- Viewing Profile: Reputation: Mordakai
MordakaiMember Since 19 Aug 2009
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 09:01 PM
- Group Community Contributors
- Active Posts 8113
- Profile Views 9078
- Member Title Mordakai7
- Age 40 years old
- Birthday October 20, 1973
Sanctum of Rall
Posted Krazzar on 01 July 2014 - 02:29 PM
Posted MCBiohazard on 18 June 2014 - 01:05 PM
It worked too. After the other standalone "Chapters", the total sales really took off from 1 mill to over 6 mil by the time they started hinting at GW2. And the reason it worked, is that they pushed themselves into a content crunch to deliver a known quantity. They buckled down and condensed their focus on making just a few things that were really good, with unified currencies/rewards. Instead of a menagerie of fluff that lives too much in the moment. They didn't sacrifice "creativity" to do this, they sacrificed endless jerking around. They accepted a process, and some kind of standard with it. Did they end up powercreeping some stuff pretty badly? ....yes. Was that powercreep ONLY for the Whales? Not at all. These Ascended / Legendaries cleary are however. Along with other "Market Advantages" this thread's asking about.
Eventually that market will become insolvent. Quarterlies showed it was already starting to weaken. Gems wouldn't be endlessly inflating if it wasn't. And not even "Premium Memberships" can save it once it starts to go. And when it reaches that breaking point, they won't have the rest of that uber-important content model from a real Process / Commitment -- to fall back on. It's a downward spiral frozen in time just like Waking Waters, specifically because they heard the popular opinion about expansions and then ignored it so they could keep frittering away at an approach that required a lot less Focus. They only thought about what was more fun for them, not what was more fun for You, ...and I, and all their Gw1 Vets.
Hey ilr, long time no see, haha.
I agree with your premise that A-Net lacks direction right now for some reason or another. Why that is so, neither you or I can really say without some extremely reliable insider information which I suspect none of us are privy to. I just disagree a lot with the notion that an expansion based model is the only way an MMO can reliably release quality content. It did work for A-Net in GW1 and for Blizzard for many many years but the environment's changed for MMOs these days. Your old bugbear Jack "Jackalope" Emmert at Cryptic Studios kind of saw where the wind was blowing after Turbine made it big turning DDO into a F2P game. While Champions Online still isn't a game I want to play and Neverwinter Nights went in a direction I didn't like either, his studio's middle child Star Trek Online is exactly the the content release model that could work for GW2 and seems to be what the upcoming LS2 is trying to pull off. It had a rocky start as a sub game, a rocky transition into a freemium model and then finally reached a point where they had enough focus to keep releasing new replayable content on a steady basis after their first big post F2P release that finally shored up a lot of the stuff that was missing at launch. And they're about to drop the last piece of the post launch puzzle next month as well by replacing the terrible crafting system they had at first with something else. It only took them 4 years to do it, right? How long does it take the average MMO to even out, even the ones everyone here remembers fondly? For us City of Hero vets, I'd say it was at least 2 to 3 years before we had something really solid and there were still bumps in the road after that.
A-Net's issue is definitely lack of focus. But to say that forcing them into releasing an expansion is the only way to fix that is not really too arguable given that we don't know why there is a lack of focus. The example I gave above shows that there are viable ways for them to give what people want without throwing the upcoming content release model out the window before it even shows up. It's still up to them to deliver though. I'm in wait and see mode instead of full out doom.
Posted davadude on 14 May 2014 - 06:31 PM
With your reasoning, they'd be re-running Flame and Frost, Clockwork Chaos, and the Origins of Madness.
This update will begin to show the rebuilding of Lion's Arch (ketchup sauce).
Posted Da-Noob on 09 May 2014 - 08:12 AM
Posted Baron von Scrufflebutt on 27 April 2014 - 07:42 AM
I thought I made it perfectly clear that my GW2 playtime is limited. Not just that, but when I do play, I don't always consider champ-zergs to be the way I want to spend my playtime.
So, if you play that way (limited time, barely any zergs, new characters, possibly alts), as I said, there's a pretty decent chance that you don't have skill points to throw around. Which means that you are stuck with exploration as you only way of unlocking traits.
Now, folks that play this way are already very much limited in what they can achieve in game, so the question is: why is a trait system that additionally limits what they can do an improvement? Why would I argue for a system that leaves me with less skills and less traits and I need to pay more for the ones I do have, over the old one?
By "caring about playing the game" you mean 100% world exploration, personal story and 5 select WvW activities, right?
Posted Konzacelt on 25 April 2014 - 03:02 PM
For one thing, as someone already mentioned, this makes it virtually impossible to exclusively play WvW as a new player. That part of it is just wrong.
For another, it does actually force you into certain areas you might otherwise not go. For instance, I recently started a condi ranger just to see what the new system would be like. Using a shortbow is an obvious choice for ranged dps for a condi ranger. For it to be at all effective, I'd need to get both Piercing Arrows and Sharpened Edges. Both of those required me to go to areas I never intended to, my plan was to do all the human areas, and follow my storyline to Orr. Now I have to take a lot more time running around a map I've already gotten world completion on 3 times just to play my toon effectively. Not only that, but now I have to wait until at least level 60 just to have the ability to use Piercing Arrows.
I agree the free respec is very nice, but it would have been better if they had simply added that to the old system. As it is now, I don't really want to even play my new toon because of it. It's extremely frustrating.
Posted Konzacelt on 24 April 2014 - 02:57 PM
- The new system is obviously designed to be in-step with new players as they are exploring the map, I get that. But there's little rhyme or reason to it, it's just randomly assigning objectives with little thought to it. And it shouldn't be tied to world completion, that's making a rather large assumption that you want to see every nook and cranny in Tyria. If you are going to go this route though, a better system would be having the traits tied to the PS. For instance, if you are a Charr and a member of the Vigil, the unlocks should be around Ascalon and Vigil story areas. I also don't think you need to wait until the top level areas of the game to finish this, it should come around lvl 40-50 or so.
- My other issue is the cost for gold unlock for non-new players. I understand there are lots out there who easily come by gold in this game through specific daily tasks, trading, dungeon runs, etc. But there are also those like myself who don't play the game to make any gold. As an almost exclusive WvW player, gold is very hard to come by in this game. Asking an older player to shell out 40g to unlock all traits for a new character hits you hard. I got really lucky last month and managed to get a drop that finally put me over the 100g mark for the first time in this game, and I've played from launch. Since then, it's been slowly dropping though. Why should I have to farm in PvE just to stay afloat, much less equip a new toon?
Posted master21 on 10 April 2014 - 05:28 PM
Every MMO is p2w when we use this strange definition.
You can always, in every freaking game buy account, resources, gear, from other ppl. I can buy WoW account with full everything and win the game. Yupi...
You can't ignore it. You can't just look at "what is legal", because it does not matter much. Money always opens every freaking door. I could even buy whole game if I had enough money and do whatever with it.
Sub based MMO are p2w. You either need to pay more with your time and less with money or more with money less with time. You are even forced if you don't have enough in-game time to pay more.
I could in theory always stop working in real life - so paid amount of my salary and focus in 100% on game. More time = more "win". So p2w.
Every freaking unemployed player is a p2w guy because he/she has too much time. He does not paid this money to game developers, he/she just does not earned it. From player perspective it is the same.
And talking that if something ingame could be bought only by real money is less prestige than something farmed with play time is very strange.
It's just a matter of being jealous. It's less "prestige" because average player can't plain afford it so he just as "jealous response" states that it sucks.
Posted Arkham Creed on 02 April 2014 - 10:25 PM
As such these types of definitions are rightly based on objective advantages. That is to say paying real money for an undeniable statistical advantage in an officially competitive play mode. Because of this, to put it simply, paying to have stronger weapons in PvP would be pay-to-win, but paying to acquire a legendary skin slightly faster in PvE is not. This is regardless of the value any individual player places on the speed of acquiring these skins and their place within said player’s “personal victory conditions.” Once again, it is factually impossible to reach even a majority consensus on what is a “fair” or “unfair” rate of PvE cosmetic accusation to dollars spent ratio.
Some players just won’t care about buying skins. Others, like myself, draw the line at paying for specific reward skins but care little about gems-to-gold conversion allowing faster material gathering. Some would reject the concept of any form of impact real world currency might have on the system, and others still would feel that some degree of monetary support of the game should be required for the most prestigious rewards or in-game perks. It is simply not possible to reconcile these differing, yet each equally viable, subjective opinions. And as such high impact monetization decisions that affect the entire game and all players needs to disregard all of these opinions equally; instead basing such decisions entirely upon objective statistical advantages in officially competitive content types only. The only way to be fair is to have every subjective opinion matter equally; not at all.
In the specific case of Guild Wars 2 nothing in the gem store is pay-to-win because nothing therein provides any degree of statistical advantage in a competitive game mode. You could argue this statement based on the gradual cross contamination of PvE and WvW, but WvW is confirmed and designed to be “unbalanced” and by that nature “unfair” to begin with. The only strictly and officially competitive game mode is sPvP, and the gem store has zero impact on it from a statistical perspective. As such Guild Wars 2 is objectively not pay-to-win regardless of the opinions of individual players based on their “personal victory conditions.”
In the end it falls to each player to make the decision if any given game’s monetization system is right for them. And if their subjective desires are not being met, or being contradicted, by that game’s system then it is best for them simply to leave the game rather than unfairly and selfishly requesting these systems be changed to suit their subjective view. And in doing so, it is also only fair, that they acknowledge the difference between a game that is actually pay-to-win, and a game that simply involves monetary systems they don’t like for purely subjective reasons. Put simply saying Guild Wars 2 is “pay-to-win” when what you actually mean is “I don’t like the gem system because people with more money can craft statistically irrelevant skins faster” is not only inaccurate, it is a boldfaced lie.
The thread that inspired this tangent can be found here;
My post starts at the top. If you don't want to read you shouldn't be on an internet forum. Stop being lazy.
MOD EDIT I haven't changed anything in this post, but I just wanted to say this is the best TL;DR I have ever read. Well played good sir and thank you for voicing the mindset needed on a discussion forum.
Posted SpiralCee on 01 April 2014 - 02:20 PM
1. Everyone gets loot.
2. Everyone get resources nodes.
3. It's sooo darn pretty. Each zone is unique.
4. No need to wait for a priest to rez you, anyone can help you out, and they DO!
5. Running and firing spells and the same time... I forgot about how awesome this was until I played another game and I was rooted to the spot. Sucky!
6. The dynamic way that NPCs run up to you and ask for help. Can be annoying but it's also very interactive and makes the world feel alive.
7. Getting XP for crafting and exploring and rezzing.
I could go on... but I've want to go play!
Posted Satenia on 06 March 2014 - 12:16 PM
The whole story part is alright, more questions raised than answered, but at least we got something interesting to look forward to.
However, from a gameplay point of view, I think the update is a step back. Too much is dependent on random factors. Random overflows, random amount of random players. Successfully completing the breachmaker event or not is simply beyond your control. Personally, I find this already problematic with certain revamped world bosses, but for a LS conclusion I expect differently/better. To me, the whole "doing large-scale events in the open world" is one big failure, simply because players have no reliable way of organization.
During the previous LS, there were multiple smaller events throughout LA, this worked out because they can also be completed with just a handful of players. Saving 1200 citizens was semi-problematic and caused plenty of drama already. 3 Assault Knights followed by the Holo fight is simply not suitable for a large random crowd.
I used to dislike LS content accessible through a 5-man-dungeon-instance, but after this recent mess, I sure as hell wish them back. At least there you could pick your own group accordingly.
Finally, when they have to present us with a "backdoor" portal to the end-boss, I feel that something went horribly wrong.
Posted El Duderino on 23 February 2014 - 07:14 PM
I know that GW2 makes more money from GW2 players on microtransaction than GW1 made from GW1 players on expansion quarters.
I guess you can choose to believe $25-30M a quarter is all whales spending and that GW2 has less players than GW1, but even in the 2005-2007 period with expansions available for purchases, GW1 was making $15M in a quarter.
$15M is 500K boxes @$30ea (already discounting the retailers slice).
The only metric we have available to compare GW2 and GW1 is revenue.
I know that Anet was able to create GW2.
And now people are trying to tell me that the same people that made a game have not enough people to make an expansion.
The data is Live for anyone to see - just log in GW2 and you can see how much content GW2 had at release and how much content GW2 released trough Living Story.
GW2 is a financial success - vide NCSoft earning reports.
GW2 generated more revenue than GW1 - vide NCSoft earning reports.
Living Story did not produce enough content to justify all the Anet staff working in it - Anet themselves claimed that the Live Team is 10-20 as large as GW1 Live team that was composed by 4-5 people - and so Anet must be working in something else like an expansion. Anet claimed that they are working in GW2 related projects.
Now what is your point?
That Anet won't release an expansion in a box form?
It might happen that they don't release an expansion in a box (I believe they will) but be it box or no box doesn't prevent Anet from working on content other than the Living Story.
It is clear from the start that Anet has a Live team and that the Live Team is not all Anet.
"Our goal is to continue to raise the bar by keeping the game constantly updated with more high-quality content than any other game has offered before. We think Guild Wars 2 is one of the most enthralling online worlds ever created, so we are dedicated to a live game that impacts this world with events and milestones that are immersive and possibly permanent. We want this to be a world where you share memories of pivotal moments and exciting experiences for years to come.
To meet our goal, rather than have one small live team as is normally provided in traditional MMOs, we have formed multiple live teams focused on expanding Guild Wars 2 in the long term. I’ll cover the teams in broad terms below to give you an idea of the kind of support to expect. As our teams update the game, they will give you more specifics in the form of update notes, media interviews, and blog posts like this one.
So who are our teams, and what do they do?
Live Security—You’ve heard from this team’s coordinator, Mike Lewis, already on our forums, so you’ve seen some of their early work and long-term plans already. Our security team is focused on fighting bots, spammers, and account thieves. They work closely with customer service in those areas.
Live Response—The Live Response team is focused on fixing bugs, addressing game feedback, and balancing the game. You’ve seen a lot of their work already in the update notes.
Living World—The Living World team is focused on adding new content to the game world. This team will be adding and refining the types of content you already know in PvE and WvW, as well as developing new features and rewards.
PvP/E-Sports—This team is dedicated to supporting and building the competitive PvP community. They will be building new features that help support the growth of Guild Wars 2 as a competitive game. Jonathan Sharp will be sharing more on this in the near future.
Holidays & Events—Our Holidays & Events team will be creating a variety of special holidays inGuild Wars 2, building on the long tradition of amazing holidays in Guild Wars. You can likely guess which holiday you will see from this team first, and I recommend that everyone check our website next week for more information about this exciting first event.
On top of holidays, this team will also be creating in-game one-time events that occur and can change the world or drive narratives that come to a finite conclusion across the world.
Mac & Performance—This team is focused on development for Guild Wars 2 for the Mac. You’ve seen them recently release the Mac Beta Client as their first major project. They’ll also be focusing on client performance, helping ensure the game runs well on the widest range of hardware going forward.
Bonus teams—We will sometimes be creating additional teams not listed above. These teams will build specific cool features or events we decide we want to do outside of the scope of the other live teams. (Spoiler: We have some of these teams hard at work right now, and you’ll be seeing the first results of their efforts in November.)
Lastly, we have our Commerce team. You’ve heard from John Smith, our economist from this team, recently, and you’ll be seeing many additions from our friends in the Black Lion Trading Company in the future.
We hope this look at Guild Wars 2 live development gives you some insight into how we’re hoping to push the envelope in managing our live game. For those familiar with the original Guild Wars, you know we have a long history of adding incredible free content and features to the game. With a dedicated live team more than ten times the size of the Guild Wars live team, we think you’re going to be blown away by the size and scope of live additions to the world of Tyria for a very, very long time."
No, I'm not trying to make a point other than to refute your point. You don't know anything about how either game made their money, how many active players there are or were or anything. It is all speculation. And you are trying to use that speculation as facts on which to make your point. Your foundation is based on bullshit, is what I am saying. Therefore, any point you are trying to make it bullshit. Again, please either refer to me the exact breakdown of GW1 and GW2 number of active players and how much they spent and where, or stop using it as a point. I know for a fact that you can't unless you are way up the management chain for Anet, which I highly doubt you are - so stop trying.
As for the rest, why do you keep copy and pasting stuff that has nothing to do with anything. I really don't understand. You are making no sense and clogging up the thread with useless crap.