Jump to content

  • Curse Sites

Baron von Scrufflebutt

Member Since 02 Jun 2012
Offline Last Active Private

Posts I've Made

In Topic: I just miss Guild Wars

21 November 2014 - 05:23 PM

View PostMiragee, on 21 November 2014 - 03:54 PM, said:

You are still playing in normal mode right? Hard Mode is almost on the level of the first and last Titan Quest HM imho. Allthough WoC got nerfed by quite a bit after it released. I remember how hard some missions were when I played them in hm during released. Had around 20 trials for the one marketplace mission, lol. Good times.
Have fun with it, the story and dialogues will get pretty good after while, it's my favourite story line in GW.

Doing NM and then immediately following with HM.
And yeah, JUST spent almost two hours doing the Marketplace quest in HM. <.< It didn't even hit me to try to hide and then pull them one by one: I figured you HAD to take them head on, so I was trying to come up with a way to take some 5 or 6 HM teams at once. Did quite well with a bonder (ran daggers on my rit and I simply tanked all the teams, until one slipped away and killed off my heroes). Then I wiki'ed it and saw that folks suggest you simply hide in a corner.
Managed to do it in the first try after that. <.<

In Topic: I just miss Guild Wars

21 November 2014 - 12:28 PM

I remembered that I never did Winds of Change! So now I am running around cleansing places and there's a LOT to do. Not just that, but the content is actually some of the hardest ones I've experienced in GW1: I actually have to flag my heroes again and switch them out or change their builds.

In Topic: Lineage Eternal

19 November 2014 - 02:16 PM

I am actually still waiting for this game.

New video:

Closed beta in early 2015, release 2016 (at earliest).

In Topic: Where did Blizzard go wrong with D3 and what A.Net could learn from it.

18 November 2014 - 01:01 PM

View PostMiragee, on 18 November 2014 - 11:01 AM, said:

... No, I truly believe it's bad. Or better: way worse than it could/must be. ...

I definitely agree that the system isn't the most complex out there. But at the same time, it's also not complicated (which is what the PoE system sounds like). And that's actually good. For instance, GW1 was a fairly complex system also, but it also got very complicated. That's why I quite like the fact that GW2 was simplified, but at the same time, they did also lost its complexity.
At the same time, one has to keep in mind that gear makes builds in D3 and once you have the correct gear, the gear does lock you into a fairly specific build. I think D3 definitely has the simplicity at lower levels, but once you take gear into account, there's some depth added to it.
Nonetheless, it doesn't seem to have as much depth as some other games. So with that in mind, I could agree that this is something that makes the game slightly worse, but I honestly don't think it's a mistake on a level of the AH. I honestly think this is more of a "dislike" than a "crippling issue". Sadly, this still means that D3 will never be a game that will satisfy you, but it does mean that the game itself is still pretty decent (which is what issues like the AH prevented: AH made the game bad for everyone, rather than simply for some people).

View PostSatenia, on 18 November 2014 - 11:57 AM, said:

... I believe that they did a really good job in GW2 with how traits interact with your skills ...

As my above reply points out, I definitely agree with the idea of making things less complicated, but I still think that GW2 did traits poorly. I think A.Net repeated the GW1 mistake of having million options when they designed traits and as a result, they are poorly balanced and A.Net ran out of intriguing ideas. I think the game would be much better they used the D3 passives idea and separated passives from attributes: just have us select some 5 traits from a pool of 20. And then make sure that those 20 traits are intriguing; which is something that one simply can not argue for some 90% of all current GW2 traits.

In Topic: GW2: Master of Salami Slicing

18 November 2014 - 09:03 AM

View PostPhineas Poe, on 17 November 2014 - 04:11 PM, said:

He's equating this in the sense of real life money, bringing up an issue that is commonly exhibited in other in-game marketplaces like Xbox Live Microsoft Points. I can buy 400 MSP to pick up some Dragon Age DLC or some shit, but if it's 360 MSP I've got 40 leftover that I can do ♥♥♥♥-all with. That's salami slicing.

The point I'm making is that GW2 actually doesn't have this problem. He's criticizing a developer by calling them greedy when they, in fact, have the best cash shop model I've ever seen.

Surely Live points aren't an issue! A few posts up we had a user suggesting that players can simply leave those remaining points in their account and use them on their next purchase, no?
No. The issue with Live points is exactly the same as with gems: they are a secondary currency. If an item costs 11 bucks, I need to buy 20 bucks worth of gems to buy it in GW2. Which isn't a problem in itself, the problem is that the change of 9 bucks is then not returned to you. You get to keep those 700 gems, but the only thing you can do with those gems is to buy gold or save them for your next purchase. (And as this thread shows, concerting them to gold, converting them to gems now comes with an additional tax.) But if you want to buy apples or bread with those 9 bucks, then you're out of luck.
It's the exact same anti-consumer bullshit that we are experiencing on Live. (Or, we did. If I am not mistaken, they got rid of those points, no?)

As for GW2's cash shop model being "the best you have ever seen": you are probably referring to the fact that you can buy gems with gold. Which, I admit is pretty darn nice. But that's not the full picture.
The only reason why players are allowed to buy gems with gold is so that A.Net can sell gold without completely blowing up the game's economy. I guess one could argue that it's not the "why" that matters here, it's the result. I don't mind that: by selling gold for cash, and allowing folks buy cash items with gold, everyone wins something. The problem is that I don't think it's the players that get the most out of it. Selling gold for cash completely devalued gold as an endgame currency: players are better off by working a few hours of overtime and then spending their wages on buying gold, rather than actually playing the game. The result is that anything that can be bought with gold lost most of its meaning: it doesn't showcase a player's dedication to the game (unless, of course, we accept A.Net's definition of "dedication", which means either playing the game or throwing money at it).

So, what this means is that we are stuck with a model that screws over consumers with its secondary currency and a model that completely destroyed the game's core progression currency. All so that the people, who don't want to spend money on vanity items, can obtain them through their in-game play.
I am sorry, that certainly can not be the best cash shop system around. The downsides here are simply too massive for this to be better than a simple cash shop with no secondary currency.