Jump to content

  • Curse Sites

Baron von Scrufflebutt

Member Since 02 Jun 2012
Offline Last Active Private

#2317021 Feature Patch Update Notes

Posted konsta_hoptrop on Today, 07:15 AM

abyss dye dropped to 22 gold, may be its better to sell then unindeficated. Ofc if you have enough dyes accound wide

#2311144 On legendaries & wardrobe (a proposed solution)

Posted Nyid on 26 March 2014 - 06:35 PM

Just make all legendaries unsoulbound (as if it had just been made without ever being equiped) so that people with multiple copies can sell excess on the trading post. Simple solution.

#2310341 Do you feel empowered?

Posted raspberry jam on 24 March 2014 - 11:20 PM

I never feel empowered in a game unless it's by something that happens as a result of me, the player, doing something good. As such, GW1 managed to make me feel empowered a lot, GW2 almost never.

#2308903 Tera Rising & Guild Wars 2 - new classes

Posted Desild on 20 March 2014 - 05:46 PM

View Postraspberry jam, on 20 March 2014 - 05:31 PM, said:

I wish they would have done that in GW1 instead of adding those 4 weird classes.

But Ritualists were so cool!

#2306056 Account wide agony resistance and a mission with it.

Posted raspberry jam on 13 March 2014 - 08:19 AM

View PostExo Dyo, on 12 March 2014 - 10:57 PM, said:

I don't like it. It will make infusions completely unnecessary in my opinion. What about the people who worked on their ascended stuff?
♥♥♥♥ them. Well, us. Why would we be guaranteed to be better than others just because we got all our armor infused? That's some feeling of entitlement right there. Let everyone in!

#2304223 Diablo III

Posted Cutthroat on 07 March 2014 - 01:17 PM

View PostBaron von Scrufflebutt, on 06 March 2014 - 01:50 PM, said:

Interestingly, this is starting to feel more like the spiritual successor to GW1 than GW2!
Brilliant, absolutely brilliant!
That's what I've been thinking as well! Hopefully more of my GW friends will try Diablo 3 when they hear great things about RoS.

#2297373 Why Being Efficient is the Only Thing Left

Posted Nikephoros on 18 February 2014 - 04:45 PM

I don't think it is too much to ask to properly label, and have people properly read, the lfg description.  If you post "Arah p2 full melee, meta builds only" you have a good right to expect to get what you asked for.  If you just put "arah p2" with nothing further you can't really have any quality expectations.

Conversely, if you see "Arah p2 full melee, meta builds only" and you join with your PVT bowbear don't be surprised when you get kicked and please don't complain.  

I feel like half of the problem is a failure of people to properly label their LFG descriptions and the other half is people who ignore or dont even read the ones that are properly labeled.

I don't see why this is so hard, if you have particular expectations make that explicit.

#2296473 Do You Consider GW2 to be a "DPS Race"?

Posted ObscureThreat on 16 February 2014 - 11:31 PM

GW2 is the most blatant example of a game where almost all encounters are just a DPS race. There is no boss/encounter in PVE where DPS is not only the best strategy but most of the time the only viable strategy also.

#2294322 Reward: Where is it in GW2?

Posted Featherman on 12 February 2014 - 03:14 AM

MOBAs, fighting games, and Starcraft offer competition and in well-designed competitive games the player needs no other motivation than improving and testing their skills against others in the community. SFII in the old days had people constantly shelling out quarters to play with no reward other than the competition and the community built around it.

Unlike competitive games, RPGs are designed to end at some point or another. The emphasis on progression through non-reducible equity in the form of stats and loot works best in games that have definite endings like a session of DnD, a FF or Dragon Quest. In these types of games the loot helps to add decision making or pacing throughout gameplay. Players are most likely not playing FF for the sake of finding rare loot, however, a sudden rare loot drop can change the way they approach challenges. This often works best when the loot or progression is unexpected and creatively designed, and has enough depth that the player is constantly discovering new things.

MMORPGs perverse this by making progression the impetus for gameplay rather than a tool for decision making. The fact that MMOs not designed creates power creep which has a great mny implications. The designers are rarely ever inclined reduce the player's accrued power, but seem to more than willing to shift the maxim. They'll do it because it's easy and it keeps the players hooked, challenge and decision making be damned. This is the kind of baggage GW2 was never able to subvert.

#2293008 Should all the older World Bosses be updated again?

Posted Karuro on 10 February 2014 - 01:05 AM

Let's keep the few world bosses that I still bother to visit as they are.

#2292762 What's the thing with GW1?

Posted raspberry jam on 09 February 2014 - 03:34 PM

To put it very simply - and it is very simple actually - GW1 was first and foremost a good game. Not exactly an MMO, it used an alternative game model that would put people playing together. "MMO" means "Massively Multiplayer Online", but in my opinion GW1 did a better job of the online multiplayer part than most MMOs do - at least the fantasy variety. On top of that, it had many many parts that were simply well designed, anything from how merchants (including armor "crafters") and trader NPCs created nearly complete market transparency for basically all gameplay-essential stuff, to how the progression model ensured that everyone could play with each other and "mandatory" grind was nearly eliminated, while still keeping short- and long-term goals available, to, of course, the PvP.

In contrast, GW2 is first and foremost an MMO which copied all other MMOs on the market, at best introducing new ideas that were modified versions of stuff that already existed. Now there's nothing wrong with copying, there is something wrong with making the copy bad. On top of that ANet are pushing the cash shop more than King does. This again would not be a problem if it happened to a new IP - but it didn't, it happened to the GW series. The GW1 playerbase was promised a game that contained all the best from GW1, but in true-MMO form. Some of us realized that that sounded impossible, but we thought that if anyone could pull it off, it would be ANet.
We were wrong.

View PostFeathermoore, on 05 February 2014 - 05:55 PM, said:

Heck, certain missions were dreaded early game due to the level of teamwork that was required of them. Thunderhead Keep, Iron Mines, Aurora Glade, Elona Reach, and the Ring of Fire were quite a challenge when the game first came out before power creep or difficulty nerfs (in the case of THK). The Doppelganger had players smashing their head against they keyboard until they figured out little specialty trick builds just for that mission. Vizunah Square was a head smashing point in Factions, though that was more due to the way it was designed with requiring two full groups of 8 with no control over each other. The Eternal Grove was another mission where planning prior to begining was the only way to complete it. Then in Nightfall you ran into the Grand Court of the Sebelkeh and you wanted to scream at the people who designed that mission as did the Gate of Madness (fitting huh?). Gate of Pain, oh god the Gate of Pain. And Gyalah Hatchery without using the side path.
But the "difficulty" of many of those missions vanished completely if you had a team that worked together. They were great missions because they underlined how important teamwork is.

(Obviously, the Doppelganger has nothing to do with teamwork. It's more about being able to beat yourself. The "specialty trick build" trick is not a trick, it's being aware of your own weaknesses.)

#2291748 What's the thing with GW1?

Posted Sir Moak on 07 February 2014 - 08:12 AM

This thread is turning into a comparison between GW1 and GW2 (inevitably). Since I am lazy I'll just post a link to a comparison I did in another thread, but before that I want to share a few small stories which sum up these problems.
The first one is very simple, after having problems with the state GW2 is currently in, I logged into GW1 recently, deleted my PvP character and started a new necro in Prophecies. My mind was actually blown at how deep and engaging the combat is in GW1. I started playing with the usual GW2 facerolling style and as soon as I got to level 3 enemies I was destroyed. That was the moment I realized that even in the beginning of the game you have to play strategically with the very limited skill set you have. Sure the game gets a lot easier when you actually have a party of henchmen or heroes, but these few hours of low level play already showed the massive difference between the mentalities of the two games.
The other one is a GW2 story, specifically the second krait tower thing part of the Living Story. I was playing with my new level 80 warrior (yeah, I enjoy making new characters and going through the core content a lot more than the recent LS updates), which was built as a dps warrior with some versatile utility (traited on using warhorn as condition conversion). I got the the boss krait with a friend of mine who disconnected and couldn't get back to the instanced fight, so I tried to take on the boss alone. I was constantly dodging, clearing conditions (which were reapplied a second later), dealing with adds and occasionally damaging the boss. And I wasn't getting anywhere in the fight. I didn't rage at this point, but after a while I had to concede that I wasn't getting anywhere in killing the boss. At that point I broke out the greatsword, stood in front of the boss ignoring the adds, conditions and basically everything that was going on around me and started spamming hundred blades. And this is where the rage came. I killed the boss without a problem! I was actually furious! What's the point of playing intelligently in GW2 if it does not have any consequences if you just faceroll everything? Where is the sense of achievement if all you do is repeat the same robotic keypresses?
Rose tinted glasses or not, these two examples show exactly why GW1 veterans prefer GW1 in many ways.
Making builds and preparing for certain situations is not really an option in GW2. Just take a look at the PvE builds in the profession forums. There are not too many and 99% of them focuses on DPS. In comparison check out this wiki for GW1 builds:

Oh and you can read the comparison I made here:

#2291007 What's the thing with GW1?

Posted Miragee on 05 February 2014 - 05:02 PM

Very good post from feathermoore. I want to add a little bit from my perspective, one who also spent thousands of hours in the game and also outside theorycrafting since 2005 (still playing).

GW1 isn't without faults, as being said. No game is. Powercreep with a lot of new skills, especially PvE skills killed a lot of the game's basics. Title grind, gimmick skills like shadow form etc. But gw1 was one of these games that is especially unique it what it provides, content- and mechanic-wise. And if you happen to like those things it's practically THE game made for you. GW2 doesn't have that. It has some new mechanics but at it's core it's a rather generic MMO. Making a list of features I really liked about gw1 and eventually made it a master piece for me:

- everything instanced with set amount of players
- this allowed for 98 % of the content to be designed for groups
- it also allowed for a skill system that is also designed on group and class interaction (tons of skills with limited bars (8 skills), two-class system and interactions between mutiple skills and classes made it a very very deep system); solutions for PvE and PvP encounters thus most of the times could be reached by players learning how to combine certain skills
- combat system (movemen, decision-making, skills, roles)
- the main and side stories in PvE, the lore is really compelling in GW
- beautiful to rough areas with unique feelings (lore and music by jeremy soule had a huge part of it, too)
- exciting PvP modes
- no level increase, no better items over time and thus way less power creep over time than in other games
- free trading system without AH (I comment on that later)
- the feeling of being able to do everything you want and reaching your goal regardless, completly free decision to grind or not (yes I know, many say this about gw2, too, but gw2 often times gives the feeling you need to, even if you don't, it's weird) and grind, at least for me, was actually fun if done from times to times

For the AH part: I don't necessarily disagree with feathermoore here. The trade system could have been better. Spamming the chat in Kamadan/LS wasn't really fun. But I really liked that there was no central AH. The AH in gw2 is one of the main problems that trading is so time efficient. It also makes the market very volatile to changes in the market (be it through farming spots, patches, bugs or whatever) and also gives super-riches the opportunity to control parts of the whole market completely (like with precursors). It also takes away the option of bartering which I really like and also the social option of it. I personally never had a problem with the GW trade system since I'm a fan of forum-trading anyways.

To bring it down: GW1 does the core aspects for an online RPG, which are PvE world with the "right" flair, combat system and deep planning in skillsystem perfectly for me as a person and also adds a lot of nice features (like no level cap increase) which I adore. Yes it has problems (most of them came later, when Anet started to change directions with Nightfall and EotN). But even from an objective perspective it does a lot of things right (note, right doesn't mean that you have to like them). It's unique (as there is no similar game to it) and definately a masterpiece (again, that doesn't mean you have to like it or it's gameplay).

#2290977 What's the thing with GW1?

Posted Feathermoore on 05 February 2014 - 04:20 PM

Some people like to blame it on the old "rose colored glasses syndrome" but most of that is hogwash. People who loved GW1 are fully aware of the failings in the game and are more than willing to discuss them. Why don't they? Because they don't miss them! Why would I lament the lack of a trading system in GW1 when talking about improvements for GW2? It doesn't make sense. That is the reason it often comes across as people wishing for "the good old days" when really they are just wishing for specific systems from GW1 that they consider to be central to the game and successful. The reason it comes up so much is because of Anet's claim that they would take everything we loved from GW1 and put it in GW2. It is easily arguable that that statement is 100% false. But it was a marketing statement so it really can't be taken at face value.

What was it about GW1 that made it the powerful memory that it is? Well if you go with the idea that it is just wishing for the old times, GW1 managed to pull players into the world from the very beginning (this is PvE not PvP, at the start PvP was really hard to get into). You started in a beautiful rustic world full of life and color. You were introduced to a complex class and skill system slowly during this time and got to know a few central characters. And then this world was ripped from you in the searing and you get dumped in a wasteland version of all the areas you had just developed a connection to. It was jarring and powerful at the time. While the story was cliche at times, you had relatable characters and despicable enemies.

The central feature of the game that most people miss is the dual class mechanics and the flexibility and depth that it allowed. Creating a skill bar that revolved around complex interactions between the skills themselves, attributes, and weapon modifications was a game in of itself that rewarded you. The game was designed from the ground up as a group game. You didn't fight single mobs, you fought groups of enemies that would later begin to utilize some of the same strategies that players would use creating diverse teams of mobs that required strategy to defeat. You didn't build an 8 skill character, you built a 64 skill team.

Power creep eventually overran the game to a degree but it isn't like that doesn't happen in all games. Certain systems could be deemed a failure or a negative feature. The lack of trade system, the original idea of refund points for changing attribute points, the overcreation of skills with questionable uses, heavy handed nerfs of too many skills at a single time, creating new classes that didn't mesh with the existing ones (the original Paragon being the figurehead of this), and the unfriendly PvP system due to complexity and learning curve.

Some of these Anet learned from and fixed in GW2. Some they actually fixed later on in GW1. Oddly enough, some of them that they fixed in GW1 they then brought back in GW2 (refund points for attributes in GW1 were removed to allow for free respeccing while traits in GW2 have a respeccing cost.)

Was GW1 as good as people make it seem? Yes, if you are willing to put the time and effort into actually learning the game. It isn't something you can just pick up and play expecting to get everything out of it. I spent thousands of hours in game and probably just as many out of game researching and theorycrafting. I had the spare time to do this in college, I don't now. The skills have changed enough since I last played that I would need to spend an evening reading the skill changes to see how the game works. Just something that comes with the game.

Is the game as perfect as some posts can make it seem? Not at all. It had major flaws that everyone who played the game is aware of. That doesn't mean it isn't a great game though since the flaws are side effects of the systems that made it great. You can still play it now and see for yourself. I reinstall it every once in a while and it still is fun to play.

I played it actively for 6 years and still log in every now and again. You can't call it rose colored glasses. Rose colored glasses don't keep you playing a game.

#2290266 Outsourced Development?

Posted El Duderino on 03 February 2014 - 08:16 PM

View PostBaron von Scrufflebutt, on 03 February 2014 - 08:11 PM, said:

I still firmly believe that the core Guild Wars issue (by that I mean GW1 AND GW2) aren't the people in the trenches, it's the people making the decisions: I am not bothered by outsources talent, I am bothered by the ideas these talents needs to implement.

I think I agree with this. Despite the fact that outsourcing and low wages can spawn uninspired creations, it isn't a necessity or even something that is inherent in outsourcing. However, when the management of a game basically isn't trying to be innovative, that is all that is needed to ruin the ambitions of the people below them to create something spectacular.

I think from reading some of Oppenheimer's posts, as well as some other cues around the internet, we can assume that the management team is dysfunctional at best and would rather be "safe" with their development than truly innovative.