Jump to content

  • Curse Sites
Help

Warchild

Member Since 19 Aug 2009
Offline Last Active Jul 01 2013 01:41 PM

Topics I've Started

1 gold per guild emblem per character sucks; yet another gold sink

04 September 2012 - 01:34 PM

So if you want to display your guild emblem you have to pay 1 gold per character.  I think this is rather steep, considering that just about everything in this game is turning out to be a gold sink.  You have to pay for waypoints, to list items on trade (when it works), to unlock traits, to repair armor, to make your guild bigger and so on.  These are just things that pop into my head.  I have no doubt that there are many more things to spend gold on that I have not encountered..  

On top of paying one gold for the emblem on your armor you have to pay additional silver to display it on weapons anywhere from 20 to 30 silver depending on weapon type.

I hear that you should be able to use the item transformation stone to apply it to better weapons and armor, but have not been able to get the basic stone to work, so that tells me I need a fine stone to apply it.  I will have to spend some more gold to buy gems to get those. Oh joy yet another gold sink!  Think of how many different armors and weapons you will go through to lvl 80.

To make matters worse the emblem on the armor does not even display correctly.  I get this dual image on the front and back that looks like crap.  ANET if you are going to gold sink us to death make sure that it works correctly.

IMO the emblems should be account wide and be applied to any weapon or armor for a one time fee, even better this should be free considering that the guild already spent influence to earn it, oh wait some guilds may have to spend gold on influence just to earn the right to enable their members to spend gold on emblems.  Spending gold to earn the right to spend gold is just F-ing wrong and yet another gold sink.

At this point I simply refuse to spend any real world cash on buying gems to trade for gold since it seems to me that the game is shaping up as a giant gold sink to steer people into using the cash shop to buy gold.  It is a shame that such an awesome game is being used in this manner.

If I had extra gold to spend I may use the shop and perhaps even spring some extra cash to get something I want, but considering the constant drain on gold I will just do without until I have gold to burn.

Done griping for now.

Can Reverse Balancing Work for GW2?

25 June 2012 - 01:32 PM

Going through the latest US issue of PC Gamer, I was reading a preview for the game Dishonored.   They were talking about how some of the game testers found things the devs never thought of; one example was the main character was falling from a lethal height and able to use the possession ability to possess a NPC at the last second and cheat death.  The devs pointed out that normally the first reaction of a developer is to remove this ability by instituting a set off sub rules to keep the player from doing it. However they were taking a different approach to the problem.  They embrace these types of things in the game and escalate the gameplay to compensate and made the game more challenging instead of balancing it to not allow the players use it at all.

  This seems to be a pretty cool way of balancing the game, while this is a not a MMO game, could this concept be applied to Guild Wars 2?  Commonly seen are the arguments for/against the Meta/OP build that everyone uses, applying this theory of reverse balancing ANET would instead create other builds to be equal with the OP build.

   Game content could be made more challenging as needed as the players discover things the devs have not thought of.  An example of this may be giving a water bound boss an ability to attack things on the shoreline.  I was able to solo a fish boss by sticking to the shoreline and placing turrets in the water and on the shore, occasionally I would enter the water and drag the boss back in range of my turrets.  Turnabout being fair play the boss could be given the ability to drag the player into the water instead.

  What do you all think would be the pros and cons from using this concept?