Jump to content

  • Curse Sites

Baron von Scrufflebutt

Member Since 02 Jun 2012
Offline Last Active Private

Posts I've Made

In Topic: I hate jumping puzzles.

Today, 08:26 AM

Woot! So it seems that the new Tree-thingy is a reward for doing JPs!

Guess I won't be getting that.

In Topic: Introducing the New Daily Achievement System

Yesterday, 12:23 PM

View Postraspberry jam, on 17 December 2014 - 09:57 AM, said:

I think that a lot of players think exactly like this. Which is kind of even more sad. It's one thing that ANet is attempting to make players log in by dangling carrots in front of them, but it's another thing entirely that they do so badly.

I have to wonder if that's actually the case. Now, I am not disputing that it's done in a way that does not benefit the game, but I wonder if GW2's playerbase even cares. GW2 is seemingly in a position where its core players are either forced to suck it up or give up on the MMO genre. And as the declining profits show, there are people that are giving up, but as the profits themselves show, there seems to be a lot of people that aren't willing to give it up. (Heck, we probably wouldn't be discussing it here if we weren't still attached to it. ;))

In Topic: Introducing the New Daily Achievement System

16 December 2014 - 07:56 PM

View PostCaptain Bulldozer, on 16 December 2014 - 06:01 PM, said:

Well said.

For comparison purposes here, I'll walk in and add the following observation:

The original Guild Wars game did not add anything in the form of daily rewards until the daily Zaishen quests; something which happened more than 4 years AFTER GW1 launched, and more than 2 years after the last major purchasable content release.  Also, from my recollection, a significant portion of GW1's playerbase started playing the game (and contiuned to do so) somewhere around the 2 year in mark. Though I doubt it's anything new to say, how can anyone not acknowledge the difference in quality between those two games given these two striking difference?

Personally, I still consider ZQuests to be a pretty decent model of how to incorporate dailies. I always found them to be a way that promotes doing content, whereas GW2's dailies are about doing non-content, or filler. GW2's requirements such as  "salvage items", "apply conditions", "dodge", "craft items", "kill non hostile creatures", ...are nowhere near as intriguing as  "Do Vizunah". Even ZBounties were more intriguing because of the instanced nature of GW1: the boss was designed with a specific party(size) in mind, so the fight could push the player much more. In GW2, the fight in open-world basically need to be able to be played by 1 person or 30. It's simply impossible to design these encounters as tightly and precisely as you can an encounter where you know exactly how many people are going to go against it.

And it was that tight design that kept the content intriguing and allowed the dailies to be an extra incentive to do it, rather than the sole reason for doing it. In GW2, on the other hand, the reward is the sole reason to do something, because without it, you might as well not be doing it.

In Topic: I hate jumping puzzles.

13 December 2014 - 07:18 AM

One of A.Net's problems has always been that they design content without considering the limitations of their game engine: despite my insane love for GW1, one of the things I will always remember is playing through Sorrow's Furnace and the camera going mental in narrow corridors. It drove me nuts.
Same thing with GW2: any time I need to enter a cave, I can barely see what I am doing. Of course, the problem is made even worse because I always play max-sized norn or charr. So this is just a massive recipe for disaster with content that requires precision character and camera control.

Out of the 6 or 7 JP I did in GW2, the only one I liked was the Pig Quarry (the one in Fireheart Rise - I think it's PQ): there's nothing to obstruct your view. But JPs certainly aren't content I'd play GW2 for.

In Topic: Introducing the New Daily Achievement System

11 December 2014 - 01:40 PM

View PostSatenia, on 11 December 2014 - 12:33 PM, said:

According to the EULA, what you get with your initial purchase is a limited license for service, content and software. The scope of this is entirely for NCSOFT to decide. It doesn't mention at any point how they are obligated to provide you with bi-weekly content updates, have their developers work through public holidays and whatever not.

On the contrary (and quite hilariously), if you bother looking at section 4b, you will notice this gem:

They are perfectly entitled to start charging a monthly fee for the game as it is now.

With those facts established, let me answer your question as following:

Based on my example you quoted, you don't actually pay anything past the initial purchase. Yet you still get the LS episodes (assuming you unlock them within the 2-week time-frame), the temporary as well as permanent open-world stuff and whatever convenience (wallet, wardrobe, now the upcoming achievement system) they implement. Therefore, you pay zero and get everything not exclusive to the gemstore.

This is not "you get what you pay for" since you don't pay anything extra in the first place and there is no obligation to deliver it to you based on your initial purchase alone.

Contrary to this, I asked to consider what you get - the stuff I've mentioned above - and compare it to how much you've spent - in this case zero past the initial purchase. The question is entirely based on ethics. The only reason you are getting the content is that other customers are paying instead of you. This is really a weak position from which to bargain.

There's absolutely no problem with A.Net not providing ANYTHING other than the content in the box. The problem is that other games on the market are offering more. With that in mind, we're not demanding more content because A.Net would have promised it, we are demanding more content because our time (or better yet, money) is valuable and if A.Net is not going to produce content that will satisfy us, we'll be wasting out time and money on something else.
The way that A.Net isn't a charity, the same way "I" am not a charity. Unless a product is providing me with what I want, I am not going to part from my resources.

The reason why I brought up "you get what you pay for" is presented in the lines above: if people are going to argue that the box is all that GW2 players can expect, then I am going to point out to the competition provides more. It charges more, but it provides more. Hence, "you get what you pay for". And for a game that prides itself in being able to play with the sub-boys, without a sub, that's not the best thing you can say.

That's why the argument, where the people who aren't throwing extra money at A.Net really don't have any ground to stand on, is something I'd advise against: because once you start using that argument (aka, "you get what you pay for"), that brings along other situations that REALLY aren't favourable for A.Net.