- Viewing Profile: Likes: XPhiler
XPhilerMember Since 21 Dec 2011
Offline Last Active Mar 27 2013 03:10 PM
- Group Members
- Active Posts 1766
- Profile Views 1587
- Member Title Seraph Guardian
- Age 34 years old
- Birthday March 12, 1979
Posted Al Shamari on 14 March 2013 - 12:36 AM
Posted pumpkin pie on 14 March 2013 - 05:31 AM
If I could have a character that could honestly be a healer, or provide utility or be a warrior and change it based on the needs of the content - then that would be awesome. Instead, you have characters that can provide much less utility and healing than in GW1. Instead of giving you more options, they gave you very limited options.
I really hate to say this, your playing the game wrong.
There is no dedicated healer in this game, they have told you this. You need to learn to play this game and forget about guild wars 1. You might find it enjoyable, start doing dmg, spread condition and heal at the same time. You watch my back and I'll watch yours.
Posted mdapol on 07 March 2013 - 10:34 PM
Posted Dasryn on 05 March 2013 - 11:35 PM
as opposed to what? a hardcore player? they have those in gw2? do the people that consider themselves hardcore, REALLY hardcore? i doubt it.
you know what hardcore is? 60 man dungeons back in the EQ1 and vanilla wow days.
you aint hardcore, no one in today's mmo gaming playerbase is hardcore, you guys are wannabes.
and you automatically jumped to the conclusion that because i used the word "tank" i was built like a traditional tank. WRONG. im built like a gw2 tank. i hit extremely hard with a high crit percentage and have high toughness, in any other game, this would be OP but it fits with gw2 aggro tables.
but thats what you did, you ASSUMED traditional tank - think outside the box, thats what i had to do to make a tank in GW2 and thats the whole point now isnt it? gw2 gave me the flexibility to THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX.
Posted astromarmot on 04 March 2013 - 06:41 PM
At the same time, I feel like it has taken the "role" out of "ole Playing Game".
The idea of different classes predates the holy trinity. It really has its basis in pen-and-paper RPGs where you actually rolled your class and your attributes.
Regardless of my personal feeling that the lack of really different classes takes away from the team play of the game - does it take away from the actual "role" in role play game?
Does the lack of diverse roles in GW2 make it less of an RPG (Role Playing Game) in your opinion?
I get what you're saying but of course it depends on how you define role...we are all but poor players that strut and fret our hour upon the stage...
Pigeonrole may not be a word, but perhaps it should be...as it seems GW2 offers the role to be less typecasting and more impromptu...
Posted Kymeric on 01 March 2013 - 06:21 PM
I wasn't adding that because I thought you had. I just realized as we were talking that sometimes designers make unpopular choices for the better of the game, it's also important to note that it can be taken too far.
During closed beta for The Secret World, I got a distinct impression from some of the developers as they responded to our feedback that the attitude was "we're the developers, we know better", which is a pretty ludicrous approach. What the players think will fix a problem might not be the best solution, but it's easy to go too far and dismiss the idea that there's a problem at all.
Which is what makes it a difficult line to walk. Creators can't dismiss audience feedback, but they can't be ruled by it either. Which is why you can end up with one half the player base feeling like Devs never listen while the other half feels like Devs are always giving in to the vocal whiners.
Posted EagleDelta1 on 26 February 2013 - 08:18 PM
Why compare GW2 to any other MMO, including GW1?
Why can't we just accept that it is a new (and different) game than it's predecessor?
Personally, I like the high level. I like it because I enjoy playing the game and don't feel like I'm grinding to death just to get to level 80. I like that while gear is NOT the center point of the game, it actually has some sort of meaning this time. I like that how well I play is actually based off skill rather than some ability to put together a good "build" or have the right gear.
I just spent the last 3 days in the Human starter zone doing dailies for fun and it lead me to find parts of the zone I never knew existed. I met new people, I learned how to play the mesmer a bit better and I just simply had fun. That is where GW2 is successful, NOT it trying to be or NOT be like GW1, WoW, Rift, or any other MMOs out there. GW2 is both very familiar and different. It takes elements from GW1 and a host of other MMOs out there and combines them with different mechanics that make it much, much better than other games out there. GW2 has drawn a lot of new players. Hell, I have a lot of friends get the game that didn't want to play GW1 or played it and got bored really fast.
I have only ever played AC on story mode. No other dungeons - not because I didn't want to, but because I just haven't. I still have a lot of fun. I don't need everything right here and now to be happy - why does anyone else?
I really think people are missing the point here. If you're only playing GW2 for the dungeons or for the events or any other one thing, then you're missing the entire point of the game. The game IS designed to have fun - from lvl 1 to 80. It is NOT designed for people that want to have everything at once, nor is it designed for people that like to grind the best gear. If you want to play GW1, go play GW1, If you want to play a WoW - go play WoW. I could go on and on. Play GW2 for what it is and stop whining that it's not like this "other game" or that "other game".
Posted Lordkrall on 25 February 2013 - 10:27 AM
But doing it well is rather subjective.
Said restaurant might, in my eyes, have extremely good and well done food, but in your eyes it is horrible.
There is no universal truth when it comes to opinions.
Posted Volkon on 21 February 2013 - 01:23 PM
That's not entirely accurate either. That would only be true if the increase in stats was enough to reduce the number of attacks needed to clear the mob, but that's not a safe assumption to make. If a mob has 1000 health left and you hit it for 2000 or for 2010 damage it's still going to die in the same number of hits. The increase is negligible enough that it'll actually be a rare occasion when you require less hits to kill the mob.
Posted Krazzar on 20 February 2013 - 07:36 PM
Really, it comes down to time. Yes, I see value in leveling to the point where it helps you get a basic grasp of the games mechanics. Past that, it really does come down to a grind. I didn't like leveling in GW1 or in GW2, but at least in Factions and Nightfall, it was quicker and the max level content was much better.
Of course, I am sure new content will be provided for GW2, which will alleviate that feeling - but it still takes way to long to get to max level, regardless of whether that level is 10, 20, 80 or 10,000. The number IS rather irrelevant.
GW2 leveling seems like a chore, especially after your first character.
Going through a zone isn't a chore for me. I like to take my time, explore, talk to NPCs. During that time I know I will level and on every one of my 6 level 80 characters I remember being surprised at how quickly I was leveling, whenever I noticed my level that is. There will be more zones in an expansion pack, I'm going to spend time in them and because of that I will level, levels don't concern me at all, gating and content pacing concerns me.
Posted Lordkrall on 20 February 2013 - 07:15 PM
If you don't know what you are talking about, please don't post suggesting otherwise.
Are you disappointed that your favorite game that you have defended to the ends of the earth might do something that you don't find particularly exciting?
Can't you at least read the WHOLE quote you posted? "we've always EXPECTED". That is quite clear that they are not saying: We WILL, it is saying we MIGHT.
Also there is nothing in that quote that say anything about how gear and such will work with a higher level cap.
Posted Volkon on 20 February 2013 - 01:37 PM
Posted Krazzar on 20 February 2013 - 12:21 AM
Absolutely, subtext and structure and vocabulary and so on changes, while the alphabet does not. And that is exactly why stats should be kept still while the amount of tools available to you should increase: new skills, new gear types (altering, but not increasing the raw power of, your stats and abilities), new tactics taught and required, all of that should absolutely accompany the progression in a game - but at the same time, just like a 7-year-old can read books meant for 15-year-olds if they can handle them, a relatively new player should not be artificially restricted from taking on any challenge that the player can handle.
Basically, sure you would not expect a first-grader from understanding The Republic, but assuming that some rare first-grader would be capable of it, you should not prevent her from reading it.
But that is what levels do.
Anyway, if you don't "pick leveler as your role", then why do you want levels to restrict you?
Many GW2 players have killed Zhaitan (multiple times, even, with different characters), and many GW2 players have acquired max gear, and still play. Same thing for GW1: the vast majority would beat each campaign and get max gear within let's say 100 hours to be safe (probably a lot less), but lots of people still racked up thousands of hours. And there are plenty of people who played Morrowind long after learning how to beat the game in seven minutes. You tried to make a point, and you did, but not really the one you meant to make, I think.
Actually, adding or removing letters to an alphabet is far less demanding that changing vocabulary, subtext, and complexity. Numerous languages have done so without issue, but trying to get someone to understand text outside their capabilities is impossible. Stats changing on a ratio don't actually change anything and if you can count or glance at a health bar it isn't an issue. Tactics building is what levels are all about, limiting the tools makes you more likely to understand each tool better and thus fit them together better. That's also literally how education and training works. On the topic of challenge, levels provide the ability for players to choose their challenge, but you already knew that because I've been saying it for years. You'll probably say it doesn't exist or matter, I know you like that tactic, but vague personal anecdotes and "because I say so" doesn't actually mean anything when it comes to this topic, whereas these systems are obviously parallel to how pretty much everything around the world operates.
What is the GW2 equivilent of The Republic? Once you are an adult are you forced to read only adult books and everything like an SAT question? No, you can read any level of book with any style. Recently I have read quite a few Duck and Goose and Winne the Pooh books, along with many other books targetted at young children. Is that because I find the content to be compelling and rich in educational value for an adult? No, it's because I'm reading to my two-year-old niece and I enjoy that experience. Do I have to take my level 80 character to a level 15-25 zone? No, but I enjoy exploring the zone with my guild mate. I don't have to zip from map objective to map objective, just like I don't have to read Duck and Goose: It's Time forChristmas as fast as I can with no emotion, only paying attention to the main points.
Levels don't restrict me, they don't impact my activity to any large degree. My activity is not dictated by my level. My goal is not to send all my characters to one spot to farm.
I made the exact point I wanted to make, which you repeated. There is no difference in motivations or activity between a game with a high number of levels, a low number of levels, or no levels at all. Levels are just a universal indicator that are useless without considering the structure of the game. That is a lesson you should have learned years ago when I talked about levels. The levels don't matter, all that matters is the structure of the gating, progression, and the learning systems. You can have a game with no "levels" that is far more restrictive than GW2, and when you can do nearly anything with a selection of zones to pick from GW2 can't be called restrictive at all.
When you're just enjoying the activity of the game you're not limited. I don't view reading to my niece as a waste of time, even though I could use that time reading research I need to do for work. I don't view inefficient time in GW2 with guildmates as wasted time. I know how to be efficient with leveling in GW2 too, my best so far is 50 hours to level 80 with no boosts, limited to two crafting professions with "inefficient time" sprinkled in, maybe that could be an issue for some as well. Overall it just seems like there are some personal issues with the idea your character is not perfect right away.
You still can't go "wheerver the hell I want", you have to get to the zones first. In order to get to the zones you have to go through other zones. What you are really saying is you don't want anything to do with those zones, you have a particular point in mind and that is the only place with any value to you. You could do that in Morrowind, you could walk a straight line to nearly any point, but did most people do that? Not that I know of, most people wandered around through connected territory. The structure of GW2 is exactly how people naturally play games when they want to just play a game in the first place. So instead of playing the game in between point A and point B you view the actual content and experiences of the game as simply a barrier between point A and point B. That is setting yourself up for grind and the definition of endgame mentality. Again and again the message is repeated, "I don't like the things I can do in the game but I keep playing it for the rewards at the end of the game".
So again, do we need levels? No, but the game wouldn't be any better without them. Another gating mechanism would be used to fulfill the same objectives, and from past experience it would probably be a more restrictive gating mechanism, like linear story progression, gear, map completion, or "ranks, tiers" or any other name for another leveling system.
Posted Strawberry Nubcake on 18 February 2013 - 09:47 AM
Believe it or not, some of us don't live in Orr or camp dragons. There is actually a whole world to explore and Anet has been trying to make the loot more appealing.
Posted Krazzar on 14 February 2013 - 06:04 PM
As for the "other things" that require ecto's I was refering to some things that require 1 ecto or a small amount here and there but add to the total overall market by alot.
Unfortunately it is your logic that is flawed. Not everything in the game is aimed at every single player. The game has many, many paths you can take depending on what is important to you. For example, there are many cosmetic options for armor and weapons, but for someone that only cares about stats the cosmetic rewards are irrelevant. Having so many options only means they try to cater to a wide set of players with different interests, not that everyone must do everything. If you want the bare minimum you don't even need a rare set of armor or weapons to survive in the game, functionally the needs are set very low and don't even require ectos.
Even assuming you need ectos if you do pretty much any content near or at level you can get all the ectos you need quite easily for exotic armor, weapons, and jewlery, unless you sell all your materials and haven't finished a single crafting profession.
Speaking of UW, why do we see old UW creatures and they no longer drop ectos? I'd go do the swamp event a lot more if the Aatxes dropped what they used to drop.
And yes it is illogical for every exotic and higher item to require a boat load of ectos when we can only get them from items.
You can easily generate ectos by crafting using materials you get by the boatload for just playing the game. You can't make hundreds of ectos at a time, but it isn't a grind if you actually play the game. By now I must have used a whole stack of ectos without buying a single one.