- Viewing Profile: Reputation: Mordakai
MordakaiMember Since 19 Aug 2009
Online Last Active Today, 04:03 AM
- Group Community Contributors
- Active Posts 8006
- Profile Views 4588
- Member Title Mordakai7
- Age 40 years old
- Birthday October 20, 1973
Sanctum of Rall
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.
Posted El Duderino on 07 December 2013 - 02:42 PM
On the other point: I also hope that EQ:Next won't fall in the same whole. But either way it won't be the game for me. I'm not interest in an MMO with active combat and so much animations and effect that I can see even less than in gw2's combat.
Pretty much. Although, I think that a good sandbox game has the potential to find a good niche and grow well with that niche. It's not going to be a WoW beater (as I feel all MMO's are trying for) but if you look at something like EVE, they have been doing quite well for themselves over the last 10 years not bothering anyone.
Really, I don't understand most MMO players. The idea of needing "something to do" in terms of pushing an achievement bar up or grinding for better gear just doesn't make sense to me. Not to mention, I find it hopelessly boring. But, that's beside the point. The point is that MANY MMO players need that kind of thing to keep them interested in a game. A sandbox game will give them no direction. There is nothing "to do". I don't think most MMO players can handle that.
I actually think ANet had a lot of good ideas, but I don't know if they were just poorly developed or if they never had time to fully develop them. Actual random, changing and unpredictable dynamic events would be awesome. Likewise, if you take something like the Living Story and step back and look at it from a macro scale and think: how can I use the development team to drive actual world events thus providing a little role playing help to people that need a kick start, I think it has a lot of potential. But, it can't be anything like the Living Story we have now. It would have to encompass the world as a whole and include much more than just a linear story. It would have to have subtle changes in politics, trade, factions, quests, etc. There wouldn't be bi-weekly updates, there would be constant updates, unannounced.
Now I'm just rambling, but I think a Sandbox MMO can take a lot of ideas from games like GW2 and make them much much better. Expansions wouldn't really be needed. Ultimately, role playing would have to become a much more important thing, not just another dungeon to kill baddies and get loot.
Posted MazingerZ on 06 December 2013 - 07:24 PM
This is why antitrust laws exist. This is why workers' and consumers' rights laws exist.
Yes, but they don't have a monopoly on the MOBA genre. Find another MOBA game. There is competition in the field. HoN, DOTA 2. The players can go play for another game. The NFL can ban players. There is no other major league for football. They have a monopoly. Banned players would have to find another environment in which their skills can be applied.
It's a dick move, but the players aren't at the mercy of Riot unless the audience sticks with Riot and not the player.
Posted El Duderino on 04 December 2013 - 06:50 PM
My, how things have changed.
For the record, there are two parts to this: not only the addition of ascended gear, but the fact that NOTHING really drops from bosses or dungeons. Most of the stuff is found in the gem store or from ridiculous grinding.
Posted leongrado on 02 December 2013 - 10:41 PM
Right now I play this game and I ask myself "why am I still playing this game?" Just playing the game isn't fun enough to keep me going(unlike a game like Dota), I don't get any noticeable advantages from grinding for gold and items(most other MMOs), and I don't have anything big on the horizon to look forward to.
I remember the tedious title grinds that spent many hours doing. I was completely fine with doing it because there was going to be this cool exciting new thing that was going to come out and playing GW1 almost felt like I was playing the new game GW2 in a way.
Posted El Duderino on 21 November 2013 - 02:48 PM
Currently I would rather them cut back the LS (not get rid of it, maybe 1 a month) so they can also dedicate more time to putting out a true expansion.
I think I side a little with you and Baron. I don't think the LS is terrible, but it hasn't added the kinds of things that people want from an expansion like Baron said, such as new classes, skills and, most importantly, places to explore.
I also think that temporary content in itself isn't bad. I mean, I think that a specific story coming and going that is part of the overall timeline of Tyria isn't a bad thing. But, the fact that there is very little left over is disconcerting.
Imagine a Living Story that added new lands and places to be explored, and while the story may move on, the places stayed and became parts of Tyria?
I mean, why have a dungeon that comes and goes? Why not keep the dungeon and change it so it isn't tied in directly with an old piece of history. Or, better yet, have it tie in as a piece of that history that has come and gone and is now just a hideout for thugs or something equally unimportant to the current LS, but something that can still be visited and adds overall content to the current game?
I think there is room to have a Living Story that has temporary story lines while also providing the same things people want from expansions. Hopefully ANet will figure this out and implement it. If they do, it would be a very large step in the right direction of not needing an expansions while making everyone happy.
tl;dr Identify what it is from expansions that people want. Keep the temporary story lines, but include permanent expansion-desired stuff. Win win.
Posted ilr on 19 November 2013 - 10:44 PM
Oh god... I apologize instantly to the Mods here for the caps above, but this is too priceless for me. I was on a non-stop crusade to try and get the Dev's attentions back on Temples and how bugged they were becoming with all these rushed updates that broke everything else. They ignored me and others like "GuildWarsChamp" constantly. I even starting PM'ing some of them in QA like that Josh guy, and was still being completely ignored. Eventually I just gave up.
To see this inevitable event play out in real time live.... just gives me an ASCENDED tier level of Schadenfreuden right now.
And to be honest, if I sunk 4 straight months into this effort, yeah I think I've earned the right to be smug about it.
Posted Robsy128 on 08 November 2013 - 07:50 PM
Guild Wars 2 (to use a prime example) was incredibly immersive when I first started playing. You heard conversations (which is still awesome), and the dynamic events made sense (in the way that one thing lead to another). However, what broke it for me was that the events just seemed to reset, or try to reset with another event. It would have been okay if they hadn't used the exact same event for the reset each and every time. For example, the centaur attacks against Fort Salma. You would have thought after the third battle, the centaurs would have tried a different tactic. Yet there they were again and again and this, for me, broke the immersion. It's a great design, it just feels very 'samey' after a while.
Perhaps I'm getting too much into the immersion side of things, though. For me, personally, a casual gamer is someone who enjoys the story or another aspect of the game (or all of the game in fact) during a very limited time and aren't fussed with being the best or the quickest. A hardcore player is someone who rushes through things and wants to get the best dps during a certain boss fight and learn each and every mechanic and crunch the numbers that make the game work.
I do feel that a lot of RPGs (single-player) are catering more to the casual crowd, but I don't see that as a bad thing as long as they remember to make content for the hardcore guys as well (without it being a requirement to have fun). I think that was the thing lacking in Skyrim - there wasn't much challenging content to be honest. I mean, sure, you had the dragons and they were tough to begin with and could even take half an hour to beat. But once you learnt a few skills, they were easy and fell down with a few swings of my fists. That's right - not swords - fists. Falcon punch, anyone?
Still, I feel that MMORPGs need to work more to cater to the casual crowd. Guild Wars 2 is brilliant and I love the game, but getting to the maximum level is boring (after the first time at least). The world is rich and vibrant and is incredibly fun when full of players. But it feels somewhat empty and lifeless when there are only one or two people in the map. They should lower the level requirements for dungeons, or at least offer more dungeons at lower levels with an optional hard mode for the hardcore players (like in GW1). I often hear that levels 1-30 are boring in-game, but I find them to be the most fun and polished levels. I find 30-60 incredibly boring and it only becomes fun once again because I can enter a lot of dungeons and gain a level after each and every one. If the game kept the same consistency, it would be great for casuals, whilst having hard mode for those who desire it.
Hopefully that all makes sense! In short, I think single-player RPGs are great for casual gamers, but MMORPGs need to cater to them a lot more whilst offering harder and challenging content to the hardcore crowd (and making sure they keep the middle ground for both sides of the party to mingle).
Posted Cube on 04 October 2013 - 02:25 PM
With done properly I mean, without talking about bugs, lets say everything was permanent. When flame and frost came out, instead of having to gamble away for the CHANCE to get a fused skin, they made the skins a reward for tokens. Lets say, 1500 tokens each, and the dungeon was given 3 paths, they where long and challenging. What would that do? Well it would allow OP and people like him to still be experiencing the game which they previously missed out on, it would allow people like me who honestly would LOVE to own one of those weapons have something really cool to do(I loved that dungeon, it was way too short, but I was really blown away by it). Leave the quests, make them able to go to an NPC to START the chain so they can experience the back story to the dungeon and the characters in it. I'd understand however, that the dynamic events couldn't be permanent, but they could be quest based(i.e one character has to have the quest for the event to trigger in the world and it will only do this one time by character).
That's just my thought on it. Making things permanent doesn't only benefit the players like the OP but also those who love to replay stories. Making content permanent is not hard, and it puts a touch on the world. Makes a new dungeon in a zone otherwise never visited, makes the people who make the content feel rewarded, being able to replay it, knowing players will be able to enjoy it for many years to come.