Jump to content

  • Curse Sites
Help

Baron von Scrufflebutt

Member Since 02 Jun 2012
Offline Last Active Private

#2352076 Exclusive: Meet The Defiant Wyvern

Posted Doof on 25 February 2015 - 07:31 PM

View PostArkham Creed, on 25 February 2015 - 07:06 PM, said:

I was really loving this information and interview right up until this part.



Oh God damn it Arena Net; why is it that you never finish crap? Why is everything you freaking do a half measure or a "foundation?" This is a damned PAID expansion not a feature pack, so put in an actual FINISHED feature.

Masteries are a foundation...
Specializations are a foundation...
The new defiance is a foundation...
Stronghold is a foundation...
Guild Halls are a foundation...

Foundation, foundation, foundation...I'll say it again; sooner or later you have to stop laying foundation and build the God damned house.

We have to remember that GW2 was forced out the door 08/2012, and it was a bug-ridden pile of garbage.  The core gameplay since then has not been updated at all (outside of the addition of SAB/skyhammer super jump pads which aren't even used anywhere else in the game), and has remained very shallow and straightforward.  Then living story happened (which consumed 1.5 years more than it needed) and gems finally got to a price worth exploiting.  The upcoming expac seems to want to emphasize more manual and defined gameplay into GW2--stuff that Anet may have actually wanted at some point, but just never managed to complete or failed to get working correctly.

Heart of Thorns--by the looks of it--is Anet actually rebooting GW2 development to a certain extent.  They keep crying "but it's a foundation," because it actually is.  The only real issue is that they keep throwing in sand pillars where metal beams should be because of "flavor" or just general poor, uninspired decision making.  That doesn't mean that the foundation doesn't have some strong points, but it's nowhere near a holistically strong structure--the house on top will sink lopsidedly.


#2351206 Revenant: The Master of the Mists

Posted FoxBat on 18 February 2015 - 08:36 PM

Sounds like 4-6 legends, plus 1 per specialization.

Edit: I hope you weren't reading that as 30 legends. We are not going to get 150 some skills for a new class.


#2349910 Mastery System = vertical progression?

Posted Mordakai on 06 February 2015 - 05:34 PM

View PostI post stuff, on 06 February 2015 - 05:09 PM, said:

Because everything is good in moderation. Too much grind is bad, but no time consuming tasks is also bad.

GW2 was designed to be a PvP focused game where the lack of end game so to speak would be compensated by competetive PvP environment in which players would practice to become the best.

Except the way people reacted to GW2 PvP did not meet their expectation and thus they were left with a game where, despite a rather large amount of diverse things to do, end game still feels devoid of purpose.

That may be the result, but it was not the intent.  Gw2 was designed to be PvE heavy, thus the level 80 cap and ascended weapons.


#2349796 Mastery System = vertical progression?

Posted Hobbesqt on 05 February 2015 - 07:43 PM

View PostFeathermoore, on 05 February 2015 - 07:10 PM, said:

That... is a huge amount of grind.

"Player's don't want more levels, so let's make levels that are unique to specific areas in the game and remove the numbers from them."

lol they are even keeping the numbers. You grind mastery points to unlock the track, then the things you did before to get "experience" now push you along that mastery track.

I am just fine with grind, and I personally thing you have to have a carrot on a stick to get people to keep playing. I don't like how they think this isn't a grind though. It is clearly a grind by any definition...aside from one person's random definition in this thread lol.


#2349793 Mastery System = vertical progression?

Posted Feathermoore on 05 February 2015 - 07:10 PM

That... is a huge amount of grind.

"Player's don't want more levels, so let's make levels that are unique to specific areas in the game and remove the numbers from them."


#2349106 Was level 80 cap, and Ascended a mistake?

Posted Mordakai on 31 January 2015 - 04:50 AM

View PostI post stuff, on 31 January 2015 - 12:43 AM, said:

No because lvl80 takes about the same time to get to as lvl20 in Guild Wars. In fact it can take less time if you use certain levelling methods such as crafting or tomes.

Ascended gear is so optional that it doesn't really matter. It also costs less to make than what you would pay for most cool looking skins.

I really doubt you played GW1.  You could get level 20 in a few hours in Factions.  The only way to get to level 80  in GW2 in a few hours is with Tomes.

Ascended weapons are better than other weapons.  There was no such thing in GW1. While I agree people tend to whitewash GW1, please don't make false analogies.


#2349028 Loyalty Chest in Login rewards: what are you picking?

Posted Cutthroat on 30 January 2015 - 08:38 PM

View PostMordakai, on 30 January 2015 - 07:55 PM, said:

So, am I the only long-timer who hasn't gotten a Loyalty Chest yet?

Just curious.
I'll get it in two days on my main account. Tomes of knowledge are the reason I'm logging in. I didn't mind playing PvP to get them but just logging in and playing other games till expansion is even better.


#2348717 I’ve been playing GW2 wrong, and loving it.

Posted Snapalope on 29 January 2015 - 12:26 PM

I think you guys are missing the core problem actually!  I mean back then when we saw the original design concept of "no set party set up thing so you dudes can bring whatever the crap you want and it will work" thing, it sounded awesome if it was implemented correctly.  I mean who didn't see how good that is if implemented correctly??

Now the problem is the person they hired to do this.... Mr. Cartwright! So let's look at some of his track record:
1. Smiter's boon
2. Never destroying iway
3. Launch day para and dervish - I mean from the design boards, he thought it's perfectly okay for Grenth dervs to make monks entirely useless thus destroying the profession.

Anyways at this point it's certain that the entire concept was implemented poorly that we have this whole mess.

I mean I can play at the high level and have all the "correct" ascended gear and builds set, but after these years it's just stale and I do random crap to have fun now.  Like not having extra 5 precision from an infusion isn't really worth kicking people out of guilds (seen it happen) and parties.  If you look at some guild's recruitment rules, it just gets too silly.


#2348045 Mastery System = vertical progression?

Posted raspberry jam on 27 January 2015 - 12:06 PM

View PostBaron von Scrufflebutt, on 27 January 2015 - 11:27 AM, said:

This is slightly long, so I hid some of the parts under spoilers and bolded the most interesting parts. Feel free to read the whole thing.

Colin during PAX:
http://www.reddit.co...anscription_of/



Colin for the MMORPG interview:
http://www.mmorpg.co...n-Johanson.html




Based on the information we have, it seems like we are dealing with a gating system that's founded in vertical progression. It feels similar to GW1's reputation grind or D3's Paragon system. It seems that players will grow stronger, rather than simply progress through the game.

Now, the question isn't if it's good or bad (although feel free to share your views on it), the question really only is; how do you perceive this system? Do you see it as a horizontal progression system or do you view it as a vertical one? Why?
True vertical progression systems require you to go A, then B, then C in order to reach Z. And as you progress you will become more efficient at the game. Z is always better than A. The typical thing about vertical progression is that once you have Z you don't need to bother with D or B anymore since Z is more better. Sometimes, as with levels, you are mechanically prevented from using D or B (when you are level 80 you cannot be level 3 - now GW2 downscaling confuses the argument but is ultimately the same thing). In other cases you simply have a much better sword now than the one you started out with, so there's no reason to use that first sword.

True horizontal progression allow you to jump straight to F and then to Z without getting A, B or C first. However getting Z won't make you more efficient than getting A would, it just makes you more efficient for the case where Z is a better choice than A. Having Z won't invalidate any (or most) of the things you previously obtained or that you can obtain, since with everything you get you become more versatile instead of more powerful - the definition of horizontal progression. Typically, you obtain important pieces of your capabilities early in the game (e.g. GW1's Frenzy is the first skill that a warrior earns).

Horizontal vs. vertical progression refers to player efficiency under certain mechanics of the game. It's too early to say how efficiency is going to be affected. It does smell like a gimmicky and thus failed horizontal progression system (for example, the hang glider is either fantastic meaning everyone will go for that first, or it's pointless except in certain special cases), with ranks for each type of mastery sure, and there may be gating hidden in that somehow.


#2347823 I’ve been playing GW2 wrong, and loving it.

Posted Shayne Hawke on 26 January 2015 - 05:03 PM

View PostArkham Creed, on 26 January 2015 - 06:36 AM, said:

Here is the thing; the GW2 content/gameplay problem isn’t an issue of design or mechanics. One of these days I’m going to have to get my act together and start that youtube show “Blame the Fans” I’ve been dreaming up….anyway, the deal is we’re the problem. Or I should say you’re the problem, since I’m not doing these things. You see I am the head of a very small semi-casual guild. Not one of us has a single piece of Ascended gear, only one of us bothers with zerker stats, we rarely read the wiki or boss guides, and often don’t know what we’re doing in dungeons. Yeah; we’re bad. But you know what else? It’s a freaking blast.



This attitude is so quintessentially "I play-for-fun" that it makes my stomach turn.

You and your friends are so blinded by being entertained by shallow gameplay that you can't even see the contradictions in your own opening statement.  It somehow isn't the fault of the developers that people find problems in the game, and yet you admit to/claim that

"content is so zergy and everything can be DPSed down in seconds... a lack of challenging content or defined player roles... someone is going to find the right place to stack to EXPLOIT AI pathing or targeting bugs, everyone is going to repair their zerker gear, and the whole server is going to break the game and then complain that its broken."

...which is all entirely the fault of ANet because it's the way they chose to make their game.  ANet is (together with NCsoft) solely responsible for every decision they've made about how to build and present their game, and you somehow have the audacity to fault the playerbase when they call out ANet for having not designed the game in a manner which meets the studio's own touted goals and objectives.  If ANet wants players to behave a certain way, and players end up behaving differently, it's because ANet, as the one in charge of all of the interactive bits and systems and laying everything out to manipulate player behavior, did not design a game that makes players behave that way, and that is their fault.  Video games as a medium are all about shaping player interaction, and you are like someone who would blame clay for not turning itself into a vase rather than the potter that can't figure out how to work their wheel.

Quote

When you DON’T use an optimized zerker build, and when you DON’T stack in exploitive areas, and DON’T mindlessly zerg the game is great.

Again, there are all these things you point out that players have figured out and regularly do that demonstrate how poorly thought out and designed this game is, and if only players didn't do these things, they could see how great the game really is.  You would rather blame the player for playing too efficiently than the designer for designing poorly, because it's not as though the designer could possibly have made the game in some other way that didn't allow for or encourage that behavior.

Quote

Play the game wrong. You just might find that you like it.

If playing like shit is the way you get through the game, then something else is shit - the game or your standards, or both.  Bad games have bad solutions which are bad for any number of reasons (cheap, simple, lazy, easy, obvious, etc).  Not caring that those bad solutions exist or that the developer should do anything about them is a bad standard.

Go cram your casual guild in some corner of the world and keep playing terribly with your thoughts to yourself.  It's obvious that you don't care about the condition or quality of the game or about improving it, or you'd otherwise have some understanding about why and how the game is where it is and who to hold responsible.  Stand down and let other people challenge ANet for a better game.  You and your friends will find a way to gimp yourselves into finding it fun anyways.


#2347739 I’ve been playing GW2 wrong, and loving it.

Posted raspberry jam on 26 January 2015 - 10:47 AM

It's not your job to nerf yourself until the game becomes fun. If the game isn't the most fun when you play the game as good as you can (including having the best build you can think of), there is something wrong with fundamental parts of the game design.

If this was a real situation and you had the real option to utilize your foe's stupidity to win, of course you'd go for it. Challenging yourself when you know there's a much easier way to win is immersion breaking as all ♥♥♥♥.

Medieval knights had armor made of metal, not made of paper, for a reason.


#2347256 What will need to be announced on Saturday...

Posted raspberry jam on 23 January 2015 - 09:04 AM

  • Level cap reduced
  • Monk (primary healer) class introduced
  • World is now fully instanced except cities/villages
  • Crafting skills replaced with crafter NPCs
  • Freely selectable skills for weapon instead of a locked bar
  • End of LS: we'll stop removing content from the game
Any of these might make me want to take a serious look at GW2 again. In general though I agree with above that regardless of what they announce it probably won't be as good as it sounds once they release it, if they even release it in the form that they talk about.


#2346300 Is GW2 dead now or is it just the forums?

Posted raspberry jam on 14 January 2015 - 12:54 PM

View PostBaron von Scrufflebutt, on 14 January 2015 - 09:13 AM, said:

GW1 feels like grabbing a bunch of friends, shoving them into a car and going on a road trip. GW2 feels like bumping into people in the mall.
Is one better than the other? Depends on what you are looking for. Personally, I agree with RJ; GW1 felt more meaningful and I prefer it over GW2.
I love how GW1 actually gives the feeling you have when you sit down with a group of friends and play D&D.

The GW2 version would be playing D&D on your own, surrounded by people that you might or might not know and who are also playing on their own, and then some of those people suddenly joins in your game and leaves at random.


#2346135 Is GW2 dead now or is it just the forums?

Posted raspberry jam on 13 January 2015 - 03:20 PM

View PostPhineas Poe, on 12 January 2015 - 04:08 PM, said:

Guild Wars 1 wasn't really an MMO. One could call it that only in the loosest sense of the term. What you call an exception--replacing persistence with instancing--is precisely what makes it not one.

The "meaningful" element of MMOs isn't about personalized experience but interacting with a community.
What is your problem with genres? If the meaningful element of MMOs is about interacting with a community, GW1 was certainly an MMO because there was a community, players interacted with it all the time. Sure, they could choose to play on their own, but when was choice a bad thing? Or is it choice that you object to, since you apparently don't like personalized experiences?

The reason I mentioned personal experience is that, as I explained if you even bothered to read the post, that personal experiences appear more meaningful. If you kill a boss together with 6 other guys that you just spent three hours together with trying to reach said boss, it feels meaningful. If you randomly run around and then a dragon appears for reasons that you don't know about and then you attack said dragon together with 30 other people who might or might not - you don't know - have been running around as randomly as you and know as much about the dragon as you, well that might be fun the first time (but not the 7th or 19th, especially if it happens while you are trying to get other things done), but certainly won't feel as meaningful.


#2345730 This is why Guild Wars will always be great

Posted raspberry jam on 08 January 2015 - 03:31 PM

View PostBaron von Scrufflebutt, on 08 January 2015 - 12:44 PM, said:

Honestly, this


is starting to rival Tasca's Demise as my favourite GW-related piece.
This thread is not called "Why Guild Wars 2 will always be sappy and trivial".