Jump to content

  • Curse Sites

Shayne Hawke

Member Since 19 Aug 2009
Offline Last Active Today, 02:22 AM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Is GW2 dead now or is it just the forums?

15 November 2014 - 05:59 AM

View PostEl Duderino, on 15 November 2014 - 03:48 AM, said:

This is getting pretty far off-topic now...

Eh, I was going to try to tie it back with some remark about not being able to discuss anything meaningful on a forum if ANet can't design their game in a way that makes it obvious who it's for... but on second thought, ♥♥♥♥ it, I'm dropping it, it's not worth the hassle to try to continue to talk about this game.

In Topic: Is GW2 dead now or is it just the forums?

15 November 2014 - 02:14 AM

View PostPhineas Poe, on 14 November 2014 - 11:13 PM, said:

But "the whole of GW" doesn't cater to the individual. That's why I'm disagreeing with you.

We don't disagree when it comes to how GW2 caters to individuals.  We disagree on who the game is designed for.  You seem to think it's for teams.  I think it's for individuals, which it does a terrible job of by putting them into team situations, places where any given individual doesn't matter.


In relation to PvP, I don't think I need to contribute any more on that subject until you answer my previous question. But just to make a statement, tournament PvP is VERY communication and skill focused. Conquest is a team-based gametype, and the best TEAMS, not individuals, win.

The same goes for WvW. It's an RvR gametype. It's about the strength of a SERVER or GUILD, not the individual. Good servers beat bad servers. And there's a reason why certain guilds are respected in the GvG circuit and others aren't.

This type of content doesn't reward based on individual contribution because it's not about individual contributions. It's about who is the better team or the better server. And that requires having players that give a shit, put in the work/thought into getting the right gear or build, and play well.

Once someone recognizes that the outcome of whatever they're taking part in will be largely the same regardless of how much effort they put into it by themselves, and that they will receive a reward for the group's effort alone, there exists no further motivator within the design of the game for that person to put in any work towards that outcome past whatever they must do to let the system know that they are there.  Scenarios like 30v50 in WvW or which server wins in a given week or the enormous groups of people tackling a world boss dilute individual responsibility so much and provide little (if any) means to gauge one's own performance that it can even destroy any incentive by anyone introduced to these situations to do anything but contribute as little as is necessary.

In Topic: Is GW2 dead now or is it just the forums?

14 November 2014 - 05:20 PM

View PostPhineas Poe, on 14 November 2014 - 04:42 PM, said:

Please cite one PvP team that has veered away from the meta and won a tourney.

Late Edit - And RE: WvW, there are plenty of zerg-busting guilds that wipe out other servers 30v50 all the ♥♥♥♥ing time. This is a game that gives safety in numbers, but if someone knows that they're doing they can win 1v2s all the time. This game rewards players who think and who build correctly.

This game has its issues, but let's not be absurd about it. Competitiveness is what drives PvP, not rewards.

Please explain to me how PvP tourneys and 1v2s in WvW are representative of how the whole of GW2 caters to the individual.  Please explain to me which individual in the 30v50 is responsible for the fundamental outcome of one side wiping in that engagement, how removing them from either side or adding one player to either side will change the outcome, and how that player is rewarded or punished for that responsibility compared to others in the group.

In Topic: Is GW2 dead now or is it just the forums?

14 November 2014 - 04:40 PM

View PostPhineas Poe, on 14 November 2014 - 04:23 PM, said:

Just because any class "can" fit any role, that doesn't mean every class is equal to one another or that roles have ceased to exist. There's pretty clear cut logic behind the WvW and PvP meta being designed the way they are. And I would be very much amused to see someone try and play a turret engineer in WvW or a triple med guardian in a zerg and think they're contributing to the effective strengths of their profession.

Who cares if they're contributing to their strengths?  They're getting rewarded just as much as the most effective players as long as they stick those players' blobs.  Why push to be any better if the team as a whole wins anyways and that is the only source of being rewarded?

In Topic: Is GW2 dead now or is it just the forums?

14 November 2014 - 04:11 PM

View PostEl Duderino, on 14 November 2014 - 04:33 AM, said:

It really goes to the design of the game. GW1 is a team game from the ground up and GW2 is a solo game from the ground up.

Which sounds silly when you consider how many things exist in the game that urge you to partner up and play with others - dungeons, fractals, world bosses, group events, zone farms (like Pavilion), anything bigger than a supply camp in WvW, sPvP, and at least one activity each holiday.  Thanks to the homogenization of the professions so that any profession can fit any role (with exception to a few unique traits/skills) and the reward structures being set up to reward teams rather than individuals for the most part, there is very little feedback for a player to understand whether they, or any other individual, are being effective or ineffective in a team setting.  In many cases, there is little to no demand of the player to actually understand how they are interacting with the game and to find better ways to interact, because as long as their team stands on the appropriate side of the binary question of if they won or not, how much they contributed to that goal is neither recognized nor rewarded/punished.

A game that is designed to have a great single player experience is not going to get that by asking the player to put themselves into situations where they, as an individual, don't matter.