149 replies to this topic

[Trei]

That system may not necessarily prove to be any different than grinding for a new set of armor if the price for each rune end up just as exorbitant.

Buy I get what you mean; don't want to buy the family size bottle of shampoo again, just get the refill pack to change fragrance

[Gilles VI]

Protoss, on 29 November 2012 - 11:27 AM, said:

That statement alone has made me question the point of hunting down horizontal-progression based items. I went into GW2 with the idea of easily buying max gear and then playing for years, grinding pretty. It's how I played GW1 and I had insane fun with it.
But if the power plateau will be raised, I start to wonder why the hell would I be farming pretty if, when a new expansion comes out, I'll need to replace it - not because something would be prettier, but because the new items will be objectively better. This makes GW2 similar to how I play D3 - I would like my character to look amazing, but if ugly gear will have +1 better stats that the prettiest gear in the game, I'll be wearing the +1 gear. And while I absolutely adore D3, vertical progression based games have nowhere near the potential to keep me entertained as long as horizontal progression based ones do.

So that put a bit of a halt to my motivation to play GW2 - the game just isn't fun enough if I can't play Barbie in it.

Transmutation stones.

Even if something comes out with better stats, you will be able to transmutate your hard earned prestige skin on it.

[Arquenya]

Gilles VI, on 06 December 2012 - 10:35 AM, said:

Transmutation stones.

Even if something comes out with better stats, you will be able to transmutate your hard earned prestige skin on it.

or more likely:

Even if you get something hard earned with better stats, you will be able to transmutate your prestige skin on it.

[draxynnic]

My inner cynic says that if the new level cap is, say, 90, we'll find that the current Fine transmutation stones only go 80-89, and you'll need to make use of the new and more expensive Masterwork transmutation stones to transmute to the new level cap.

Then it'll be Exotic transmutation stones, then Ascended...

Trei, on 06 December 2012 - 05:09 AM, said:

I'm not even sure if I want those tier 3 traits.
I have already tried them in the Mists, and they aren't traits I can't do without.

Even if I do end up getting tier 3, I may want to do so only because I would like to have one more tier 2 or 1 trait in that line for that synergy etc.
Then I could also try out the last two lines to tier 2 which I currently do not have, by replacing
two of which I now know I don't prefer.

Is there any synergy I cannot test in the Mists?
It doesn't take a stretch of imagination for me to figure out what would be good with another once I know what a trait does, how it works and how it could affect another trait.

PvE is a different environment to PvP, even WvWvW unless you can be really sure you're in a safe area. And just because you don't think a particular trait is worth getting doesn't mean that respec costs aren't a disincentive to trying it out. (To be honest, I largely agree - most professions don't have really good grandmaster traits, with engineer being a glaring exception. However, respec costs are a disincentive to trying them out rather than, say, doing what you're doing and having a spread of 10s and 20s to have a wider range of adept and master traits available.)

[Trei]

draxynnic, on 06 December 2012 - 11:39 PM, said:

My inner cynic says that if the new level cap is, say, 90, we'll find that the current Fine transmutation stones only go 80-89, and you'll need to make use of the new and more expensive Masterwork transmutation stones to transmute to the new level cap.

Then it'll be Exotic transmutation stones, then Ascended...

PvE is a different environment to PvP, even WvWvW unless you can be really sure you're in a safe area. And just because you don't think a particular trait is worth getting doesn't mean that respec costs aren't a disincentive to trying it out. (To be honest, I largely agree - most professions don't have really good grandmaster traits, with engineer being a glaring exception. However, respec costs are a disincentive to trying them out rather than, say, doing what you're doing and having a spread of 10s and 20s to have a wider range of adept and master traits available.)

The costs of respec are irrelevant to me because I do such "trying outs" in the mists.

There are different kinds of dummies there and also "live" npcs that fight back, in the training area, where everyone is bumped up to 80 and can get full lvl 80 gear of various stats to test with their full range of skills and traits for absolutely free, regardless of actual lvl.

Just what else does one really need to test a build, that cannot be found in there?

if one is the type of player who puts little thought before decisions, and changes mind just as swiftly after only a week, then yes such players would find themselves looking at spending alot on respecs.

But that's really more of a personal habit or behavior problem, no?

Edited by Trei, 07 December 2012 - 01:56 AM.

[Bloggi]

Respec costs are not high actually...less than 4 silver at level 80. At that point, most level 80s are making enough coin to cover that cost quite easily. Also, the Wiki does offer very detailed explanations for free, in most cases. For those who change their builds from time to time, then it's part of the cost of experimentation and perhaps 'growth'. Although as Trei said, we can test most things out in the mists if need be.

[draxynnic]

Trei, on 07 December 2012 - 01:43 AM, said:

if one is the type of player who puts little thought before decisions, and changes mind just as swiftly after only a week, then yes such players would find themselves looking at spending alot on respecs.

Isn't that then discouraging experimentation if switching build once a week will result in spending a lot on respecs?

That's the real topic of this (side) discussion - somebody commented that there was little build experimentation, and respec costs are a disincentive to experimentation. The cost is low enough that if someone has a good reason to change they'll pay it with less thought than paying for armour repairs, but it is enough to cause someone to hesitate from trying something new just to see how it works out rather than sticking to the tried and tested. What you call a 'personal habit or behaviour problem' is exactly the kind of behaviour that a previous poster was mourning the lack of.

Yes, you can test something in the training grounds, but a) that's not going to change the fact that you don't see people with experimental builds in the general world, and for a lot of people testing against dummies and training NPCs is just going to be unsatisfying (especially for the more time-poor players that would prefer to at least have the potential for progress during their experiment).

PS: Here's a challenge: Can you tell me just how having a fee for respecs improves the game? Not just how it's not too much of an imposition (for you), but how it makes the game better?

Don't take the lazy way out and say "gold sink" because I've explained numerous times - in detail - why something does not perform the function of a gold sink unless it targets the rich over the poor, and respec fees do not do that.

Edited by draxynnic, 07 December 2012 - 03:30 AM.

[Ghostwing]

draxynnic, on 07 December 2012 - 03:25 AM, said:

PS: Here's a challenge: Can you tell me just how having a fee for respecs improves the game? Not just how it's not too much of an imposition (for you), but how it makes the game better?

Don't take the lazy way out and say "gold sink" because I've explained numerous times - in detail - why something does not perform the function of a gold sink unless it targets the rich over the poor, and respec fees do not do that.

But it IS a gold sink. Just because it doesn't fit into your specific narrow definition of one doesn't mean it doesn't take gold out of the economy. That's its function. That's what the fee does.

Edited by Ghostwing, 07 December 2012 - 03:42 AM.

[draxynnic]

Rather than going over my reasons again, I refer you to this.

The short form: Inflation, per se, isn't a problem. The reason why it's seen as a problem in MMOs is that brand-new players are generally restricted to (close to) the same rate of gold production as was available upon release, while more and more money pools in the accounts of rich, established players driving up the prices of endgame items until the 'barrier to entry' for new players becomes insurmountable.

The problem gold sinks are meant to address is not inflation itself, but keeping the gap between rich and poor controlled. A "gold sink" that proportionally speaking falls more heavily on poorer players than the people who are farming several gold an hour is actually making the issue worse.

[Trei]

draxynnic, on 07 December 2012 - 03:25 AM, said:

Isn't that then discouraging experimentation if switching build once a week will result in spending a lot on respecs?

That's the real topic of this (side) discussion - somebody commented that there was little build experimentation, and respec costs are a disincentive to experimentation. The cost is low enough that if someone has a good reason to change they'll pay it with less thought than paying for armour repairs, but it is enough to cause someone to hesitate from trying something new just to see how it works out rather than sticking to the tried and tested. What you call a 'personal habit or behaviour problem' is exactly the kind of behaviour that a previous poster was mourning the lack of.

Yes, you can test something in the training grounds, but a) that's not going to change the fact that you don't see people with experimental builds in the general world, and for a lot of people testing against dummies and training NPCs is just going to be unsatisfying (especially for the more time-poor players that would prefer to at least have the potential for progress during their experiment).

PS: Here's a challenge: Can you tell me just how having a fee for respecs improves the game? Not just how it's not too much of an imposition (for you), but how it makes the game better?

Don't take the lazy way out and say "gold sink" because I've explained numerous times - in detail - why something does not perform the function of a gold sink unless it targets the rich over the poor, and respec fees do not do that.

Sorry, that's not testing to me anymore.

We'd just have to agree to disagree because it is now apparent that what you see as the issue, is exactly why there is a cost.

You see it as a disincentive to experiment, as a bad thing.
I see it however as an incentive to be more thoughtful with one's choices, as a good thing that makes said choices all the more valuable.

I see it as an incentive for you to experiment fully with the traitlines you just spec'd before dismissing it.

I see it as an incentive to not have a mentality that everything requires an optimum spec to accomplish. You will not be optimum for everything. Learn to overcome with what you chose.

If this causes one to be discouraged from experimenting, I would question if he wanted to respec just for sake of experiment in the first place.

[Bloggi]

draxynnic, on 07 December 2012 - 03:25 AM, said:

-snip-

Each person would do things differently, but personally I take things to the experimental stage (ie. actually re-spec to try something new) only if a build passes muster in the theory-crafting stage. In the time between BWE3 and headstart I had already spent some time looking at the skills and traits and trying to decide on the things that could work when used together. There have been minor changes since then, however if we were looking at that information fairly regularly while leveling a toon, then we would be up to speed with it. To my mind at least, with each profession, there are clearly a number of less useful traits and skills, while a few are seemingly mandatory depending on the planned build. We shortlist these and build accordingly.

Personal experience taking a toon from level 1-80 also counts for a lot, to the point that we may already know what works and what doesn't, or the things that work but potentially outdone by a different skill or a combination of traits and skills. This is particularly important, and is clearly lacking when simply having a toon at lvl 80 and testing it out in the Mists with 70 trait points available and all skills unlocked.

IMHO there are other reasons why people may fail to experiment, and it does not have much to do with respec costs:

1. Pure lazyness: when there's numerous proposed builds on the forums, some of which have garnered much praise and accolades, it is easy to just take them as cookie cutter and build accordingly.
2. The concept of theory-crafting before actual experimentation, as above. Ties in to a certain degree with some pigeon-holing, where there's clearly some traits or skills that don't 'work' as well, so there's no reason to experiment. Might as well save ourselves the pain and the coin by going with what appears to be 'better'.
3. Public reception, whether in-game (eg. in a dungeon team) or at these forums. Some interesting out-of-the-box builds have been proposed here no doubt, and I've seen responses that are worse than constructive criticism. Some of them are tantamount to outright bagging. That is no encouragement to experimentation.

For me personally, what seems to work best is a combination of reading, theorycrafting, and then actually playing and leveling the build from start to finish, having gear in mind that would best complement the build (based on all Wiki info), and then playing it in the manner I know best. If nobody questions me negatively about my build and I feel effective in whatever dungeon group I join, then that is all good news. It means either the build or the playstyle (or both) work. Nevertheless, I wouldn't take something 'experimental' into a dungeon instance. Experimentation is actually a long process in open world events and as we work through our personal storyline. And a dungeon instance is where we demonstrate our skill and how well we know our build.

EDIT: On the topic of gold sinks, I neither agree nor disagree with the idea of gold sinks. What you say is true...the purported gold sinks will hurt newer or poorer players than it will those who are more experienced and turn in signficant amounts of coin each day. That said, I simply accept that costs are a fact of life. I expected them in this game as such. There have been numerous complaints about waypoint and armor repair costs. Again, IMHO, fact of life. I appreciate that things do cost some form of currency, whether it be time or coin. We can debate on whether we require something 'unfun' like this in a game that is clearly not real life, and is supposed to be 'fun'. But that is a debate that wouldn't be won by either side.

Edited by Xekk, 07 December 2012 - 04:51 AM.

[fatrodmc]

Its not just the respec people, that is cheap. It is the gear to go with it.

If I spend hours and hours grinding to get exotics I can only choose the traits on that gear once.

For example why should we have to grind the cash for a whole new set of exotics just because we want to try power+precision gear instead of power+condition damage.

[Asudementio]

fatrodmc, on 07 December 2012 - 05:42 AM, said:

Its not just the respec people, that is cheap. It is the gear to go with it.

If I spend hours and hours grinding to get exotics I can only choose the traits on that gear once.

For example why should we have to grind the cash for a whole new set of exotics just because we want to try power+precision gear instead of power+condition damage.

you don't. Test it out in spvp and if you like the play style then buy the armor set.

[Ghostwing]

draxynnic, on 07 December 2012 - 03:55 AM, said:

Rather than going over my reasons again, I refer you to this.

The short form: Inflation, per se, isn't a problem. The reason why it's seen as a problem in MMOs is that brand-new players are generally restricted to (close to) the same rate of gold production as was available upon release, while more and more money pools in the accounts of rich, established players driving up the prices of endgame items until the 'barrier to entry' for new players becomes insurmountable.

The problem gold sinks are meant to address is not inflation itself, but keeping the gap between rich and poor controlled. A "gold sink" that proportionally speaking falls more heavily on poorer players than the people who are farming several gold an hour is actually making the issue worse.

The respec fee only applies to players who have been playing for awhile rather than new players, as people usually only pay for respecs after 60 (the last skill book, if I remember right). The respecs before that are immaterial because it costs basically nothing and the respecs aren't even necessary unless you traited for the worst possible build for whatever reason. If you're referring to new 80s and old 80s, well, new 80s have access to guides written by old 80s. Though I see your point, it's not a very good gold sink, but really, the cost is almost meaningless.

Now as far as the skill point books being a gold sink, well that's there to slow everyone down from getting their T3 armors or whatever carrots you're playing for. That one penalizes everyone the same.

fatrodmc, on 07 December 2012 - 05:42 AM, said:

Its not just the respec people, that is cheap. It is the gear to go with it.

If I spend hours and hours grinding to get exotics I can only choose the traits on that gear once.

For example why should we have to grind the cash for a whole new set of exotics just because we want to try power+precision gear instead of power+condition damage.

I can relate to that, and yeah, I wish they'd put in a cheap way to change exotic armor stats to other exotic armor stats without having to earn a complete new set of armor. But they'd have to figure out a way to do that without having the game turn into everyone doing the easiest dungeon run and then getting stats that aren't available from that dungeon.

Edited by Ghostwing, 07 December 2012 - 09:06 AM.

[Arquenya]

Asudementio, on 07 December 2012 - 05:44 AM, said:

you don't. Test it out in spvp and if you like the play style then buy the armor set.

Well you may like to be able to play with more setups.
Diversity is a nice thing. You know, horizontal progression and such.

[asbasb]

fatrodmc, on 07 December 2012 - 05:42 AM, said:

For example why should we have to grind the cash for a whole new set of exotics just because we want to try power+precision gear instead of power+condition damage.

Hmm, this sounds like a job for GW1's Insignias.

Quote

Insignias were introduced with Guild Wars Nightfall.
Insignias were available only for PvP and Guild Wars Nightfall until the May 24, 2007 update, which replaced the old armor bonus system and made salvageable insignias available for every campaign.

Unfortunately insignias would decrease the time and work you have to invest into getting geared up, which is contrary to the long term item progression philosophy that needs to be in the game to keep people happy. Also, it would decrease gem store sales numbers on t-stones.

[fatrodmc]

asbasb, on 07 December 2012 - 11:59 AM, said:

Hmm, this sounds like a job for GW1's Insignias.

Unfortunately insignias would decrease the time and work you have to invest into getting geared up, which is contrary to the long term item progression philosophy that needs to be in the game to keep people happy. Also, it would decrease gem store sales numbers on t-stones.

Yeh just not sure who exactly these 'happy' people are...Insignia's would be perfect.

[draxynnic]

Asudementio, on 07 December 2012 - 05:44 AM, said:

you don't. Test it out in spvp and if you like the play style then buy the armor set.

spvp is a very different environment to pve. What works in one is not necessarily going to work in another (after all, GW1 mesmers were regarded as the most dangerous profession in PvP and the least useful in PvE for a lonnnnnnng time).

Ghostwing, on 07 December 2012 - 09:00 AM, said:

The respec fee only applies to players who have been playing for awhile rather than new players, as people usually only pay for respecs after 60 (the last skill book, if I remember right). The respecs before that are immaterial because it costs basically nothing and the respecs aren't even necessary unless you traited for the worst possible build for whatever reason. If you're referring to new 80s and old 80s, well, new 80s have access to guides written by old 80s. Though I see your point, it's not a very good gold sink, but really, the cost is almost meaningless.

So, you're saying that people should just follow the cookie cutter guides rather than finding things out for themselves? Because, y'know, that's exactly the sort of behaviour that the post which kicked this off is mourning, because that's exactly what the effect of the respec fees is. People are keeping to the builds that work because they don't want to risk blowing seven silver on something that doesn't (I say seven rather than three and a half because you have to factor in the cost of switching back too).

There's also a distinction between player behaviour as well as age-after-reaching-80 that is going to influence how rich a player is. Someone who spends most of their time farming whatever they've found to be their most efficient means of generating wealth (whether that's dungeon runs or more traditional farming) is probably not going to be experimenting a lot anyway - they're going to have already perfected the build that works for what they're doing, and if there are any respecs in their run, it's because they're getting even more wealth generation as a result and the respec cost is probably not slowing them down much. It's the people who aren't making mega moolah and who may otherwise have more of a mentality for trying things out rather than just going with whatever creates maximum wealth generation for whom the respec cost remains significant, and for whom the respec cost remains a psychological or material barrier to experimenting.

[marvalis]

Trei, on 07 December 2012 - 04:04 AM, said:

I see it as an incentive for you to experiment fully with the traitlines you just spec'd before dismissing it.

There is not a single doubt that if respeccing gear and traits could be done anywhere when out of combat (or outside of a dungeon) people would experiment more with different builds and gear.

The least they could have done is giving us two or more specs.

And yes, the gear is the main issue here (costing many golds), not the 4 silver respecs that you have to go to Lions Arch for.

Even Anet admitted that changing gear is costly and that this removes flexibility and that they 'will look into it' on the Redit AMA or whatever is is called http://www.reddit.co...utm_medium=feed
It is somewhere in there I cant be bothered to read the damn thing again so you will just have to trust me.
Ofc. Anet isn't going to change a damn thing since they are sold on the gear progression treadmill.

Also, locking people into choices doesn't make that choice more meaningful, it just makes it harder to change. If you don't understand the difference ...

Edited by marvalis, 08 December 2012 - 11:49 AM.

[Asudementio]

draxynnic, on 08 December 2012 - 11:24 AM, said:

spvp is a very different environment to pve. What works in one is not necessarily going to work in another (after all, GW1 mesmers were regarded as the most dangerous profession in PvP and the least useful in PvE for a lonnnnnnng time).
So, you're saying that people should just follow the cookie cutter guides rather than finding things out for themselves? Because, y'know, that's exactly the sort of behaviour that the post which kicked this off is mourning, because that's exactly what the effect of the respec fees is. People are keeping to the builds that work because they don't want to risk blowing seven silver on something that doesn't (I say seven rather than three and a half because you have to factor in the cost of switching back too).

There's also a distinction between player behaviour as well as age-after-reaching-80 that is going to influence how rich a player is. Someone who spends most of their time farming whatever they've found to be their most efficient means of generating wealth (whether that's dungeon runs or more traditional farming) is probably not going to be experimenting a lot anyway - they're going to have already perfected the build that works for what they're doing, and if there are any respecs in their run, it's because they're getting even more wealth generation as a result and the respec cost is probably not slowing them down much. It's the people who aren't making mega moolah and who may otherwise have more of a mentality for trying things out rather than just going with whatever creates maximum wealth generation for whom the respec cost remains significant, and for whom the respec cost remains a psychological or material barrier to experimenting.

True but the fundamental playstyle of your build remains the same so there is validity of trying changes in spvp.

Also GW2= GW1

[FoxBat]

I think this is one of the better gold sinks actually. Less serious players are not going to be min-maxing their setup for each and every different activity (world pve / wvw / x dungeon /etc.), min-maxers will dump the gold into it because it's so tiny.

Arquenya, on 07 December 2012 - 11:52 AM, said:

Well you may like to be able to play with more setups.
Diversity is a nice thing. You know, horizontal progression and such.

Ironically that IS horizontal progression. You grind for more options.

Otherwise you're just looking at horizontal.

Edited by FoxBat, 08 December 2012 - 07:39 PM.

[Ghostwing]

draxynnic, on 08 December 2012 - 11:24 AM, said:

So, you're saying that people should just follow the cookie cutter guides rather than finding things out for themselves? Because, y'know, that's exactly the sort of behaviour that the post which kicked this off is mourning, because that's exactly what the effect of the respec fees is. People are keeping to the builds that work because they don't want to risk blowing seven silver on something that doesn't (I say seven rather than three and a half because you have to factor in the cost of switching back too).

There's also a distinction between player behaviour as well as age-after-reaching-80 that is going to influence how rich a player is. Someone who spends most of their time farming whatever they've found to be their most efficient means of generating wealth (whether that's dungeon runs or more traditional farming) is probably not going to be experimenting a lot anyway - they're going to have already perfected the build that works for what they're doing, and if there are any respecs in their run, it's because they're getting even more wealth generation as a result and the respec cost is probably not slowing them down much. It's the people who aren't making mega moolah and who may otherwise have more of a mentality for trying things out rather than just going with whatever creates maximum wealth generation for whom the respec cost remains significant, and for whom the respec cost remains a psychological or material barrier to experimenting.

No, I'm saying people have more references they can use to see how to build; not that they necessarily have to copy it exactly. They have more ideas that have been tested by others to build off of, which cost the people who came before the respec fee. If you don't want to use those resources then yes, pay the fee just like the people who paid to experiment before you.

Another reason for these fees (respec, death repairs, waypoints) is to create more obstacles to your goal (best gear, best stats, best build, best toys) to lengthen the life of the game. This applies to most games (game over screens, checkpoints that aren't where you died, limited lives, etc). Implementing a respec fee delays you from your goal.

Whether that's necessary is well, personal preference. Instead of limited lives or check points in a traditional game they could just give you limited health and when you die you get back up 3 seconds later at the exact same point and they just count a fail meter. A reverse scoreboard, so to say. But they don't do that for whatever reason. Penalties make video games "fun" in that it looks like there's a challenge and drawbacks.

Edited by Ghostwing, 09 December 2012 - 01:48 AM.

[Trei]

draxynnic, on 08 December 2012 - 11:24 AM, said:

.... It's the people who aren't making mega moolah and who may otherwise have more of a mentality for trying things out rather than just going with whatever creates maximum wealth generation for whom the respec cost remains significant, and for whom the respec cost remains a psychological or material barrier to experimenting.

I am one of those people you just described.

I am not making mega moolah, I have 4 gold to my name, it has never reached 5 gold before yet but it is steadily reaching it.
I like to try things out rather follow the flavor build of the month, no PvX or cookie cutter for me.
I still have not finalize my build and I have yet to enter the same dungeon with the same build I went with before so far.

Yet I do not see the costs being a barrier to anything.
I am not respeccing every other hour of play, nor do I see the need to.

[Trei]

marvalis, on 08 December 2012 - 11:46 AM, said:

...
Also, locking people into choices doesn't make that choice more meaningful, it just makes it harder to change. If you don't understand the difference ...

It is precisely that it is harder to change that will cause one to pause for consideration.

The meaningfulness in that choice manifests in that moment you decide to discover the weaknesses inherent in your choice, accept it, learn to find ways to overcome it, and exploit your strengths to the fullest at the same time, rather than go "oh wrong spec, let me respec".

"Ah, this dungeon has mostly AoE packs but my toon is built for singletarget fights..."  Respec? No.
Rearrange my traits, change a weapon... voila new build.

It may not be the optimal AoE build my profession is capable of, I may not have the optimal gear set for it, but it is my build.

Edited by Trei, 09 December 2012 - 02:29 AM.

[Sword Hammer Axe]

I honestly hope this isn't the case. They already have endgame problems, so if they move up the endgame, everything that's endgame now would become just another step on the ladder. and we might end up just where we started.

Though tbh, I think it's a philosophy they've kind of abandoned. I mean just look at all the things they'd have to do just for a few extra levels. New areas, mobs, weapons, armor, crafting levels, even the legendaries and what was meant to be completely endgame content like Fractals would have to be changed for it. I think they're gonna keep us at level 80 and add new content in a lot of other places, kind of like they did with GW.

[pumpkin pie]

the way i see it, this is a "living, breathing, fantasy world" the "goalpost" should be moved, constantly,  else it is not much different from any "static" game world, is it?

[King Tomodo]

THey (A-net) are giving us everything the monthly-fee MMO's out there is giving their players, just that we in GW2 dont have to pay the monthly-fee. They could just have released the game as it was and not change much to it cuz its just B2P, so I see all this with new dungeons, new gear, new level cap and on as a pretty big carrot. That being said it wasn't what I expected after all this "hardcore players shouldn't be stronger than normal players" and "if you stay away for 6 months and come back you aint gonna be behind other players" quotes, and this is what I expected from a pay one time and play game. We are getting so much more imo that I'm overjoyed. Happy times!

[Dasryn]

yeah its a vicious cycle.  obligation wise, i dont think ANet really owes anymore than theyve given.  i watched the manifesto video that keeps getting toted around, and ANet delivered on all their promises in it.  HOWEVER, ambition and overall scale of the game wise, ANet's priority is retaining players, because players spend money in their cash shop.  they have to keep coming out with content to hold players.  and honestly, im not sure what rock you guys were under, but about 3 1/2 weeks ago, this forum was flooded with "there's nothing to do at 80" threads.

FotM appeased gamers.  it did its job.  you can complain all you want, but its doing what ANet needs it to do.  they know they have you by the balls.  i talked to two game devs yesterday in map chat.  i know i cant be for sure, but they seemed to know enough of what they were talking about and i straight asked them: "being in the game development industry, do you guys know that you have us gamers by the balls?"  they both said, "yup".

so i suggest that if you cant handle these changes, leave.  just stop playing GW2.  because ANet is looking out for their bottom line.  maybe when theyve lost enough players they'll start thinking about a new direction but as of right now? things are gravy for them.  there was a thread on here asking people how much rl moeny theyve spent in the gemstore and people were posting over $300.

yeah, gemstore and fractals arent going anywhere.

hell ill admit it, i dont really care, i will drop $100 on this game when i hit 80 to buy cultural tier 3 armor.

so lets wrap this up, you wanna make a difference? then stop playing.  thats the biggest impact you can make, just dont turn into duskwolf and linger here trashing the game every second you get.

[Ritualist]

Rickter, on 09 December 2012 - 03:44 PM, said:

so lets wrap this up, you wanna make a difference? then stop playing.  thats the biggest impact you can make, just dont turn into duskwolf and linger here trashing the game every second you get.

Or, better yet, you bitch on Guru (or anywhere where they'll listen to you), picturing a dire picture of GW2 and hopefully preventing potential customers from buying the game.
Win-win.

Well, unless you are still playing the game, of course.


EDIT:
@below:
Yeah ... that's not what I said. As people have argued lately - consumers shouldn't be listening to everything A.Net says because they lie or things change or .... So I fully support other consumers pointing out these lies or changes and thus, hopefully, preventing potential customers from buying a game that doesn't play as it was advertised.
That way you give something back, instead of simply quitting. Of course, what you give back is a finger to A.Net and the community, but hey - if they are going to screw with us and if people will blindly support this ... tough luck.

Edited by Protoss, 10 December 2012 - 07:09 AM.

[Dasryn]

Protoss, on 09 December 2012 - 04:23 PM, said:

Or, better yet, you bitch on Guru (or anywhere where they'll listen to you), picturing a dire picture of GW2 and hopefully preventing potential customers from buying the game.
Win-win.

Well, unless you are still playing the game, of course.

yeah, this is why i said, dont be like DuskWolf. . . .