Jump to content

  • Curse Sites


Member Since 19 Aug 2009
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 10:44 PM

#2340330 Gone For 6 Months..

Posted Kymeric on 26 September 2014 - 03:39 PM

View PostMiragee, on 26 September 2014 - 02:57 PM, said:

I also refuse to believe that the grumpy GW1 players are still the majority of complainers/people that are dissatisfied with the game/devs.

I'll stand up and be counted there.  I only played GW1 because I got excited about GW2.  It was a way to connect with GW2 before betas started.  I played through all three campaigns, EotN, War in Kryta and love story thingy (name escapes me at the moment).  I had fun, but I definitely wouldn't consider it one of the best games I've ever played.

I'm a grumpy GW2 player, but I don't want it to be more like GW1.  I want it to be more like the vision that ArenaNet cast before launch and more like what it was for a few months after.  I want it to be more like that immersive, explore-y, organic MMORPG they described and I experienced early on than the checklist focused, timer drive, repetitive, carrot-chasing MMO-as-usual it has been gradually evolving into since then.

#2340033 Gone For 6 Months..

Posted Senatic on 22 September 2014 - 01:09 PM

View PostKatsumi Kei, on 22 September 2014 - 12:57 PM, said:

Nothing controversial in them. Delivered, for the most part, desired features and improved the game big time. It could seem a little too much seeing all that at once, but the changes are positive.
Weird is not necessarily bad.

Nothing controversial? What rock have you been living under. No, it did not for the most part deliver desired features. It delivered required features for the continued growth of the community, but there was nothing desirable about most of them. The community never asked for these changes, anet made them to increase player retention. And as to whether or not they were an improvement is completely subjective, which should go to show that it was a bad way to go in the first place.

If you like insistent hand holding like you're a baby and your parent is afraid to let you play with your toys than sure I guess you could enjoy them. Personally I am a grown man perfectly capable of figuring out things for myself without daddy anet controlling every little detail of my play experience.

#2336381 Contest: Guild Wars 2 Memes

Posted Rhododendron on 22 August 2014 - 08:22 AM

Posted Image

#2331278 FIFA World Cup 2014 Brazil

Posted BuddhaKeks on 08 July 2014 - 08:51 PM

I should be cheering, yet I can't help but feel bad for Brazil! Holy Shmoly!

That said... KLOSE!

#2330102 Is guild wars 2 worth playing today?

Posted Krazzar on 01 July 2014 - 02:29 PM

Taking the thread literally, today is a good day to play because there is supposed to be a new release.

#2328596 Would you pay?

Posted MCBiohazard on 18 June 2014 - 01:05 PM

View Postilr, on 17 June 2014 - 03:38 AM, said:

The devil's advocacy is strong here, but I think it focuses too much on the business model rather than the reasons that the prior one existed.  They did all that ambitious stuff for the expansions because they felt like they had to in order to break into a better market.  They had plenty of additional microtransactions in Gw1 too.  But they didn't have a lot of "Whales" left once the PvP'ers became disenfranchised from expansions (which brought in many times more PvE'ers instead).  Rather, they traded one very nitpicky hard to please demographic with waning income potential, for a larger but much more casual target.

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.

#2323658 Prepare for the Festival of the Four Winds!

Posted davadude on 14 May 2014 - 06:31 PM

View PostHybarf Tics, on 14 May 2014 - 06:28 PM, said:

this is all they got

With your reasoning, they'd be re-running Flame and Frost, Clockwork Chaos, and the Origins of Madness.

View PostHybarf Tics, on 14 May 2014 - 06:28 PM, said:

Lion's Arch is a wasteland. :qq:

This update will begin to show the rebuilding of Lion's Arch (ketchup sauce).

#2322653 The Elder Scrolls: Online

Posted Da-Noob on 09 May 2014 - 08:12 AM

ESO got me back into GW2.  I played GW2 quite a bit and just ended up taking a break for the game considering no sub fee, and I played the beta of ESO and thought "This game seems alright, but all the mechanics that they use that I like are mechanics I've seen in GW2.  Now that I think about it, I miss GW2 and will start it up again."

#2320516 Unlocking traits.

Posted Baron von Scrufflebutt on 27 April 2014 - 07:42 AM

View PostPhineas Poe, on 26 April 2014 - 05:15 PM, said:

Do you guys even play Guild Wars 2?

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?


View PostPhineas Poe, on 26 April 2014 - 05:36 PM, said:

For new players that actually care about playing the game this is cheaper for them than the previous system.

By "caring about playing the game" you mean 100% world exploration, personal story and 5 select WvW activities, right?

#2320044 Unlocking traits.

Posted Konzacelt on 25 April 2014 - 03:02 PM

To say they have badly placed unlock conditions is an understatement.

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.

#2319816 Unlocking traits.

Posted Konzacelt on 24 April 2014 - 02:57 PM

The problem I have with it is that it's both lazy design and presumptuous.
  • 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?

#2315587 Pay-to-win

Posted master21 on 10 April 2014 - 05:28 PM

I want to add something.

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.

#2313497 Pay-to-win

Posted Arkham Creed on 02 April 2014 - 10:25 PM

A lot of the pay-to-win arguments I’ve seen lately stink of what I call “subjective advantage.” It was summed up best in a recent thread I shall link at the end of this post. In a nut shell the purposed “essence” of pay-to-win was “the personal victory conditions” of each individual player; those personal goals we all set for ourselves within the game such as collecting all the skills, gaining map completion, or crafting a legendary weapon. It was said that any form of “pay-to-complete my personal goals” is a form of pay-to-win. This is a logical error to an extreme degree. You see as an MMO the game has to cater to one degree or another to a majority audience, and as such major changes and monetization should appropriately be based on majority preference. The problem is that these subjective advantages, or “personal victory conditions” are not uniform, and apply only to each individual. As such it is literally impossible to come to a uniform or even majority consensus on what constitutes “pay-to-win” when dealing solely in these subjective opinions and personal goals.

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.

#2313126 What GW2 does right

Posted SpiralCee on 01 April 2014 - 02:20 PM

I was thinking the exact same thing the other day: we are taking for granted the awesome features of this game, and you don't realize it until you go play something else!
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!

#2303779 Update Notes - March 4th, 2014

Posted Satenia on 06 March 2014 - 12:16 PM

Having played the rest by now, I'm left with mixed feelings:

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.