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