Jump to content

  • Curse Sites
Help

Captain Bulldozer

Member Since 07 Dec 2009
Offline Last Active Apr 03 2014 04:33 PM

#2308699 Traits Unleashed: Forty New Traits and More!

Posted MisterB on 20 March 2014 - 02:14 PM

I like the changes to trait allocation, and the new acquisition mechanic fulfills their early development ideals they spoke about. Reducing the trait points makes sense given that multiples of five are the only meaningful breakpoints.
Spoiler

This is a deal breaker for me. I would not play with this system, and I will never level another character now. Their level progression is too long already, and further restricting character development makes that worse. Thankfully I already have characters at 80.


#2309026 Tera Rising & Guild Wars 2 - new classes

Posted raspberry jam on 20 March 2014 - 08:39 PM

View PostDesild, on 20 March 2014 - 08:38 PM, said:

You must be under the impression I care about "The Meta". I conquered the Domain of Anguish with zero Paragons! Give me a Ritualist with Shelter and Union, and I will conquer Tyria.
Meta? No no. The cool part was having 20+ buffs at all times. :D


#2271950 Reddit X-Post CDI: Character Progression Dev Responses

Posted Feathermoore on 16 December 2013 - 01:51 PM

View PostCulture Shock, on 16 December 2013 - 12:32 PM, said:

"This is why for GW2 our goals from the start were using Vertical progression for teaching and clarity and then have a common understandable end point at that point switch to a more horizontal progression system which is easy to add too. We’ll still have to overcome some of the downsides with horizontal progression and it’s something we are continuing to work on."

Hmm sounds like they know exactly what they want to do ?  


That in no way contradicts Baron's statement. In fact, it validates his analysis of a potential reason for some of the perceived issues in game. Vertical progression effectively stops after the game stops teaching you the game system (at level 30). And vertical progression si GREAT for this purpose. But after that, the game is pretty much entirely horizontal.

The fact that Anet acknowledges this is confusing as they do not seem to be making decisions that coincide with their own analysis of the game or with their stated goals. Their stated goal is to start with vertical progression and switch to horizontal progression, but they have added vertical progression back in at the end despite saying that they didn't want the downsides inherent with that decision. The stated reasoning for Ascended makes no sense since the initial vertical progression ends at 30 and you don't start building Ascended till 80, long after you have been fully submerged in horizontal systems.

I personally don't think you can fix the downsides of horizontal progression by suddenly adding vertical progression. One of them will invalidate the other in most circumstances and suddenly you add in the downsides of a vertical progression system. Fixing the issues of a system shouldn't be done with a band-aid solution. I think this is more of Anet not knowing how to do this (I don't know either so don't go after me for saying that) and they are doing what they already know since they view it as safe.


#2270375 Living World 2013: The Year in Review

Posted Feathermoore on 11 December 2013 - 07:39 PM

View PostGraka, on 11 December 2013 - 07:06 PM, said:

I have actually liked the living story. With each implementation they have been getting better, and I look forward to 2014. With taking more time to do the end of the Scarlet story, I feel they really want to do it with a bang more than a fizzle and use all the knowledge they have learned over the last year. This is the first time a game company has really done anything like this trying to keep its game having a living, changing world. If you honestly thought there be no mistakes or hiccups you are truly delusional. Trying to say you speak for yourself and your opposition is a true sign of hubris for as I said myself I have enjoyed the LS, as have most of my friends.

Many MMOs have had systems in the past that were the same, similar, or even more powerful than the Living Story in GW2. It is not a new concept or even a new implementation. The only thing that makes it different than many of the previous systems is the turn around time on how fast the story moves. Horizons, A Tale in the Desert, EVE, The Secret World, Tabula Rasa, Shadowbane, Ragnarock, and even the original Guild Wars had systems that were either the same or obviously helped to inspire the Living Story.


I personally am ecstatic that the current arc is ending. I have found the story to be mindless and derivative. Hopefully they will actually use the Living Story to move the game forward instead of just being an excuse for random updates. They have a vehicle for actually evolving their story and hopefully they feel comfortable enough after Scarlet to actually use it.


#2268032 ANet can get alot of respect back by doing..

Posted Miragee on 05 December 2013 - 04:07 PM

View PostShayne Hawke, on 05 December 2013 - 03:56 PM, said:

If the solution to GW2 was to make it more like GW, wouldn't it have been better for them to just have continued working on GW?

Making GW2 like GW won't earn them respect any more than them saying outright, "We ♥♥♥♥ed up," although both actions send the same message.

There is very much in between being exactly like the prequel and being nothing like the prequel. Most of us didn't necessarily want gw2 to be exactly like gw1 (I personally wouldn't have mind expansions instead of gw2 though, regardless of how gw2 could have been). But you shouldn't make a sequel that has nothing to do with the prequel except for some lore connections. But apparently this is not true anymore (I look at you diablo 3).


#2267636 What Happened to the Direction of ANet?

Posted Gyre on 04 December 2013 - 05:36 PM

What kills it for me is the combat system of this game.  Teambuilding was an integral part of playing GW1 well and there was nothing I loved more than the deck building aspect of it.  Even watching fail PUGs slap together terrible builds was a great part of the game and provided countless hours of entertainment for my guild.

Here we get very rigid skill bars with the only dynamic factor being combination fields.  PvE at large is awful at field combos and there is no real pressure to learn what they are much less how to intentionally use them.  Periodically through the course of people spamming 12345 with reckless abandon the field will accidentally trigger...yay...that's some good teamwork.

I stick around now partially because I've made an investment of time in the game but also because most of my GW1 guild migrated.  Some part of me is also desperately hoping they see the light but with each passing update the happy accident they had in GW1 seems to be fading deeper into memory for these people.  It's just so incredibly disappointing.


#2267342 What Happened to the Direction of ANet?

Posted raspberry jam on 04 December 2013 - 12:00 AM

View Postshanaeri rynale, on 03 December 2013 - 02:58 PM, said:

I'm not saying all they needed to do was give GW1 a lick of paint and call it Gw2 but there are some fundamental game and social mechanics that 'just worked' and were refined over the course of GW1 that they seemed to just forget from about 2010 onwards.
One big thing that they did wrong was to try to make everything fit everybody. It's almost impossible to make a game feel epic when even the most casual of players can beat the vast majority of content. It's almost impossible to make a game that both encourages teamwork and supports soloability. But they tried anyway. Their mistake was to try to make it feel epic by putting epic-looking things in, and trying to encourage teamwork by putting predefined teamwork mechanics in. That's not how something becomes epic, and it's not how you build teamwork. "Epic" (as used today) basically means "exclusive", so it's made by shutting out those who can't take the heat. And teamwork is built by allowing people to dedicate themselves to the team.

Teamwork, by the way, goes hand in hand with allowing not-so-good players to still reach actually epic content.


#2267363 "You have reached your quota of positive votes for the day."

Posted Neo Nugget on 04 December 2013 - 12:57 AM

View PostNeo Nugget, on 03 December 2013 - 10:59 PM, said:

Possibly. I played around with the settings yesterday and saw something about it, but I'm not sure if it actually works. I'll investigate further later on and let you know.

Alright, it looks like the system has been put in place. Posts now have a small box on the bottom right corner reserved for reputation, if you click on it, names can still be seen, but this seems like a fair compromise to me.  What does everybody else think?


#2266850 Now Through December 31: Purchase Gems to Receive Exclusive Gifts

Posted El Duderino on 03 December 2013 - 12:14 AM

View PostLordkrall, on 03 December 2013 - 12:12 AM, said:



When something is trade-able but at such a massive cost that it is more or less impossible to access it isn't really that unusual that people that feel that they need said item would take non-legal means to achieve it. Which would including buying gold/ectos/armbraces from non-conventional sites.
There was after all a rather big black market in GW1 with said currencies simply due to the fact that people wanted access to a couple of those extremely rare miniatures.

I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but isn't that rather moot now that ANet is an official gold seller of their own gold?


#2262377 I miss the GW1 armors

Posted El Duderino on 22 November 2013 - 02:41 AM

View PostNerfHerder, on 22 November 2013 - 02:29 AM, said:



You mean like this? Or was your point that you can only get it from the gemstore?

No it has nothing to do with the gemstore, it just doesn't look as good as it did in GW1. Maybe it's just my rose colored glasses...


#2260124 New NCSoft Earning report is out...

Posted Dahk on 17 November 2013 - 06:47 PM

View PostLucav, on 17 November 2013 - 06:40 PM, said:

The endgame is cosmetics, and we havent had very many new armor sets, and very few compelling ones.
ANet made a big mistake in not recognizing how they made cosmetic armor upgrades work in GW1:

In GW1, you had a lot of cosmetic options that were easy to attain, but you also had some that took a lot of time and effort (FoW armor).

In GW2, however, a legendary is pretty much the only difficult skin to attain.  There are very difficult to attain skins in PvP, but sadly, they look the same as armor sets that are a breeze to pick up in PvE.

As a result of this, you end up with players who have played through the easy content, but have little challenge and even less incentive to take up challenges.


#2256272 Are RPGS and Casual Gamers Really Compatible?

Posted Kymeric on 08 November 2013 - 04:14 PM

View PostCorsair, on 08 November 2013 - 08:40 AM, said:

So, no. It's not RPGs that are incompatible with a casual player. It's contemporary MMO design.

I've only been playing MMORPGs for a couple of years.  I was shocked when I first started and found that "Roleplayers" are seen as a niche, often derided, minority in what are supposed to be Role Playing Games.

View PostEl Duderino, on 08 November 2013 - 02:17 PM, said:

I've thought about this a lot, and you are totally right about the min/maxers. Even in the pen and paper games there were clearly the people that were more interested in having the best attributes than playing a believable character. They wanted to be "God" mode even then.

Yes.  Games were even written that way.  Second edition AD&D gave you a brief pep-talk at the front of the book about shared story-telling (cops and robbers, cowboys and indians!) and then launched in to page after page of charts and tables and encumbrance rules and spell lists.  A great number of players came at the game as a contest between GM and player (which is absurd given the power disparity in that relationship).  Some got deep into it as a simluation game, coming up with their own rules systems to involve dice in every possible aspect of a story (how drunk does my character get? what does the table say the weather is like today if I rolled a 43?).

It makes sense since D&D evolved out of miniature wargaming.  It took a while for the industry to evolve to the point where games were being written to really get at the core of story.

Evil Hat's "Spirit of the Century" is a great example of where PnP games have come from D&D's number crunching, simulationist tendencies.  It's also fits this discussion well, as it was originally designed as a "pickup game", to be played in a single session.  It's very story/roleplay oriented, letting players build their characters by creating traits based off of backstory and personality, rather than generic things like strength, dexterity, intelligence.  It allows players to briefly step into the role of GM, rewriting the game world to favor their characters.  And it's about as casual as you can get, intending that players create characters quickly and play them for one couple hour session, completing a story in that time.

I hope that at some point creative developers will find a way to think outside the box in that same way and reinvent the MMORPG while making one successful enough to sustain itself.

I don't own a console, so I never got to play it, but Journey makes me think it just might be possible.

Quote

Is an aside to this conversation, would it stand to reason, then, that with the implementation of a higher level cap and multiple tiers of weapons, as well as a pretty much full fledged themepark MMO style - shouldn't we attribute GW2 as more of a min/max kind of MMO setting and therefore, more hardcore?

I don't think so.  I don't think it's intrinsic in the higher level cap or weapon tiers but in how they are implemented.

This is the great disparity in GW2, which is weird because ArenaNet developers loved to repeat over and over that they didn't want a disconnect between leveling and endgame.  Levelling in GW2 is very casual friendly, and can be easily done while playing the game in an immersive way.  You never have to focus on it as an extrinsic reward.  Everything you do gives you experience, so you can adventure through Tyria, exploring, doing DEs, personal story, venturing into the mists as your interest leads you.  Your character level fades into the background.  Gearing up before level 80 can be the same way.  You get plenty of gold to keep you in greens as you do whatever you want.

Then, at 80, it doesn't work that way anymore.  Getting gear in any sort of reasonable time frame takes focusing on the gear.  It's no longer "adventure, and you'll progress", it's "repeat X enough times to get enough of Xa component and do Y enough times to get enough of Ya component" to get your reward.  It shifts from immersive roleplaying that brings rewards naturally to spreadsheet style play.

It's not levels or gear tiers that do that, but the what the game requires you to do get them.


#2255765 Are RPGS and Casual Gamers Really Compatible?

Posted Kymeric on 07 November 2013 - 02:15 AM

A lot of interesting points have already been brought up.

As to the definition of casual, even just restricting this to people who don't have a lot of time is tricky.  How much time is a lot?  My initial thought, since pen and paper RPGs are part of this discussion, was that many PnP RPG groups survive just fine on one three to four hour session a week, which would be looked at as a casual MMORPG player.  Yet they still manage to find gaming immersive with that week break in between sessions.

Of course, then Duderino mentioned someone who could only play a half hour at at time.  I'm a chronic fiction reader, and I have no problem getting immersed in a good novel thirty minutes at a time.  Granted, it's often three thirty minute sessions a day, but even when I can only find time to get a thirty minute session in during breakfast, a good novel easily keeps my attention.  A page or two in, and I'm deeply back in the world an the characters.

A well written television show can capture my attention and immerse me with only forty five minutes once a week.

Which I guess is all to say I don't see "casual" as being anti-RPG.  The GW2 that launched was very friendly for short bursts of immersion.  It's some of the least immersive parts of the game that require the most time commitment.  Fractals (dungeon jukebox!) aren't casual friendly.  You could do a world boss or two as a casual player, but trying to get most of them done every day so that you make any progress in gaining dragonite is not casual friendly, not immersive.

Casuals can tackle dungeons, wipe, and work together to solve them.  Hardcore are expected to do their homework, learning them so they can be moved through as efficiently as possible.  Which one is more RPG?

I'm not sure most people are aware that pen and paper RPGs are so much more than Dungeons and Dragons and World of Darkness.  In recent decades there have been wonderful experiments in what a RPG is.  Many game designers have rethought PnP games, trying to make the systems less number oriented and more story-oriented.  They've created amazing games that eliminate power progression altogether in the favor of story progression.

With that in mind, it always makes me sigh when you get an MMORPG player who is convinced that you can't have RPG without levels, or power progression, or loot.

If we ever get that kind of revolution in MMORPGs (which depends both on tech and game design), I expect that games will get more casual friendly as they focus on story and less on mechanics, not the other way around.


#2255588 Are RPGS and Casual Gamers Really Compatible?

Posted Mordakai on 06 November 2013 - 07:50 PM

View PostZhaitan, on 06 November 2013 - 07:30 PM, said:

For someone who does not have a lot of time on one's hand, picking up an RPG is generally not a good idea. Any RPG design concept is rooted into the idea of getting into a role and building your avatar to fit the role. The building process is the hook for this genre of games. In this genre, you never finish building and continue the journey of attaining perfection. If someone who can't devote enough time to attain that perfection or if that person is a completionist, that person will always remain as the undergeared underachiever in the game. This can be quite a frustrating experience for some.


Not if the game is designed with low level caps and easily obtained max gear, so the challenge becomes playing the game, not participating in a gear treadmill.


#2255531 Are RPGS and Casual Gamers Really Compatible?

Posted MazingerZ on 06 November 2013 - 06:58 PM

View PostEl Duderino, on 06 November 2013 - 01:55 PM, said:

Thank you for a very well thought out post. I think I was thinking more about time per play session than overall time per week or month. I suppose they are still interrelated. It does change how I was thinking about the topic.

I agree that the term "casual" takes many shapes and forms. Personally, I don't feel that casual is only relegated to time. However, I do think that is how ANet defines the idea of a casual player and, therefore, I wanted to limit the definition just to time frame only for this discussion.

I generally define 'casual' as being resource restricted in a few of ways.  (and this is more or less a breakdown of what Morghan was talking about)

Time, capacity to organize, capacity to learn, capacity to perform, capacity to optimize.

The first is easy.  If you're falling below the curve to when people obtain a goal due to time constraints, that's definitively casual.

The second one occurs when you lack a persistent organized structure.  No voice chat, pugging versus grouping with regular people, little if any willingness to communicate with people and make friends in a game.  Very 'ronin' type of experience, where you might group up with people as they come along, but communication and organization are kept to an absolute minimum.

The third comes from a lack of ability or willingness to learn about the game itself.  How each class functions.  How your class functions.  The type of thing that results in sub-optimal builds.  Incorrect gear that does little or nothing for your particular profession or build.  Not really knowing how the mechanics of the game work beyond your own observations and not reading up.

The fourth type comes a lack of ability to improve on a skill level.  You may react properly.  Everyone does, eventually.  The whole 'not dying' thing is a good motivator there.  But at that point, you're reacting to things and are rarely thinking very far ahead and really aren't trying to be even above-average in terms of skill.

The final type is the lack of drive to obtain the BiS gear, due to constraints in the game forcing you to violate the other four tenants.  The cost is not worth the reward in this case.  You don't want care enough to sink your time, you don't want to socialize, learn the game or pay it enough attention to be better than 'not dying.'

This doesn't just happen in RPGs, but other games as well.

Tribes: Ascend and the entire franchise were games based on physics weapons as opposed to hit-scan weapons.  You not only had to control your travel through inertia-based skiing, but also most of your shots were affected by your speed, direction and so forth.  It had a high skill ceiling and even taking a week of the game for me reduced my ability to play.

Same thing happens in DOTA2 and LoL and other shooters besides Tribes.  You need to understand how the game works, you need to invest the time to play regularly, you need to organize with people regularly and have optimal builds in order to move beyond casual play.

In relation to Guild Wars 2, as noted in the now locked thread on 'Zerkers Only' the game is very forgiving in some ways that makes not stacking damage mitigation gear (vit/tough/healing) better.  However, its vertical progression and the way its done forcibly rips apart the casuals from the hardcore with a wide gulf in the middle.

The first problem is 'one path for all.'  Interestingly enough, the whole concept of 'daily rewards' were designed to give people who could only play for a short amount of time money to keep up with the rest.  The problem is, the daily rewards are the most profitable part of the game and once done, unless you've got the hardcore quintet, playing the game becomes a whole lot less rewarding after the fact.

As a side effect, the hardcore folks are throttled so they don't outstrip the casuals too quickly.  Hence time-gated, account bound crafting materials.

The second problem is a the wide, yet shallow pool that are the game mechanics.  Based on your weapon choice, it's going to probably dictate your build and gear layout.  Despite the availability of skills, unless one skill swap is a serious game-changer on an encounter basis, that will also be dictated largely by your overall build.  Despite having a broad variety of skills, weapon and utility, as well as traits, there's shallow optimization.  Not to mention how some concepts are neutered to game mechanics like Defiant.  Ultimately the problem here is that with such a wide pool, a lot of people are left stumbling trying to figure out how to be optimal and probably much like myself, the concept of 'cookie cutter' builds aren't that fun, but given the lack of depth, the optimal build for a particular weapon set has probably already been found and embraced by the community.

The third problem is the enemies.  Massive health pools and one-hit KOs.  Tanking in trinity games at least gave a measure of control over the fight.  Now you have to just be ready if the One Hit KO guy decides to turn on you for no apparent reason, leaving control up in the air.  The framework of the trinity let casuals know what their role was and not to screw up, in this regard.  Here, they probably expect a Guardian or Warrior to be taking most of the hits if they're wearing a shield.  Despite the mechanics tips, there's no real concept of what they do until you run through it.  GW2 wiki is no wowpedia in this regard.  And again, Defiant messing up people who are used to having some measure of control over a fight.

The lack of well-paced progression, the lack of an easily graspable combat system in which your choices have a clear effect on fights (and that gets lost in the massive health pool fights), and easy to grasp encounters makes the game a little casual unfriendly.