288 replies to this topic

[XPhiler]

raspberry jam, on 30 November 2012 - 04:40 PM, said:

Everyone else already understood this, but I'll explain.

I see your point, but it is completely irrelevant. I was playing as well as I could, and I would do the things I did in either case. I do not know how my opponent chose to do the things he did, but unless he based his moves on the exact amount of health he had, with an accuracy of 40 health, which is quite improbable given that a character in WvW have thousands of health, it is reasonable to assume that he would have done the same things as he did in either case as well. That includes consuming any amount of items, applying any amount of conditions, etc. etc., it would have been the same if I had been wearing only exotics. External factors such as castle walls and birds (what?) would not have affected the battle either, not because no such factors were present, but because they would have been present (or not) to the same degree anyway.

Since both our move sequences, and the effect from external factors, can be assumed to have been the same regardless of whether I would be wearing exotics or exotics + ascendeds, the only cases left is that I either won because I was wearing ascendeds, or that I would have won regardless, but with an even smaller margin. However, math seems to imply that the damage margin is larger than 40 health; instead, he would have survived with a couple of hundred health.

Of course, if you let someone else play in my stead (thus making different moves than I did), that person might have lost, or won with more than 40 health. But that is irrelevant because then it would be that person playing, not me.

I won because I was wearing ascended items.

I love who you always try to portray people who dont agree with you as idiots ! keep it up makes me feel okey about not being tactful myself

This statment of yours is completely mind blowing: "but unless he based his moves on the exact amount of health he had, with an accuracy of 40 health, which is quite improbable given that a character in WvW have thousands of health, it is reasonable to assume that he would have done the same things as he did in either case as well." We're talking gw2 here not a generic MMO with specialised skills were you following a specific rotation! If that were the case I would agree with you, everything will boil down to numbers and the biggest one coupled by the biggest luck (which in gw2 also plays part since in part damage done by a weapon is rng based) But this is not so in the least! Based with the same exact oponent (provided you play skill fully) you're very likely to use different skills ! Why? because Gw2 is entirely based  situational combat! Every single factor can decide that I will use one skill before another or instead of another! Not only that the circumstances itself will also play a factor. For example If I am facing a necro and s/he inflicts on my 2 bleeds I could return the favor and transfer them back to them or I could be wise and wait a second or too hoping the inflict more conditions on me and then transfer them back. I will then see what their reaction to that will be and how skill full they are, if they transfer them back to me I kept an extra transfer back which I will use but if they will not then I know they're not skillful enough or have no skills to transfer condition thus next time when they get the two bleeds on me I will feel okey to transfer them without waiting for a larger stack because I can afford to use my spare transfer conditions for that! Thats one example the same could apply to positioning of my oppontent, the type of attacks they use (Do I need stability? Do I need to interrupt a particular powerful attack? etc..) If they try to escape, if they try to get some distance to gain time. I am sorry but threating a combat engagement in gw2 as some sort of fixed rotation with the same variables each and every time where the bigger numbers win is absurd! But I feel you're trying to cook the argument so to speak cause in a previous post you said "the reason we want horizontal progression is that we enjoy the challenge of figuring out how to cram the most power out of the tools given us." And there is no way the most power out of the tools given to you is sticking to a set rotation... NO WAY!

What do you mean external factors would be the same? External factors are never the same! the bird example you laugh about is one such case ! It happened more then once where I would be fighting and a bird would fly between me and my enemy and my projectile ends up hitting the bird saving the enemy 1 hit! not once, multiple times! but obviously it doesnt happen always either! simply speaking things change! And everything plays a factor maybe he didnt eat any food, maybe he ate food that gave him MF, maybe he ate food that gave him HP, maybe he ate food that gave him power, condition damage whatever! consuming one over the other will change the dynamics of the fight to a degree! Same goes with trait setup and all the rest!  And even if really no change happens at all and like you say all the external factors remain the same and you re-enact the same exact fight move by move you got no guarantee it will play out the same simply because part of the damage equation is a random value between the range of damage your weapon does!

Also I am curious about one thing, you said you won by 40 health difference. That means I would imagine that he died and you found yourself with 40 health left... in which case you downed him, either continued to attack him until s/he died or finished him/her at which point you were left with 40 health meaning and I imagine he did just stay there and take it, he continue attacking you in downed state which wasnt even enough to down you ! so actually you won by a much larger margine then the 40hp you think saved you ! had you not be wearing ascended armor you would still have downed him before he would have been able to down you and he would infact only manage to down you before it took 1 more single attack to kill him/her so even if all i said is wrong (which it isnt) if you were wearing exotic armor instead o ascended armor and had 40hp less health you'd still have won making ascended armor completely irrelevant to the fight either way!

Edited by XPhiler, 30 November 2012 - 05:40 PM.

[Linfang]

I said it once and will say it again. Do not buy or craft Ascended gear until they are able to go back over their admitted mistake. They are doing a re eval of the cost of mats and everything involving the investment of achieving ascended gear. I am betting in the next patch they will likely scale down the obscene mat requirements so those people who dropped 250 bloods or ectos log in after the patch to find the requirements were cut in half they will QQ.

Edited by Linfang, 30 November 2012 - 05:48 PM.

[Zero_Soulreaver]

Faowri, on 30 November 2012 - 05:08 PM, said:

What :I I don't even . . . It never goes down that well when developers tell players of their games what they're meant to find fun. Especially when that pretty much involves telling every loyal GW1 lover that their game was stagnant and unfun.

This is so true, I really hate how the devs just decided for us what we enjoyed about GW1 and what we didn't.  Pretty much they think we didn't enjoy the majority of GW1 to just scrap some interesting features and ideas.
"Forget all them extra skills, too complex and you never liked those anyway"  "Forget having uniqueness in professions, you never liked that anyway!"  But but...I did like much of that stuff.

Mesmer is a prime example of how they completely nixed ideas just to make something so vague and a shell of it's former self.  Mesmers used to be so interested with some complexity to it, now it's just like every other profession just with clones.   Even Necros are a complete mess now and it's rather sad how far they fell off the radar.

[Xunlai Agent]

Zero_Soulreaver, on 30 November 2012 - 05:49 PM, said:

Mesmer is a prime example of how they completely nixed ideas just to make something so vague and a shell of it's former self.  Mesmers used to be so interested with some complexity to it, now it's just like every other profession just with clones.

I am actually of the firm conviction that Mesmers do have quite a considerable amount of depth to them and I think the hate for the class is unwarranted to a degree.

As for the thread, ArenaNet once said that you would only be grinding for aesthetics and so on much like the first game. However they have introduced slow gear inflation thus devaluing the gear you currently wear which is in direct contradiction to the philosophy they used to espouse. I am rather surprised by this turn of events given their much vaunted manifesto. I wonder if ArenaNet will turn this around at some stage. Especially given that it affects PvP encounters which is surely an anathema to their philosophy and game design origins...

[Zippor]

Xunlai Agent, on 03 December 2012 - 06:54 AM, said:

I am actually of the firm conviction that Mesmers do have quite a considerable amount of depth to them and I think the hate for the class is unwarranted to a degree.

As for the thread, ArenaNet once said that you would only be grinding for aesthetics and so on much like the first game. However they have introduced slow gear inflation thus devaluing the gear you currently wear which is in direct contradiction to the philosophy they used to espouse. I am rather surprised by this turn of events given their much vaunted manifesto. I wonder if ArenaNet will turn this around at some stage. Especially given that it affects PvP encounters which is surely an anathema to their philosophy and game design origins...

You are still mostly grinding for aesthetics, for only the back item of the current ascended items is visible if you want. I kinda want them to stick with ascended only being jewelry, but it's not going to happen, eventually we'll have full set of ascended items.

[Arquenya]

Faowri, on 30 November 2012 - 05:08 PM, said:

What :I I don't even . . . It never goes down that well when developers tell players of their games what they're meant to find fun. Especially when that pretty much involves telling every loyal GW1 lover that their game was stagnant and unfun.

Yes, it's a bit like

"Yes we know GW was a big succes, was generally regarded as very innovative: major game publishers wanted to take us over and we even got enough money and 5 years to develop a new game with even more programmers ..
But really, when you look at it, it was a crappy and boring game and we don't understand why anyone bought & played it at all! So we came up with something completely different without all that innovative crap - and you're all going to love it!"

Edited by Arquenya, 03 December 2012 - 11:40 AM.

[Dasryn]

Linfang, on 30 November 2012 - 05:48 PM, said:

I said it once and will say it again. Do not buy or craft Ascended gear until they are able to go back over their admitted mistake. They are doing a re eval of the cost of mats and everything involving the investment of achieving ascended gear. I am betting in the next patch they will likely scale down the obscene mat requirements so those people who dropped 250 bloods or ectos log in after the patch to find the requirements were cut in half they will QQ.

this makes so much sense you were effectively ignored.

[Cronos988]

Can you even have an RPG without Vertical Progression?
I mean the whole Idea of an RPG is vertical progression, it's what the genre is build on.

Grind has nothing to do with vertical progression, grind is playing for the sake of vertical progression. That is the problem here. You can have as much vertical progression as you like in PVE, so long as it is naturally tied into playing the game.

It only becomes a problem when vertical progression is a.) a grind or b.) affects PVP gameplay.

I am not qualified to give an opinion about either, but just saying "vertical progression is bad" is missing the point. After all, the leveling systems is pure vertical progression, yet few players would like to start out at lvl 80 with every character.

[Lhim]

Cronos988, on 03 December 2012 - 12:05 PM, said:

Can you even have an RPG without Vertical Progression?
I mean the whole Idea of an RPG is vertical progression, it's what the genre is build on.

It only becomes a problem when vertical progression is a.) a grind or b.) affects PVP gameplay.

a.) Yes, it is a grind, but they admitted that and are looking into it. We'll see if it gets improved.
b.) It doesn't affect sPvP, but it does affect WvW though.

I think it's possible to have an MMORPG without VP, but there needs to be enough content to make up for it (HP): elite dungeons, harder dynamic events, elite zones, smarter a.i., etc. To me vertical progression is more kinda of the 'lazy' way to add content. In the end it's just putting up bigger numbers against bigger numbers.

Edited by Lhim, 03 December 2012 - 12:22 PM.

[ToySoldier]

Re: VP vs. grind:
WoW came up with rest exp.  Maybe one day we'll have rest gear VP.   A magical creature in each monthly update will grant players who did not play a % of the mats/karma/etc.     Formula to be figured out.

(To be clear: Above is a joke.  Doubt it will happen due to gem sale!)

Edited by ToySoldier, 03 December 2012 - 01:13 PM.

[raspberry jam]

XPhiler, on 30 November 2012 - 05:39 PM, said:

I love who you always try to portray people who dont agree with you as idiots ! keep it up makes me feel okey about not being tactful myself

This statment of yours is completely mind blowing: "but unless he based his moves on the exact amount of health he had, with an accuracy of 40 health, which is quite improbable given that a character in WvW have thousands of health, it is reasonable to assume that he would have done the same things as he did in either case as well." We're talking gw2 here not a generic MMO with specialised skills were you following a specific rotation! If that were the case I would agree with you, everything will boil down to numbers and the biggest one coupled by the biggest luck (which in gw2 also plays part since in part damage done by a weapon is rng based) But this is not so in the least! Based with the same exact oponent (provided you play skill fully) you're very likely to use different skills ! Why? because Gw2 is entirely based  situational combat! Every single factor can decide that I will use one skill before another or instead of another! Not only that the circumstances itself will also play a factor. For example If I am facing a necro and s/he inflicts on my 2 bleeds I could return the favor and transfer them back to them or I could be wise and wait a second or too hoping the inflict more conditions on me and then transfer them back. I will then see what their reaction to that will be and how skill full they are, if they transfer them back to me I kept an extra transfer back which I will use but if they will not then I know they're not skillful enough or have no skills to transfer condition thus next time when they get the two bleeds on me I will feel okey to transfer them without waiting for a larger stack because I can afford to use my spare transfer conditions for that! Thats one example the same could apply to positioning of my oppontent, the type of attacks they use (Do I need stability? Do I need to interrupt a particular powerful attack? etc..) If they try to escape, if they try to get some distance to gain time. I am sorry but threating a combat engagement in gw2 as some sort of fixed rotation with the same variables each and every time where the bigger numbers win is absurd! But I feel you're trying to cook the argument so to speak cause in a previous post you said "the reason we want horizontal progression is that we enjoy the challenge of figuring out how to cram the most power out of the tools given us." And there is no way the most power out of the tools given to you is sticking to a set rotation... NO WAY!

What do you mean external factors would be the same? External factors are never the same! the bird example you laugh about is one such case ! It happened more then once where I would be fighting and a bird would fly between me and my enemy and my projectile ends up hitting the bird saving the enemy 1 hit! not once, multiple times! but obviously it doesnt happen always either! simply speaking things change! And everything plays a factor maybe he didnt eat any food, maybe he ate food that gave him MF, maybe he ate food that gave him HP, maybe he ate food that gave him power, condition damage whatever! consuming one over the other will change the dynamics of the fight to a degree! Same goes with trait setup and all the rest!  And even if really no change happens at all and like you say all the external factors remain the same and you re-enact the same exact fight move by move you got no guarantee it will play out the same simply because part of the damage equation is a random value between the range of damage your weapon does!

Also I am curious about one thing, you said you won by 40 health difference. That means I would imagine that he died and you found yourself with 40 health left... in which case you downed him, either continued to attack him until s/he died or finished him/her at which point you were left with 40 health meaning and I imagine he did just stay there and take it, he continue attacking you in downed state which wasnt even enough to down you ! so actually you won by a much larger margine then the 40hp you think saved you ! had you not be wearing ascended armor you would still have downed him before he would have been able to down you and he would infact only manage to down you before it took 1 more single attack to kill him/her so even if all i said is wrong (which it isnt) if you were wearing exotic armor instead o ascended armor and had 40hp less health you'd still have won making ascended armor completely irrelevant to the fight either way!

But when the difference is 40 health out of your several thousands, that is not likely to make you act different. You are likely to make the same move in a certain situation A where you have 9582 health as in situation B which is identical except for you having 9242 health.

I mean that external factors would not be affected by me wearing ascended items or not. I'm not talking about two different situations, I'm talking about the outcome of that battle, the real outcome and the one that would have taken place if I had not worn ascendeds.

I had 40 health when he was downed. I dodged backwards out of his range before he could do anything to me. I assume he would have done the same if he had won: there is enough of a lag before the downed skills bar appears to do that.

[Major_Disaster]

BrettM, on 30 November 2012 - 02:58 PM, said:

But the gems that people are buying with gold did not come out of thin air. Someone had to spend cash to get them into the game at all, and they bought them with the specific intent of selling them for gold.

Nope.

I realise why you would think that, since the "Exchange Rate" goes up and down and players can both buy AND sell gems.

But trust me when I say the number of gems being bought for in-game gold is much higher than the number being bought via credit card and Paypal.

Right at the very start of the game, day -3 at 5am GMT when the servers opened, I and most of my guild bought some gems and sold them for gold. Between all of us, there must have been about 500 gold injected into the economy in the very first hour. We got the very round-number initial exchange rate of 100 Silver for 100 Gems, which promptly dropped off the cliff to about 50S within about 3 hours, indicating that quite a large number of people were doing exactly the same thing.

Even ignoring the flood of players that did it after us, if the Gems / Gold exchange was player to player, then we would have had to wait until 500 gold was farmed, then offered up to by gems with. Considering the most anyone had at that point was about 10 silver, and we were among the first few thousand people to log in, I consider that an impossibility.

But AHHHH you might say, maybe Anet *seeded* the market for the first few hundred thousand transactions, and NOW it's direct player to player.

Nope.jpg

I just don't believe that. We have a gigantic army of stay-at-home unemployed teenagers playing this game, and only a tiny minority of wealthy gem-purchasers with limited free time, not to mention the Chinese Bot Consoritium. There is no way that Johnny Credit Card could ever hope to purchase enough gems to satisfy Jimmy Grindsalot, or Charlie BuysgoldfromtheChinese not in this economy.

Final nail in the coffin: Supply Vs. Demand.

If it were direct player to player, at some point there would simply not be enough gold or enough gems to feed the demand. Since we can't set our own buy or sell price for gold or gems, everything gets sold at the "market" rate, meaning that everyone pays a "fair" price in the exchange. By now, we should have seen at least once instance of there not actually being any gems to purchase, at least for a few minutes until Johnny Credit Card had a chance to press "buy" again. This has never happened.

So, although it's set up to look and feel like player-to-player trading, with an exchange rate and a shiny graph and stuff, it just isn't. Gems *do* come out of thin air.

I wouldn't like to guess at how much gold to gems outsells gems to gold, but I'd imagine it's somewhere in the region of 10:1

Edited by Major_Disaster, 03 December 2012 - 02:53 PM.

[Major_Disaster]

Linfang, on 30 November 2012 - 05:48 PM, said:

I said it once and will say it again. Do not buy or craft Ascended gear until they are able to go back over their admitted mistake. They are doing a re eval of the cost of mats and everything involving the investment of achieving ascended gear. I am betting in the next patch they will likely scale down the obscene mat requirements so those people who dropped 250 bloods or ectos log in after the patch to find the requirements were cut in half they will QQ.

Indeed. They really have painted themselves into a corner here.

They either:

- Make it much easier to get them - Making everyone who spent 30G or grinded fractals level 99 for a million hours QQ for compensation because they NEVER KNEW IT WAS GOING TO GET EASIER!!!1111!```1

- Leave them as they are - making Chris Whiteside into even more of a liar than he was before, ruin all credibility, players who for some reason still trust them quit in droves.

- Make it a *little bit* easier to get them, worst of both worlds compromise - It's still either a hideous grind or massively expensive, but now it's only 50 hours or 150G, not 100 hours or 300G! - piss everyone off equally, everyone hates you.

I don't envy them in the least, but it is kind of their own fault for introducing this crap in the first place.

If it was my game, I'd just take the Ascended items out altogether, and come up with some other way of "rewarding" players who are dumb enough to do the same dungeon 50 times.

Edited by Major_Disaster, 03 December 2012 - 03:06 PM.

[Cronos988]

Lhim, on 03 December 2012 - 12:20 PM, said:

I think it's possible to have an MMORPG without VP, but there needs to be enough content to make up for it (HP): elite dungeons, harder dynamic events, elite zones, smarter a.i., etc. To me vertical progression is more kinda of the 'lazy' way to add content. In the end it's just putting up bigger numbers against bigger numbers.

But then what is the definition of an RPG? RPGs are about building a character (not playing one, you play a "character" of some sort in many games), and building pretty much implies Vertical progression. Levels are vertical progression, gear drops are vertical progression, crafting is vertical progression. There is way more vertical progression in this game than there is horizontal. That is not, however a Problem.

Vertical progression is not a skinner box by default. It is used to structure a story, allow the player to experience the story in a sequence rather than in random episodes. Guild Wars 2 does strife to do that, by making the player progress by exploring, as opposed to explore to progress. Obviously, just adding vertical progression without a structured story behind it is much, much easier, which is why pretty much every MMORPG does it.

Consequently, the only real Problem I see with adding the new gear is wvw. In PVE, no-one can force you to get the new armor, and since no content is "locked" for only people with that armor, there is little to worry about. If there is, well then you might consider the armor a way to pay for a "micro expansion". But if it has a major impact on wvw, then people who like that gamemode but don't like grinding have a right to complain. IMHO it would have been smarter to use the PVP character System for wvw instead of the PVE one, or maybe a separate progression.

[XPhiler]

raspberry jam, on 03 December 2012 - 01:45 PM, said:

But when the difference is 40 health out of your several thousands, that is not likely to make you act different. You are likely to make the same move in a certain situation A where you have 9582 health as in situation B which is identical except for you having 9242 health.

I mean that external factors would not be affected by me wearing ascended items or not. I'm not talking about two different situations, I'm talking about the outcome of that battle, the real outcome and the one that would have taken place if I had not worn ascendeds.

I had 40 health when he was downed. I dodged backwards out of his range before he could do anything to me. I assume he would have done the same if he had won: there is enough of a lag before the downed skills bar appears to do that.

okey let me put it another way. lets assume this was a formula 1 race which after 70 laps you won by say 50ms. Saying that the reason you won was all thanks to Ascended armor would be the equivalent of saying you won the race because you didnt eat dinner the day before! no doubt both cases helped! not sure how much being 100 grams lighter really gains you in a race but winning by 50ms on an average speed of 300km / h means gaining an advantage of merely 4 meters which in turns means an average of 5cm per lap... might be realistic dont know but anyway its not about the numbers but about the concept !

anyhow being 100g lighter would just be one of many factors! it would be incorrect to state that single thing made all the difference!  Its just the sum of everything as well as another countless external factors!  The weight in this case is just one factor amongst many! its not just your weight that made the difference but also your skill, the performance of your pit stop, the strategy, weather conditions, temperature,  the skill of your oponents as well as your car and every single component as well as the same as your opponents. Thats why in Formula one its not teams that win races its individuals cause the car and the engine are just one factor that by no means dictate the outcome of the race!

Same thing here and please stop saying the fight would have gone exactly the same way just cause you'd have the same amount of health! I sincerely hope your fighting strategy and which skills you use at what time dont depend entirely on how much health you have! If you had to fight the same exact fight a 100 times there is no guarantee what so ever you'll always win... even if you like you say you'd both use the same exact skills (which I really doubt unless you stick to the same rotation) at exactly the same time! (remember damage each hit does is in part random)

Simply speaking you are just picking one element and giving it all the importance! But you can do that with every single variable in that battle! Plenty of things amount for the equivalent of 40hp in terms of both offence and defence! food, one characters trait setup over the other, the choice of skills, player skill, luck, the stats on your armor as well as the tier of armor and same thing for weapons!

Just try it! pick up a trait you have chosen that gives you a boost in damage or defence and do your same reasoning based on it! you'll be able to argue it made all the difference like you're arguing ascended armor made all the difference! You can do the same with Food or with your skill choices or whatever!

[raspberry jam]

XPhiler, on 03 December 2012 - 03:27 PM, said:

okey let me put it another way. lets assume this was a formula 1 race which after 70 laps you won by say 50ms. Saying that the reason you won was all thanks to Ascended armor would be the equivalent of saying you won the race because you didnt eat dinner the day before! no doubt both cases helped! not sure how much being 100 grams lighter really gains you in a race but winning by 50ms on an average speed of 300km / h means gaining an advantage of merely 4 meters which in turns means an average of 5cm per lap... might be realistic dont know but anyway its not about the numbers but about the concept !

anyhow being 100g lighter would just be one of many factors! it would be incorrect to state that single thing made all the difference!  Its just the sum of everything as well as another countless external factors!  The weight in this case is just one factor amongst many! its not just your weight that made the difference but also your skill, the performance of your pit stop, the strategy, weather conditions, temperature,  the skill of your oponents as well as your car and every single component as well as the same as your opponents. Thats why in Formula one its not teams that win races its individuals cause the car and the engine are just one factor that by no means dictate the outcome of the race!

Same thing here and please stop saying the fight would have gone exactly the same way just cause you'd have the same amount of health! I sincerely hope your fighting strategy and which skills you use at what time dont depend entirely on how much health you have! If you had to fight the same exact fight a 100 times there is no guarantee what so ever you'll always win... even if you like you say you'd both use the same exact skills (which I really doubt unless you stick to the same rotation) at exactly the same time! (remember damage each hit does is in part random)

Simply speaking you are just picking one element and giving it all the importance! But you can do that with every single variable in that battle! Plenty of things amount for the equivalent of 40hp in terms of both offence and defence! food, one characters trait setup over the other, the choice of skills, player skill, luck, the stats on your armor as well as the tier of armor and same thing for weapons!

Just try it! pick up a trait you have chosen that gives you a boost in damage or defence and do your same reasoning based on it! you'll be able to argue it made all the difference like you're arguing ascended armor made all the difference! You can do the same with Food or with your skill choices or whatever!

Assuming that I would eat 100g meals (after correcting for homeostasis) and that F1 cars would go more than 50ms faster by being 100g lighter, yes, that is accurate (assuming that not eating the day before didn't impair my driving skills). This is because me eating or not eating the day before would in no way affect the performance of the pit crew, or of the wind, temperature, precipitation, number of birds randomly flying into my car during the race, or any other external factor of meaning to the race whatsoever. It's not as if I tell the track crew that "hey guys, I didn't eat yesterday" and they go "oh right then we'll rebuild entire sections of the track". No. External reasons are unaffected by eating or not eating.

Picking a different element could have done a huge difference, so could picking a different trait. Sure. Let's imagine that I made such a choice. If I had made such a choice (or if he had), the reason would have been another one than that I was wearing ascended gear. For example I could have used an axe instead of a sword. Fire instead of water. I could have been sitting on a low-bandwidth connection. Birds could have flown into my attacks, blocking me. But assuming that all those circumstances would have been the same (as they would, since my choice of gear could not possibly have affected them - there is no bird-attracting gear), me carrying ascended gear was actually the thing that made the difference in that battle.

[Cronos988]

raspberry jam, on 03 December 2012 - 04:26 PM, said:

Assuming that I would eat 100g meals (after correcting for homeostasis) and that F1 cars would go more than 50ms faster by being 100g lighter, yes, that is accurate (assuming that not eating the day before didn't impair my driving skills). This is because me eating or not eating the day before would in no way affect the performance of the pit crew, or of the wind, temperature, precipitation, number of birds randomly flying into my car during the race, or any other external factor of meaning to the race whatsoever. It's not as if I tell the track crew that "hey guys, I didn't eat yesterday" and they go "oh right then we'll rebuild entire sections of the track". No. External reasons are unaffected by eating or not eating.

Picking a different element could have done a huge difference, so could picking a different trait. Sure. Let's imagine that I made such a choice. If I had made such a choice (or if he had), the reason would have been another one than that I was wearing ascended gear. For example I could have used an axe instead of a sword. Fire instead of water. I could have been sitting on a low-bandwidth connection. Birds could have flown into my attacks, blocking me. But assuming that all those circumstances would have been the same (as they would, since my choice of gear could not possibly have affected them - there is no bird-attracting gear), me carrying ascended gear was actually the thing that made the difference in that battle.

Or, to put that in different terms:
If we assume A wins a Battle when A > B
Where A = percentage of B's health removed per second by A
and B = percentage of A's health removed per second by B

And we further state that
A = fa1 + fa2 + fa3 + ... + fan
B = fb1 + fb2 + fb3 + ... +fbn
where fa1-fan and fb1-fbn are each factors that influence the battle
and fa1 specifically is the quality of A's gear, fb1 specifically is the quality of B's gear

Then there are an infinite number of scenarios where A' = fa2 + ... +fan and B' = fb2 + ... + fbn are equal and consequently A>B is true exactly when fa1 > fb1. There are quite a few other possible scenarios where fa1 and fb1 are decisive, but one case supports the basic argument just fine.

So you can logically prove that Ascended gear, if it is better than any other gear, will be decisive in a certain percentage of all battles, and hence you are more likely to win fights with ascended gear than without it.

Edited by Cronos988, 03 December 2012 - 06:14 PM.

[Princess Fatora]

Quote

But then what is the definition of an RPG? RPGs are about building a character (not playing one, you play a "character" of some sort in many games), and building pretty much implies Vertical progression.

But then what is the definition of a moon? A moon is a round object with holes (not a planet, since we are on a planet and therefore the moon isn't one and can therefore not be a rock), so it being round with holes pretty much implies that it's cheese.

LOGIC CHECKMATE!

No, actually a RPG is not about building a character, but playing one. You citing the real definition and then pretending that can't be is a funny trick, but it doesn't work.

Yes, true RPGs are about playing a character and giving you choices to do so.

The problem is that MMORPGs do not give this option anymore. Early MMOs were often NOT about stats, but instead about actions.  In some, crafter was as possible a job as fighter. In some, the reason you played wasn't OMGBESTESTSTATSOMGOMGOMGMASTURBATESTATS, it was affecting the world in tangible ways through war. Not like WvWvW, which is temporary and fleeting (and STILL the closest to this that GW2 has next to world exploration)

A true RPG would allow you to play anyone. You would have a chance to become the king. Or queen, if your alliance was strong enough. An alliance would have fighters - and crafters and people producing food. You would have builders, likely CREATE cities. THAT is what a true RPG would be. There might very well be no NPCs, because those NPCs you see are actually player accounts that are active while the player is logged off (fighty types patrolling, merchanty types vending, builder types repairing, etc). And all of them would try to be the best at it, contribute the best to their particular faction.

Progression? You could have it, sure, but it'd not be gear based. Gear in such a system would be necessary, easy to make, easy to break. It'd likely be unlock based, in giving you options in things you can make, which then would require you to get the ressources to do so (most of which require other professions to get it. Fighty professions would only be able to get particular ressources, and be no more useful than any other (in fact, if your faction had too many fighters in a game like that, it'd collapse in itself due to lack of food, equipment, and fortifications).

The most RPG-like MMO right now is Minecraft, followed by Ultima Online.

What we have right now that gets called RPG are stat based grinders and fighting simulators with RPG elements. That doesn't mean those are inherently bad, but they aren't actually RPG in what an RPG actually IS.


The real problem is that company execs cream themselves at the skinner box. That's why we only get games with that. Weak minded players need their fix, and company execs love abusing this. Easy money, it's like selling drugs without the social stigma, even though it's actually the same thing.

Like the food industry inserting sugar into every food, then pretending they aren'*t responsible for the diabetes rates going through the roof.

Of course, the skinner box addicts will never admit this, just like the cheetos-abusing soda slurping slug won't admit theior addiction. That's the beauty of addicts: Addicts rarely admit their addictions. You can just keep milking them, and they will defend you as long as they get their fix.

[Martiniam1]

I love how anet answers everything with "we never said that". If they never said it, how did everyone get the same idea? Anet you lied

[Capn_Crass]

Princess Fatora, on 03 December 2012 - 07:45 PM, said:

What we have right now that gets called RPG are stat based grinders and fighting simulators with RPG elements. That doesn't mean those are inherently bad, but they aren't actually RPG in what an RPG actually IS.

Agreed. The GTA series is more of a RPG than the vast majority of the games marketed as "RPGs". I love Final Fantasy-style story-based adventure games as much as the next guy, but they're not RPGs by a longshot.

[AKGeo]

Working on fixing it...the fastest and easiest way to fix it is to remove it wholesale, then reintroduce it when it's fixed. But right now they have this super-grind gear in the game, people are going to be grinding away at it, and when they fix it these players are going to be MAJOR AGGRO on Anet for giving to the rest of the people what they just ground out over the course of weeks to months.

Will the amount of negative feedback by the select few career grinders losing their hard-earned gear NOW outweigh the negative feedback from all the subsequent slower grinders who have their grind devalued by the reduction in cost of these items?

I don't think it was a mistake to just put that arbitrary 250 ectos and 250 tier 6 mats per item number in there. I believe that the mistake is claiming it as a mistake rather than simply admitting that they wanted people to pump more cash into the gem shop to get their materials right now.

[Striken7]

Quote

How is introducing VP respecting the player? Because it's fun to be challenged and rewarded. Because it's fun to have the character you play grow and evolve over time. Because ArenaNet (sort of) held a hard line against all VP with GW1 -- no VP ever, year after year -- and it wasn't that fun. It was stagnant.

That's funny, I played GW1 for 5+ years non-stop; I've already stopped playing GW2 and haven't logged in in weeks. They've trashed the game for anyone that bought it for what was in the "manifesto".

[DuskWolf]

Cronos988, on 03 December 2012 - 12:05 PM, said:

Can you even have an RPG without Vertical Progression?

Developers throw in progression to please the cheeky, enttitled little monkeys out there who believe it's necessary. In fact, most RPGs only have a shallow vertical progression curve which serves as a tutorial to help people configure their class. A prime example? New Vegas. You could max yourself out in that game with ridiculous ease, and the vertical progression was only there so that you could configure your character. So that you could decide that you wanted speech over guns or whatnot.

Yes, they could have just stripped that vertical progression out and done away with it, putting this all in the character creation instead. But they knew that their game had to have appeal to the little monkeys out there who liked vertical progression. So they threw in a half-hearted run to a really low level, and they made it go by fast. Since VP took a backseat in New Vegas, then, which is very much an RPG, what is the point of it?

Well, New Vegas was never really about appealing to the kind of person who got off on seeing a number get bigger, was it? It was never about hey, 6 just went to 7, that means my penis is bigger. Nor was it about stats automatically winning everything for you. It was about dialogue, choice and consequence, and if you were taking on the legendary critters or the deathclaw hives, actual honest to goodness skill. And y'know what's even better?

There are mods for Fallout: New Vegas which just strip away the vertical progression altogether and it makes it a much more fun, enjoyable game. It makes it a harder game, too. And I'm okay with that. But a good RPG isn't about watching a number go up. Nor is a good RPG about being the God of the Universe just becuase of said numbergasms. To me, that sounds like actuary-porn more than it does a game.

And the best tabletop games I've ever played tend to agree with me. If you've ever played anything by White Wolf, then you'll know that there's barely any vertical progression there, it's just a customisation period (again), and the whole thing is rules lite. But let me share some eldritch wisdom with you, wisdom that could only come from an old fart like me. RPG isn't just a random collection of letters. RPG is actually an acronym.

Role-Playing Game.

A game in which you play a role. It's not a NFG; A number-fetishist game. That's not the name on the tin. The name clearly doesn't imply any number fetishism at all. And the best RPGs have had little to do with numbers and more about challenging the player. Challenging them with tactical scenarios (hello every Fallout ever, including Tactics), it's about providing them with a good story, it's about choice and consequence.

I like role-playing games. A game where you play a role. Not actuary porn.

Edited by DuskWolf, 03 December 2012 - 11:43 PM.

[Cronos988]

Princess Fatora, on 03 December 2012 - 07:45 PM, said:

But then what is the definition of a moon? A moon is a round object with holes (not a planet, since we are on a planet and therefore the moon isn't one and can therefore not be a rock), so it being round with holes pretty much implies that it's cheese.

LOGIC CHECKMATE!

No, actually a RPG is not about building a character, but playing one. You citing the real definition and then pretending that can't be is a funny trick, but it doesn't work.

You are right of course, that is a logical fallacy. I'll rephrase that and say that I propose that an RPG is about building a character, and I'll explain in the following:

Princess Fatora, on 03 December 2012 - 07:45 PM, said:

Yes, true RPGs are about playing a character and giving you choices to do so.

The Problem with that definition is that almost every game fulfills this:
Max Payne would be an RPG, so would GTA, basically every game where your character is identifiable.

That is a possible definition, but not a very good one, since it is too broad. Vertical and horizontal progression is one thing that differentiated Dungeons & Dragons from the strategy games it stems from, so I think it's fair to regard progression as one of the "core" factors of what makes an RPG.

Princess Fatora, on 03 December 2012 - 07:45 PM, said:

The problem is that MMORPGs do not give this option anymore. Early MMOs were often NOT about stats, but instead about actions.  In some, crafter was as possible a job as fighter. In some, the reason you played wasn't OMGBESTESTSTATSOMGOMGOMGMASTURBATESTATS, it was affecting the world in tangible ways through war. Not like WvWvW, which is temporary and fleeting (and STILL the closest to this that GW2 has next to world exploration)

I agree, but keep in mind that playing as a crafter involves significant vertical progression: You do the same task over and over to get better at it. That is the very definition of vertical progression.

Princess Fatora, on 03 December 2012 - 07:45 PM, said:

A true RPG would allow you to play anyone. You would have a chance to become the king. Or queen, if your alliance was strong enough. An alliance would have fighters - and crafters and people producing food. You would have builders, likely CREATE cities. THAT is what a true RPG would be. There might very well be no NPCs, because those NPCs you see are actually player accounts that are active while the player is logged off (fighty types patrolling, merchanty types vending, builder types repairing, etc). And all of them would try to be the best at it, contribute the best to their particular faction.

Progression? You could have it, sure, but it'd not be gear based. Gear in such a system would be necessary, easy to make, easy to break. It'd likely be unlock based, in giving you options in things you can make, which then would require you to get the ressources to do so (most of which require other professions to get it. Fighty professions would only be able to get particular ressources, and be no more useful than any other (in fact, if your faction had too many fighters in a game like that, it'd collapse in itself due to lack of food, equipment, and fortifications).

This I can wholeheartedly agree with. The way progression is handled in current MMORPGs is just bad, and Guild Wars 2 has not really improved on the issue. Yet, we have to identify the correct problem: The Problem is that there is no accurate balance between horizontal and vertical progression. A good balance gives you vertical and horizontal progression in one: For example, you learn to use new melee attacks as your strength increases (provided that the melee attacks themself are different instead of better).

Princess Fatora, on 03 December 2012 - 07:45 PM, said:

The most RPG-like MMO right now is Minecraft, followed by Ultima Online.

Yes, Ultima Online was a good RPG, but I think you are stretching it when you are saying UO had no vertical progression. There was a lot of grinding involved in UO, but the vertical progression capped off eralier, making it not felt as much (never played official tho, only freeshards, and most of them heavily RP-centered, so I don't know if my view of the game is accurate).

Minecraft is different to judge. It certainly has vertical progression (stone-iron-diamond), but it's a flat one and it's mainly about giving you choice. Do note, however, what minecraft does right: Increased choice (more building materials, better machinery etc.) comes with vertical progression (mining a lot) which is a very good example of the "right" balance to the two.

Princess Fatora, on 03 December 2012 - 07:45 PM, said:

What we have right now that gets called RPG are stat based grinders and fighting simulators with RPG elements. That doesn't mean those are inherently bad, but they aren't actually RPG in what an RPG actually IS.

The real problem is that company execs cream themselves at the skinner box. That's why we only get games with that. Weak minded players need their fix, and company execs love abusing this. Easy money, it's like selling drugs without the social stigma, even though it's actually the same thing.

Like the food industry inserting sugar into every food, then pretending they aren'*t responsible for the diabetes rates going through the roof.

Of course, the skinner box addicts will never admit this, just like the cheetos-abusing soda slurping slug won't admit theior addiction. That's the beauty of addicts: Addicts rarely admit their addictions. You can just keep milking them, and they will defend you as long as they get their fix.

But blaming the people who get addicted to the Skinner boxes isn't helping. Skinner boxes just are addictive. Maybe to some more than to others, but you can hardly blame people for a psychological mechanism they have no control over.

I think the problem lies elsewhere: Game Design is too much funneled into one direction, and in the realm of online games, that direction is dictated by Blizzard far too much. And Blizzard strategy since the success of Diablo 2 has been adding purely vertical progression with the "gear grind". And no game has ever strayed from that principle. Instead, games are trying to make their games more "horizontal" with horizontal skill systems (like the swapable utility spells in GW 2), but it Isn't working so well. Because you are adding a largely horizontal progression onto a purely vertical one, which, when the horizontal part is only taking you 30 of 80 levels to unlock, takes the form of a very thin triangle: the horizontal progression forms the thin base, upon which a mountain of vertical progression is based.

One interesting aspect would be to just have gear that does not scale, very much. lvl 80 gear would still be better than lvl 1 gear, but you mainly would get new options: Plate instead of chainmail (makes you slower, but gives better armor), or enchanted robes that improve stealth while actually making you more vulvnerable. In this regard, it would be good to take a look back at good old D&D. Yes it has a lot of vertical progression, but it was always tied with horizontal progression. you don't get a weapon thats does twice as much damage as your old one every few levels.

Dusk Wolf said:

Developers throw in progression to please the cheeky, enttitled little monkeys out there who believe it's necessary. In fact, most RPGs only have a shallow vertical progression curve which serves as a tutorial to help people configure their class. A prime example? New Vegas. You could max yourself out in that game with ridiculous ease, and the vertical progression was only there so that you could configure your character. So that you could decide that you wanted speech over guns or whatnot.

Yes, they could have just stripped that vertical progression out and done away with it, putting this all in the character creation instead. But they knew that their game had to have appeal to the little monkeys out there who liked vertical progression. So they threw in a half-hearted run to a really low level, and they made it go by fast. Since VP took a backseat in New Vegas, then, which is very much an RPG, what is the point of it?

Well, New Vegas was never really about appealing to the kind of person who got off on seeing a number get bigger, was it? It was never about hey, 6 just went to 7, that means my penis is bigger. Nor was it about stats automatically winning everything for you. It was about dialogue, choice and consequence, and if you were taking on the legendary critters or the deathclaw hives, actual honest to goodness skill. And y'know what's even better?

There are mods for Fallout: New Vegas which just strip away the vertical progression altogether and it makes it a much more fun, enjoyable game. It makes it a harder game, too. And I'm okay with that. But a good RPG isn't about watching a number go up. Nor is a good RPG about being the God of the Universe just becuase of said numbergasms. To me, that sounds like actuary-porn more than it does a game.

And the best tabletop games I've ever played tend to agree with me. If you've ever played anything by White Wolf, then you'll know that there's barely any vertical progression there, it's just a customisation period (again), and the whole thing is rules lite. But let me share some eldritch wisdom with you, wisdom that could only come from an old fart like me. RPG isn't just a random collection of letters. RPG is actually an acronym.

Role-Playing Game.

A game in which you play a role. It's not a NFG; A number-fetishist game. That's not the name on the tin. The name clearly doesn't imply any number fetishism at all. And the best RPGs have had little to do with numbers and more about challenging the player. Challenging them with tactical scenarios (hello every Fallout ever, including Tactics), it's about providing them with a good story, it's about choice and consequence.

I like role-playing games. A game where you play a role. Not actuary porn.

I don't think you insulting other people is improving the quality of your argument much.

I've already adressed most points you make, but on the subject of stripping away vertical progression altogether: Yes you can do that, but note that the examples you have brought up are games with a complete story focus: What holds them together is a progressing story instead of a progressing character. Something that is flat out impossible in any Massively Multiplayer game.

If you strip out both a coherent story and vertical progression, you end up with either a very short game, or a purely PVP game. Magicka is a good example of purely horizontal PVE. It's great fun, for a few hours, but once you know all the combos it's time to move on. Portal 2 is maybe another good example, though speaking of "progression" in that sense is kinda stretching it. MOBA's have no vertical progression, but they are purely PVP.

So if you want a vast, open Gameworld to experience with different players, you have little choice but to structure it by using some sort of vertical progression. But if you want to make it a game that is not just a skinner box, you link the vertical progression to horizontal progression in such a way that you do not simply get higher numbers, but a different form of gameplay for every new power level you reach.

Throwing around the definition of RPGs does not help your case. We are talking about PC Games here, and the term RPG is used differently with regard to PC games than it is with regard to tabletop games.

Edit: Fixed the Missquote, did not pay attention when copying the quote tag.

Edited by Cronos988, 04 December 2012 - 08:26 AM.

[Evans]

Out of respect for Princess Fatora I just wanted to say that you misquoted the last part which was posted by DuskWolf

[Rhydian]

Well the answers Anet gives about Progression reminds me of a lesson I learned from reading Greg Streets responses to Direct Questions in WOW. When you ask a direct question about a  specific problem and the answer they give is some broad generalization about what " everyone" really wants. Thats when you know that you are really screwed. If you ask a question about imbalance or class specifics and they Start the answer with something like "we feel" or "most players we think" you are screwed.

[Bennyandthejets]

I am utterly baffled at the number of people who believe RPG's can not be successful without vertical progression.  Clearly these individuals never played GW1.  Meanwhile, these are the same people A-NET is now trying to appease while destroying foundation the game was built upon.

[Runkleford]

Cronos988, on 03 December 2012 - 03:20 PM, said:

But then what is the definition of an RPG? RPGs are about building a character (not playing one, you play a "character" of some sort in many games), and building pretty much implies Vertical progression.

ROLE. PLAYING. GAME.

You're seriously arguing that it's NOT about playing a character? Holy Cow, talk about making up your own definitions to suit your argument. Hey how about I argue that 1+1 is actually 56?

[Cronos988]

Runkleford, on 04 December 2012 - 09:24 AM, said:

ROLE. PLAYING. GAME.

You're seriously arguing that it's NOT about playing a character? Holy Cow, talk about making up your own definitions to suit your argument. Hey how about I argue that 1+1 is actually 56?

How about you adress the arguments I made instead of quoting an old post of mine?

For clarification, we are talking about PC Role Playing games, which cannot relistically be defined as just "playing a (any) character", for arguments see above.

Too many people are equating vertical progression with "grind" or "skinner box", which is an over-simplification and, in my opinion, obscures the actual issue.

To clarify, when I am talking of vertical progression, what I mean is:
A Progression where you get objectively better at completing a certain task (increase in power) without changing how you complete the task.

When I am talking of horizontal progression, what I mean is:
A Progression where you get new ways to complete a certain task, without the new way being objectively better at completing the task.

Edited by Cronos988, 04 December 2012 - 09:49 AM.

[Runkleford]

Cronos988, on 04 December 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

How about you adress the arguments I made instead of quoting an old post of mine?

For clarification, we are talking about PC Role Playing games, which cannot relistically be defined as just "playing a (any) character", for arguments see above.

Too many people are equating vertical progression with "grind" or "skinner box", which is an over-simplification and, in my opinion, obscures the actual issue.

I AM addressing YOUR argument. Is there a time limit of less than a day of when someone can respond to a post now? And yet again, you're making up your own definitions here. You're pushing your opinions as though they are fact. The fact is that RPG is ROLE PLAYING GAME. It doesn't matter if you put the words PC in front of it. It's still role playing. It's STILL playing a character in a PC game.

You're making the logical fallacy of saying all PC RPGs are only about vertical progression when it's just that most of them are, NOT all of them. So just because a game is a PC RPG does not mean it MUST have vertical progression. The term RPG is not defined by vertical progression.