turbine.

  5. #125
    Community Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Charononus View Post
    It's the reason I've been saying all freaking thread.
    You've based your NO on the assertion that implimenting such a feature would impact on cosmetic sales, which may lead to the introduction of more P2W items in the DDO store. Why do you think there would there be a decline in cosmetic sales if the option to disable them on the client side were implimented?

  6. #126

    Default Disable Pets

    Yes. It's doesn't matter to me whether you can see my pets or not. My enjoyment of them is that I get to see them. If you disable the ability to see my pets, I will still bring them out and buy any new ones that I think are cute.

  7. #127
    Community Member Charononus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    5,345

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RightToRemainStupid View Post
    You've based your NO on the assertion that implimenting such a feature would impact on cosmetic sales, which may lead to the introduction of more P2W items in the DDO store. Why do you think there would there be a decline in cosmetic sales if the option to disable them on the client side were implimented?
    My theory is that there are probably some people that buy them to show them off to others. This may or may not be true but unless they sell the turn off option, I think that higher than a 0% chance of someone not buying because of this option would lead to an unacceptable risk for the increase of p2w.

  8. #128
    Community Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Charononus View Post
    My theory is that there are probably some people that buy them to show them off to others. This may or may not be true but unless they sell the turn off option, I think that higher than a 0% chance of someone not buying because of this option would lead to an unacceptable risk for the increase of p2w.
    Not if this thread is anything to go by, I have yet to see a single person indicate they would be less likely to purchase pets if they were unable to force others to see and hear them. I also think you might be jumping to conclusions with the idea that a decrease in cosmetics sales must lead to an increase in P2W. I'm sure Turbine can come up with some creative, non-invasive ways to increase revenue that have little or no impact on game balance.

  9. #129
    Community Member Charononus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    5,345

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RightToRemainStupid View Post
    Not if this thread is anything to go by, I have yet to see a single person indicate they would be less likely to purchase pets if they were unable to force others to see and hear them. I also think you might be jumping to conclusions with the idea that a decrease in cosmetics sales must lead to an increase in P2W. I'm sure Turbine can come up with some creative, non-invasive ways to increase revenue that have little or no impact on game balance.
    Evidence to me this past year says they have their quota of money to make and if they can't get it from packs and cosmetics they'll release timers, shard exchanges, and other forms of p2w. I think if cosmetic money goes down at all they'll probably start selling esos shards or something similar. I have zero faith in the current team at turbine to think of a new revenue option that doesn't effect game balance.

  10. #130
    Community Member Vint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    3,598

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Charononus View Post
    My theory is that there are probably some people that buy them to show them off to others. This may or may not be true but unless they sell the turn off option, I think that higher than a 0% chance of someone not buying because of this option would lead to an unacceptable risk for the increase of p2w.
    I do not remember the exacts, but remember a while back that if you had a neg level, a pop up would come on the screen reminding you that you could visit your local DDO store and have that fixed for a cost? How many people loved that advertising?

    I fall in the same boat. If I am in combat, I would like to be able to see the screen to see if there are any mobs left to kill. It becomes harder when I have a small zoo in the way so that I have to backspace to see if there is anything else in the room.

    Small hindrance it is, but still takes away from my gaming experience. It is not that big of a deal for me to make a stink about, but I do find it inconsiderate of people who have them out in EE content or raids. But I am a jerk to most people so I guess it evens out.
    Flabby-Flaber-Flabo--Heifer-Oinks

    LEGION

  11. #131
    Community Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Charononus View Post
    Evidence to me this past year says they have their quota of money to make and if they can't get it from packs and cosmetics they'll release timers, shard exchanges, and other forms of p2w. I think if cosmetic money goes down at all they'll probably start selling esos shards or something similar. I have zero faith in the current team at turbine to think of a new revenue option that doesn't effect game balance.
    If your faith in revenue raising initiatives is so low, to the point of requiring 0% chance of increased P2W for your continued support, then we can probably agree that we're going to reach that point sooner rather than later anyway. The question then becomes whether it's worth prolonging your disappointment for a short respite before an inevitable drop in quality and standards. At which point we have to ask ourselves whether it's worth continuing to play the game at all; do you want to die on your feet, or live on your knees?
    Last edited by RightToRemainStupid; 06-12-2013 at 07:17 AM. Reason: rephrased for clairty

  12. #132
    The Hatchery
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Germnay
    Posts
    131

    Default

    Yes
    Beste
    Titus

    TitusOvid | Bruder | Upload

  13. #133
    Community Member Ryiah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    2,866

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tarlanon View Post
    The petition isn't about getting rid of pets in game, it's about getting turbine to allow those of us who don't have powerhouse rigs turn them off and thus save some precious CPU cycles.
    I have 15+ years of experience dealing with hardware and software. Every once in a while I run into someone like you who makes a statement about how removing something would save precious cycles. These people invariably fail to realize that, while their statement is technically true, the difference will be negligible. In order to have the difference be even one frame per second, you would have to have practically nothing visible on screen as practically every other object on screen is making a bigger difference on processing demands than the pets are.
    Ryiah | Raeyah | Reikara
    Toy Soldiers

  14. #134
    Community Member Charononus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    5,345

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RightToRemainStupid View Post
    If your faith in revenue raising initiatives is so low, to the point of requiring 0% chance of increased P2W for your continued support, then we can probably agree that we're going to reach that point sooner rather than later anyway. The question then becomes whether it's worth prolonging the disappointment for a short respite in the inevitable drop in quality and standards. At which point we have to ask ourselves whether it's worth continuing to play the game at all; do you want to die on your feet, or live on your knees?
    I would rather the game die without more p2w and have happy memories. That said, I really do not at all understand people that can are distracted by the pets. I'm serious, maybe my brain is odd but in pugs I've been trying to see how it could confuse or distract me and I just do not 100% see it. As far as the sounds go, I can see that, I actually have everything game sound muted and only the volume of voice chat turned up so that I can understand that better.

  15. #135
    Community Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gremmlynn View Post
    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?
    If this is an actual poll without agenda no one needs to defend their vote.

  16. #136
    Community Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryiah View Post
    I have 15+ years of experience dealing with hardware and software. Every once in a while I run into someone like you who makes a statement about how removing something would save precious cycles. These people invariably fail to realize that, while their statement is technically true, the difference will be negligible. In order to have the difference be even one frame per second, you would have to have practically nothing visible on screen as practically every other object on screen is making a bigger difference on processing demands than the pets are.
    How about those people who find the sounds annoying or see them as a visual distraction during quests? Or even those people who on principle find it disturbing that others can force them to be beholden to what can only be described as the childish, attention seeking impulses of others? What possible motivation could someone trying to rationalise denying others the freedom of choice have? That's is the real question that needs to be answered here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Charononus View Post
    I would rather the game die without more p2w and have happy memories. That said, I really do not at all understand people that can are distracted by the pets. I'm serious, maybe my brain is odd but in pugs I've been trying to see how it could confuse or distract me and I just do not 100% see it. As far as the sounds go, I can see that, I actually have everything game sound muted and only the volume of voice chat turned up so that I can understand that better.
    I find it amazing how you and others are still actively trying to rationalise and explain why people shouldn't have the right to be able to make that decision for themselves. What difference does it make to you whether you know someone can see and hear your pets or not? Why is the concept of people having the freedom to choose for themselves not good enough for you?

    It's frightening to think that according to this poll, half the adults(almost guaranteed that everyone who voted here is over 21) are really still just children wearing adults bodies who think it's okay to stand in public spaces shouting 'LOOK AT ME!, LOOK AT ME!, MOMMY LOOK AT ME!!!' and shouldn't be allowed to be ignored. Grown men and women who can drink, drive, vote and own firearms. I find that very disturbing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pandir View Post
    If this is an actual poll without agenda no one needs to defend their vote.
    Why are you trying to find a way to anonymously impose your will on others without having to rationalise your thought processes? What have you got to hide? This is beginning to seem more and more like some kind of embarassing fetish that people want force everyone to participate in, but don't want to admit to, almost like some sort of wacky cult.
    Last edited by RightToRemainStupid; 06-12-2013 at 07:15 AM.

  17. #137
    Community Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RightToRemainStupid View Post
    Why are you trying to find a way to anonymously impose your will on others without having to rationalise your thought processes? What have you got to hide? This is beginning to seem more and more like some kind of embarassing fetish that people want force everyone to participate in, but don't want to admit to, almost like some sort of wacky cult.
    Oh i'm actually in favour of options but the demeanor of people asking for it makes me say no.
    If you want a poll you'll have to accept people voting without explaining their motives, the OP might have started as an innocent poll but this thread went to agenda pushing pretty quickly.
    Last edited by Pandir; 06-12-2013 at 06:58 AM.

  18. #138
    Community Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pandir View Post
    Oh i'm actually in favour of options but the demeanor of people asking for it makes me say no.
    If you want a poll you'll have to accept people voting without explaining their motives, the OP might have started as an innocent poll but this thread went to agenda pushing pretty quickly.
    Can you explain what you mean by demeanor? Do you mean that because some people are aggressively demanding freedom of choice, they should be denied because they didn't ask nicely enough? Can you explain which agendas you think are being pushed in this thread and what bearing that has on people being allowed to make choices for themselves based on sound reasoning? Are you saying that there are circumstances under which people should be denied the freedom to choose for themselves? If so, what circumstances would those be and who should decide when they apply?

  19. #139
    Community Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    341

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RightToRemainStupid View Post
    That may be a reason why we won't see the implimentation of a feature allowing the disabling of cosmetic effects on the client side, but that's not a reason that anyone in this thread has offered for their decision to vote NO. In fact it is the ONLY REASON why anyone could possibly object to such a feature yet in all these pages of discussion the fact that noone from the NO camp has put that forward, speaks volumes regarding their motivations.
    Clearly you haven't read the thread. I was the first person who replied, I voted no, and the reason I gave was in fact that it would be bad for Turbine sales.

  20. #140
    Community Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Citzen_Gkar View Post
    Clearly you haven't read the thread. I was the first person who replied, I voted no, and the reason I gave was in fact that it would be bad for Turbine sales.
    The reason you gave for it being bad for sales, is that you think less people would buy them if they were unable to show them off to others. But with the OPTION to disable those effects on the client side, those people would still be able to show them off to those who have opted into wanting to see and hear them, which would be the default setting. Are you suggesting that some people would be put off buying pets if they were unable to force others to see and hear them? If so, what is your basis for this reasoning? I have yet to see anyone voted NO, claim that they would personally be less likely to buy a pet if this option were to be implimented. Would you be less likey to buy a pet if you thought someone else could opt out of seeing and hearing it?

Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 3456789 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