Jump to content

  • Curse Sites

Shayne Hawke

Member Since 19 Aug 2009
Offline Last Active Today, 07:01 AM

#2340647 GW2: a true successor to GW1

Posted lalangamena on 04 October 2014 - 10:43 AM

GW2 is a dead game because Anet switched the target audience to game hoppers, the game hopper will pay for some ingame stuff.
( if the endgame is cosmetics then the gemstore is definitely a p2win system) and then leave for a newer game.
the full maps are just an illusion created by the megaservers.

#2340132 Gone For 6 Months..

Posted ilr on 23 September 2014 - 06:18 PM

A bunch of changes were basically made to market it in China for a while and also to market it harder to something else called "MMO Whales".   It's no longer a cooperative action-skill game.  It is a point & collect binge for a specific niche of higher income achievement seeking gamers

#2337738 Thoughts on the September Feature Pack?

Posted RandolfRa on 01 September 2014 - 06:46 AM

View Postdavadude, on 01 September 2014 - 05:07 AM, said:

It's easy to be petulant about the lack of visible progress but that doesn't mean nothing's happening behind the scenes.

Aye, but in the end a customer is only interested in the actual product and how it compares to other similar products in the market. Whatever internal problems a company may have aren't relevant to the customer. If your services suck, they suck. In the long term it doesn't matter why.

For example in our context, I could care less how updated and streamlined the code base of the Guild Wars 2 client is. I care solely about what I experience in game.

#2337567 Thoughts on the September Feature Pack?

Posted Phineas Poe on 30 August 2014 - 06:18 AM

View PostCalypso589, on 30 August 2014 - 05:29 AM, said:

it's only been two years.


#2328299 Would you pay?

Posted I'm Squirrel on 16 June 2014 - 03:50 PM

wouldnt pay for anything arenanet releases after what gw2 has become in the past 2 years

#2323097 The new daily system.

Posted Baron von Scrufflebutt on 12 May 2014 - 10:21 AM

View Postraspberry jam, on 12 May 2014 - 09:51 AM, said:

I think that the new daily system is horrible.

Then again I thought that the old system was horrible, as well as the one before that, as well as the idea of daily quests at all.

GW1 Zaishen quests were fairly well done, sometimes.

In my opinion, GW1 ZQuests felt better because they were about forcing players to do content, whereas a number of GW2 dailies is about forcing players to do non-content: you end up having to do content that the game otherwise doesn't care if you are doing, or even worse, doesn't even want you to be doing (ambient creatures being the perfect example: there is a reason why they have no HP and give no rewards upon death).
But to implement such a system, one first needs to have content that one can tie them to and that's exactly what GW2 lacks.

#2320405 Megaserver rollout complete

Posted raspberry jam on 26 April 2014 - 07:43 PM

Since they use that language filter to filter out people who don't speak your language... What if they added a "role playing" filter?

#2319990 Unlocking traits.

Posted Baron von Scrufflebutt on 25 April 2014 - 07:04 AM

View PostFeathermoore, on 25 April 2014 - 12:58 AM, said:

The change is designed for three purposes. To create a learning system for new players, to evolve an existing system to create more horizontal progression for new players, and to create another method to encourage players to return to older content. All of which are positive. All of which the system is successful at. I don't need to quote Colin. The design goals were pretty self evident when the system was explained.

I am bothered by the bolded part.
As you also pointed out, the game already had too much progression. If we look at progression as a learning tool, that would mean that we already had a system in place that failed to teach players: had the previous system been usable as a learning tool, I don't think we could have made the argument that the game has too much progression. The new system also didn't didn't expand the quantity of content that would demand that new "lessons", we just got more "lessons" instead. Also, some of the requirements (for instance, jumping puzzles or super-mega zerg events) "teach" players playstlyes that are either completely secondary or actually wrong.
Regarding horizontal progression: the game's shitty balancing really turned traits into vertical progression. There's a selection of traits that are insanely superior to other options and that's really not an example of horizontal progression.
As for encouraging players to visit old content: pre-patch characters already have the majority of traits unlocked, which means there's no reason to visit the old locations for them, as for new players, the system is a bit bad at encouraging: given the cost of buying traits, it's closer to forcing players to do this content than it is to encouraging them.

Now, as folks have been saying, hunting traits could be a good addition. The problem is that it's currently implemented poorly and the same poor implementation has been seen in basically every addition to GW2 since release. So, with that in mind, does it still make sense to support additions that are good in theory, but have been botched up consistently for the last two years with no sign of improvement? Maybe it's time to accept that what we are seeing here isn't an exception to the rule, it's the rule?

#2319976 Unlocking traits.

Posted MazingerZ on 25 April 2014 - 04:23 AM

View PostFeathermoore, on 25 April 2014 - 12:58 AM, said:

Already explained that that isn't my argument. I would know what my argument is... seeing as I am making it. So are we going to red herrings, ad hominem, and appeals to emotion now? If you want to discuss and counter my arguments in a way that contributes to the discussion I welcome it. So far you haven't actually said anything that wasn't a logical fallacy though with most of those being snide one liners. Try and drop the ego, read the guidelines, and think about them.

Incorrect. You are misrepresenting my argument. Probably due to miscommunication. Limiting choices does not inherently make the system better. Limiting choices in a way that encourages or guides players through a learning process does. There are also other aspects that make it better that are only possible with the locked system.

Already did for new players, Though for older players it depends on the player. Seeing as my argument is that the system encourages learning, it helps the old players as well. Only the "oldest" of players have any sort of interference to their play and then only if they actually know every class inside and out without playing them. It is a reasonable assumption that that is a vast minority of players.

The change is designed for three purposes. To create a learning system for new players, to evolve an existing system to create more horizontal progression for new players, and to create another method to encourage players to return to older content. All of which are positive. All of which the system is successful at. I don't need to quote Colin. The design goals were pretty self evident when the system was explained.

This is once again a fallacy of composition revolving around a false dichotomy. You are stating that because a single aspect of the update is bad that it follows that the entire system is bad. It doesn't. You can't say that without providing reasoning. It also isn't good or bad. This isn't a binary result.

No, you're argument is that it's got issues, but it's still a good system.  You're going to also have to explain how it teaches players anything except creating another checklist for completionists who go to dulfy to figure out what they need and go do it. Because it appears its a system designed to lead players around by the nose,or can easily be bypassed with a little gold and acquisition of some skill points (a process accelerated by committing to some RMT).  The system might force them to get involved in the game outside of just crafting their way to level 80 and joining a champ train, but no lessons are taught as to why one would bother wasting their time picking up Trait X unless a guide told them they needed it for a build or how to leverage Trait X... outside of a guide.

Oh, and you have a wonderful history of assigning fallacies (incorrectly and without explanation) when you're incapable of explaining something like... how is this a good system if its apparently already rife with issues like putting Adept traits in level 80 zones.  You've stated it does X without any exemplary evidence that it does just that.  Nothing about where this crap has been sequestered does anything to teach beyond "Hey, there's a trait system."

And anyone who doesn't know where to look when be directed to Dulfy the instant they say "Hey, looking for trait X, where can I find it?"  "Go to dulfy.net"

If anything, I'm going to laugh when a year, year and a half down the road we're faced with a new issue... Traits locked behind champ bosses aren't being done everyone else has shit to do.   I wonder what the activity will be like when trying to take down Skullsmasher in six months.

#2318776 Megaservers or not Megaservers?

Posted shanaeri rynale on 20 April 2014 - 06:15 PM

View Postdavadude, on 20 April 2014 - 04:22 PM, said:

Outlined in the release patch notes.  They first plan to release the megaserver system in full, before going on to actually fine tune it.

Which is IMHO a totally dumb way of doing it. Doing it the way they are doing it just means it will tick everyone off by the time the filters are working. Surely it was better to get it all working in one zone, then spread out from there than annoying virtually every pve player in the game first,

#2309161 Traits Unleashed: Forty New Traits and More!

Posted Minion on 21 March 2014 - 01:11 AM

Honestly, the worst part about this update is ramping trait progression up even higher. I wanted it to go DOWN. I don't want to wait until level 30 to get my first trait. That is utterly absurd.

The game is not meant to be played with 0 traits. At level 30, if you enter Ascalonian Catacombs after the patch, you will have one minor trait skill. Wow. So Arena Net want people to learn how to play their profession with no trait skills and, therefore, no synergy between the party or their skills/traits, until MAX LEVEL. Are they serious? I HATED playing my engineer without Grenadier, or mesmer without... Actually I just hate mesmers.

I like the free re-trait from the UI, but goddamn, Anet do one good thing and take two steps back.

#2308009 Will Arena Net just let Guild Wars 2 die?

Posted MazingerZ on 19 March 2014 - 04:44 AM

View PostShayne Hawke, on 19 March 2014 - 03:16 AM, said:

At least one of three things is true:
  • Gems are spawned out of thin air through the gem exchange.  Buying gems with gold deletes your gold and creates gems, and buying gold with gems deletes your gems and creates gold.  There is no transfer between two people with one person's gold and another person's gems.  If this weren't true, the gem exchange may have been dead from the start, because no gems or gold would have existed in the exchange to complete anyone's transactions, or

  • ANet put a bunch of gold and gems in the exchange from the start, which they had created out of thin air.  People extract the gems out of this system by exchanging for them with the gold they generate through gameplay, gradually raising the price.

  • Equal amounts of buy and sell orders of gems on the exchange tend to make the price of buying gems higher.
In either case, Spidy seems to show plenty of activity in the gem exchange, and earnings reports seem to suggest that GW2 is raking in cash just fine right now.

This is wrong.  Gems are spawned when cash is expended and gold is spawned through in-game effort of killing things.  The theory behind the exchange is when when people exchange cash for gems, gems are given/generated based on a predetermined value, initially.  When more gold is spent, gold prices go up to reflect a demand for gems.  Theoretically, when gem is used to purchase gold, gem value goes up because more people want gold.  This 'supply and demand' for both gold and gems.  This is on top of fees for the process, which is really just overhead.

ArenaNet created an initial pot for the exchange and theoretically, only player demand has adjusted the value of gems vs gold.  (You know, ArenaNet would never do something like adjust costs when a major update with hot items came out to force more players to expend cash instead of gold).

A high gold value is indicative of players expending gold to purchase gems, but fewer people are converting their gems to gold.  Instead, people are probably expending cash for gems directly if gems are being generated at all.  Ultimately, the question becomes whether the gold prices naturally depreciate when no one is exchanging gems for gold, or if we have to wait for people to decide to expend gems to buy up gold.  And then it becomes a question of when it becomes necessary to expend cash to buy gold and whether the price is being adjusted to maintain revenue levels.

It's a funny money system maintained by the developers on their word, with no transparency or reports on exchanges or revenue.  The only certainty is how much gems costs per dollar and costs of items for gems at the time of conversion.  Even without the gross fees on the exchange rate (15% tax), it'd be somewhat foolish to try and 'invest' in such a system either way.

This is why the EVE system is more preferable, because that market's managed by the players.  PLEX is a flat dollar rate and also converts to Aurem (gems) at a flat rate.  Both the items bought with Aurum from the cash shop and PLEX are sold to other players for in-game currency.  Since the fluctuating prices are dictated by EVE's playerbase, its probably the most transparent way of exchanging cash for in-game currency sustained by a developer.

#2306302 Account wide agony resistance and a mission with it.

Posted MazingerZ on 13 March 2014 - 05:05 PM

Just to underscore Jam's point, its not anyone's fault but your own that you bought into a system that ArenaNet arbitrarily installed and now is arbitrarily going to change.  If anything, you should be upset with a system that apparently isn't meeting the demands of the player-base at large that is necessitating such a consideration after you bothered with the long-term investment.

ArenaNet's not even going to take anything from you, numerically speaking.  Your efforts would just be minimized.  Honestly, that's the nature of most MMOs.  The trivialization of a system once the (to use other people's nomenclature) try-hards and no-lifers have completed it to open access to rest of the player-base.

#2306032 Account wide agony resistance and a mission with it.

Posted Gyre on 13 March 2014 - 06:13 AM

An account wide agony resistance stat completely reverses the need for ever making the ascended gear tier.  That they would even contemplate this for a split second as a topic for discussion blows my mind.

#2303249 In the end I just wish Arena Net would finish Guild Wars 2

Posted MazingerZ on 04 March 2014 - 05:38 PM

View Postraspberry jam, on 03 March 2014 - 09:01 AM, said:

There is little money in doing that. I mean compare going back and make sure that all the pieces fit, pieces that only people who will go back to replay those parts care about, when the entire business idea, at least right now, is to keep feeding players with new content to keep the interest boucing?

If you look at the current trend of games being released in essentially 'early access' mode with micro-ts, you will see that this does the neat little step of by-passing a lot of consumer protection laws by not selling you the finished product and instead selling you 'access' to a game in perpetual development with no obligation to address issues and every intent on leveraging their revenue model at you.  GW2 is truly a pioneer in the video game (bilking) digital age.