Jump to content

  • Curse Sites
Help

Baron von Scrufflebutt

Member Since 02 Jun 2012
Offline Last Active Private

Topics I've Started

The game's content is poorly distributed, while its progression is simply lacking

17 September 2014 - 07:42 AM

With the New Player Experience (the NPE), A.Net set out to redistribute the game's progression, in hopes of making the game more appealing. My core issue with this idea is that they focused on a system that isn't poorly distributed, but rather a system that is simply lacking; the problem is that there's simply not enough progression to stretch it over 80 levels, regardless of how it's distributed. In terms of progression, the game simply fails to justify why it has 80 levels.

The game, on the other hand, does justify its 80 with the amount of content it has. Each time I level up a guy, I reach 80 with around 1/3 of the world explored. And its this system that I can see being improved on with a "simple" redistribution. The game currently cramps 10 to 15 levels worth of content into each map. What I would like to see is the game simply offering maps that span 5 levels. Players would then need to be forced to complete more maps, but we wouldn't be forced to complete almost every single element in a specific map. Not only does such playstlye offer more freedom to player (in terms of how said players want to tackle each map), it also leaves more options in terms of endgame content: maps that are currently used for levelling could include more elements that are important at endgame, because maps would offer much more content than a player actually needs to do, allowing A.Net to transform some of that optional content into endgame content (think of GW1's Rotscale: it was an endgame encounter in midgame, but because the game offered enough midgame content in other places, players could skip it and return to it later).

Content redistribution is something I would very approve of, whereas progression redistribution is simply a waste of everyone's time. If A.Net wants to focus on progression, then they need to add more of it: there's really no way around it. The progression system simply isn't rich enough.
But if they want to focus on redistribution instead, then redistributing content is the only way to go. The game has more than a sufficient amount of content, so any redistribution attempts should be focused on the systems that are rich enough and can afford to being stretched out.

GW2: a true successor to GW1

16 September 2014 - 08:20 AM

Hi,
http://www.guildwars...-t10297855.html

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

The idea behind only including the link (without further explanations) was to force the folks, that thought of taking part in this discussion, into reading the post made by Avarre. I still hope folks will do that, but I shall also add some of my thoughts in the OP.

I was recently reminded of Avarre's post and after re-reading it, I found a number of similarities between the state of GW1 and GW2. As much as I adore GW1 (it is definitely my favourite game of all time); one easily forgets that GW1 was a fairly flawed game. It doesn't mean one can't enjoy it (on the contrary, as I said, it is my favourite game), but that doesn't change the fact that the game is flawed and a number of those flaws were the result of A.Net's poor understanding of the game. I think it was also Avarre that popularized the view that "A.Net didn't know what made their game great: they lucked into it", something that I feel also applies to GW2.

Interestingly enough, there are some elements, that Avarre mentions, that have been worked on in GW2. Most noticeably: the PvE/PvP skill split. Avarre argued for keeping the game unified, and that is exactly what we are seeing in GW2. The problem though, is that A.Net didn't seem to understand the point of this idea: the point of a unified skill system is that it forces the devs to design PvE under the same rules that PvP is designed under. In GW2, PvE doesn't play the same way PvP does (for instance: 5v1 battles, Defiant, monster skills, ...) basically negating the point of a unified system.

Outside of those elements, we still see the exact same issues being carried over from GW1 to GW2: communication with the playerbase is GW1-like appalling, and, more importantly, the lack of a vision is as shocking: A.Net is willing to modify its game based on feedback, but they don't really think how this will fit into the whole game. They change individual systems, even if said systems then end up being completely contradictory to the game's core rules. A.Net simply fails to play to its strengths.

The result is very much what Avarre pointed out: a step into mediocrity. The game certainly isn't going to die (as in, "nobody will be playing it": at least not any time soon), but, at best, the game is certainly failing to improve. Sadly, this seems to be where the Guild Wars legacy is showing.

Moderator Note: The post linked talks about how making changes to a game's systems that run counter to the core design in order to pull more players in or appeal to the new crowd damages a game. This is the point the OP is referring to. Without reading Avarre's post (and really Sha Noran's too) you really can't comment on this. The posts analyze apparent mistakes in GW1's design later in life.

New mouse?

30 July 2014 - 02:48 PM

It seems my Logitech g400 is crapping out on me; the left button isn't working well enough. Probably too many salvages. <.<

So right now I am looking at:
Logitech G400s - 53€.
Logitech G500s - 64€
Razer DeathAder 2013 - 67€

Maybe even:
Logitech g502 Proteous Core - 75€


I only use left/right and the wheel button in the most games I play, with GW2 and D3 being the most noticeable exceptions: I use one or two additional buttons in these two games.


Currently, I am leaning towards G500s: mostly because I like the way it looks.


Any suggestions/views?
Cheers!

The new daily system.

10 May 2014 - 08:07 AM

It kind of sucks, doesn't it?

I am very much a fan of the unification of the daily system: I love the idea of being able to finish the daily by not being forced into a single mode. But at the same time, especially in line of the daily/monthly AP cap, did they really have to reduce the number of daily activities to 10 between all 3 modes? Also, why does Ambient killer and areas specific kills still exist? And why doesn't WvW defender count for player kills also?

Can we please get another daily rework?

Unlocking traits.

19 April 2014 - 07:16 AM

Apatiksremark made a fantastic post on reddit, showcasing the "achievements" that need to be completed to unlock traits under the new system.
http://www.reddit.co...eds_to_be_done/
New characters (created after the patch) now need to unlock each and every trait individually, all (currently) 75 of them. You need to complete dungeon story modes, 100% area exploration, jumping puzzles, champs and story line steps among others.


Also included in the thread, the cost of simply buying the traits:
Posted Image

Quote

The picture shows that cost of traits in a SINGLE attribute line: meaning to unlock all the Guardian's Radiance traits, you need to pay 8,6g and 72 skill points. Thus, to unlock a class by buying all traits you currently need to pay 360 skill points and 43g.