- Viewing Profile: Reputation: Miragee
MirageeMember Since 02 Jun 2012
Offline Last Active Today, 05:36 PM
- Group Members
- Active Posts 911
- Profile Views 13073
- Member Title Sylvari Specialist
- Age Age Unknown
- Birthday Birthday Unknown
Posted Valmir on 24 January 2015 - 04:59 PM
Well, it was time for the damned precursors.
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
Posted Shayne Hawke on 23 January 2015 - 02:01 AM
New weapons, new classes, new areas, new recipes, new PvP modes, new jumping puzzles, new races, new gear tiers, new stats, new skills, new traits... nothing matters until they ship it, and their opinion of how polished it is, how great the community will love it, and how much it shapes the game and its world can be taken with a grain of salt.
Posted raspberry jam on 14 January 2015 - 03:19 PM
When it comes to (most) MMOs, if you take away grind, you take away the entire game. The only fun part in an MMO is the cameraderie that comes from going through what you aptly recognize as boring shit together with someone. It doesn't have to be like that. If only some MMO designer would lift their head high enough to forget about the Everquest/WoW formula.
Posted I post stuff on 14 January 2015 - 02:35 PM
GW2 is different in a sense that even though there are things to grind, they are completely optional. It also highlights the biggest problem of the genre. When you remove grind, there is nothing left to keep the players happy. Odd stuff.
Posted Shayne Hawke on 24 December 2014 - 01:13 PM
There is nothing comparable to the enchantment build-up and tear down of the Dervish in GW2.
Engineers have some similarity to Ritualists since turrets can be looked at like they're spirits, but in that sense, the only "spirits" carried over have been ones with direct attack effects. There aren't really any turrets that have considerable, large radius, battle-changing effects like reducing damage per hit or increasing duration of knockdowns. Skill synergy with turrets is also not nearly as strong as Ritualists had with their spirits, though there is minor compensation for this by letting Engineers have some minor control over what their turrets are doing via overcharge. Bundle juggling is done by both professions but has fundamentally different effects. Ritualists carry and drop ashes to make things happen and can still use all their skills while holding ashes while Engineers change out almost half of their skill bar when using a weapon kit. On the whole, the two play very differently.
In any case, so much of the core gameplay is so different between the two titles that even if two professions had been made mechanically similar, they would still operate in completely different ways in each game. If you're looking for any profession-specific play style to carry over from GW to GW2, I doubt you'll find it.
Posted Captain Bulldozer on 19 December 2014 - 12:51 AM
1) No one had ever heard of Arena.net when GW1 was released. On the other hand, Blizzard was a very well established company even back then due to it's massively popular RTS games. GW1 was Arenanet's first game of note.
2) Marketing. GW1 had a very small marketing budget, most gamers who would have loved GW never heard about it, or heard about it AFTER they had already invested themselves in WoW.
3) Playing GW1 was more challenging than playing WoW (or many other MMOs to this point). Being successful often required synergy, teamwork and intelligence on a level that WoW has never really matched. While this is one of the things that made the game great, it's also something that turned off a lot of players. PvP was difficult to enter because of this, and even PvE (at least for a while) could be massively challenging.
4) Budget and business plan.. WoW's budget allowed for a real usable z-axis, something GW1 did not pay for. WoW was supported by a subscription model that isn't so different from a drug habit. You don't have to sell the best quality coke to keep people coming back for more. GW on the other hand required massive new content releases to make money, driving the quality of those releases up, but also making the game feel less accessible to new players (how many people said, "I can't get into it on an equal footing when there are already 2 expansions out there..." and din't buy it for that reason?)
I don't think GW2 is like Soviet Russian. GW1 is basically Germany: tight, efficient, creative and well thought out. Wow is like the USA: big, dumbed down and full of fat stupid people with more money than intelligence. I guess that makes GW2 something like the USA in the movie Idiocracy: bigger, stupider and less likely to get better.
Posted raspberry jam on 15 December 2014 - 11:17 AM
tl;dr: is reward for opening Notepad a good idea? y/n
Posted Phineas Poe on 21 October 2014 - 07:55 PM
To put it simply, they've prioritized consumers over the community.
I don't mean consumers in the sense of people that buy things; we're all consumers in that regard. I mean the player-base that literally plays solely to burn through content and experience it, but isn't concerned with sticking around to talk about it or to repeat it. They're not simply casuals. These can be hardcore players too. People that play GW2 solely to obtain legendaries and ascended gear, to chase the carrot, fall under this group.
The group that plays the game to experience the lore, to come on websites like Guru and Reddit to discuss it, that share their experiences and enjoy reliving them---this is the community that sustains MMOs and keeps them around. These are the types of players that want things like guild halls, that don't really play solely to fill an objective but to build communities and participate with them.
The problem is that ArenaNet has been shirking us this entire time for the consumer base, probably because (1) it's more cost-effective creating cash shop items than creating community-driven content and (2) it's significantly more difficult overhauling GW2's theme park style content into something more sandbox-ish and player-controlled to support that community. This is in large part why we get bullshit like the Tournament of Legends and WvW seasons over real, genuine overhauls of this content.
It's the low-hanging fruit solution, but it's also the most immediately profitable. From a developer standpoint I understand why they do this, but from a gamer perspective it frustrates me to know that Guild Wars 2 could have been (and still can be) so much more.
Posted Baron von Scrufflebutt on 30 September 2014 - 10:13 AM
1. As I said, each map gives you around 3 levels worth of XP of on-demand content. That's 3 levels worth of XP in a 10 or 15 level map. Doubling the XP would push that to some 6 or 7 levels. That's 7 levels in a map that spans 10 or 15 levels. Add the PS, add events, gathering, ... and players could easily get the needed XP.
Heck, this would could lead to folks not needing to explore the full map before moving on: which, as mentioned, is something I am a massive fan of because it leaves content on maps that players can return to.
2. Downscaling. If players gain too much XP, the game downscales said players making sure that the content is still challenging.
Doubling the XP gains for the whole game is as close to being the best solution for this mess that I can see: the game is made more approachable while A.Net isn't forced to waste hours upon hours on fixing things.
Just double the XP for everything.
Posted Konzacelt on 28 September 2014 - 04:24 AM
Historically, ANet had already set a precedent with that back in GW1 with the turn towards a solo-PvE game at the expense of the smaller PvP crowd. GW2 can, in many ways, be seen as a persistent, logical evolution of that design focus. In that light, what you say makes pretty good sense.
The problem 'though is that that philosophy makes for a monocultural game landscape. Every company will want to make a game that caters to the biggest crowd with the fattest wallets and everything else gets tossed to the wayside. Why do you think GW2 content is widely regarded as "rated G"? Or why the gameplay is regarded as so easy? Or why the LS seems to be more and more tied to the gemstore? ANet did have some innovation with GW2 like the mobile/CPC combat, the DE's, and the gorgeous graphics, and I applaud them for that. But are those few good things supposed give them a free pass to popular mediocrity?
These days, the only "innovations" companies need in a game culture like that is simply designing a game with juuuuust enough original mechanics so that it doesn't seem like every other game out there. Or at least feel like one long enough for the consumer to contribute x amount of dollars before he/she catches on and moves on. Perhaps the reason so many(especially GW1 vets) seem upset on the forums isn't so much because they are selfish pricks who like to hate on ANet, but rather because a lot of fans thought ANet was above that trite and trivial mass-appeal approach to MMO's that most companies use. I know I did.
Posted Kymeric on 26 September 2014 - 03:39 PM
I'll stand up and be counted there. I only played GW1 because I got excited about GW2. It was a way to connect with GW2 before betas started. I played through all three campaigns, EotN, War in Kryta and love story thingy (name escapes me at the moment). I had fun, but I definitely wouldn't consider it one of the best games I've ever played.
I'm a grumpy GW2 player, but I don't want it to be more like GW1. I want it to be more like the vision that ArenaNet cast before launch and more like what it was for a few months after. I want it to be more like that immersive, explore-y, organic MMORPG they described and I experienced early on than the checklist focused, timer drive, repetitive, carrot-chasing MMO-as-usual it has been gradually evolving into since then.
Posted Senatic on 22 September 2014 - 01:09 PM
Weird is not necessarily bad.
Nothing controversial? What rock have you been living under. No, it did not for the most part deliver desired features. It delivered required features for the continued growth of the community, but there was nothing desirable about most of them. The community never asked for these changes, anet made them to increase player retention. And as to whether or not they were an improvement is completely subjective, which should go to show that it was a bad way to go in the first place.
If you like insistent hand holding like you're a baby and your parent is afraid to let you play with your toys than sure I guess you could enjoy them. Personally I am a grown man perfectly capable of figuring out things for myself without daddy anet controlling every little detail of my play experience.
Posted draxynnic on 29 August 2014 - 03:26 PM
On the guilds thing: Obviously, I can't speak for everyone. I do know, however, that Phineas' EG was and I think still is one of the bigger and more recognisable builds on Sanctum of Rall, and now on the megaservers that SoR players are likely to be fed into: if they're getting disillusioned and drifting into other games (or migrating en masse into Archeage: either way) this is a symptom of a problem. More personally, I have friends in Relics of Orr and occasionally join them to do various things - their leaders stopped scheduling guild missions because they found there were no longer enough members turning up to be worth it, and the average people online (representing or not) at any given time has dropped significantly since I joined. And I keep seeing and hearing similar problems in other guilds. I'm sure there are some guilds full of like-minded people that are all able to resist the growing ennui rather than dropping off one by one... but I'm pretty sure they're not representative of the majority.
Thing is, all this focus on the new-player experience really does feel like a bandaid approach to try to get more players and box sales. However, I'm not sure even that's going to work for them. People aren't likely to jump into a two-year old game, that hasn't had any serious expansions in that two years, without recommendations from current players... and I know I'd have reservations about recommending GW2 to anyone right now, however much I'd like to see the company succeed.
To stall the game's slow decline, ArenaNet really need to do something spectacular... but that's not something they seem to be willing to do. To draw an ironic analogy, ArenaNet now feels a lot like Adelbern after the Searing - too afraid of risking losing what he has left to take any action that might actually improve his position, and so by default his position steadily deteriorates until he's forced to pull the plug.
Posted Baron von Scrufflebutt on 27 August 2014 - 08:47 AM
If we are dealing with constructive criticism, does it matter if folks point out issues instead of pointing out positive elements? Why would folks need to spice up their posts with off-topic positive comments just for the sake of posting positive elements?
If the posts bring absolutely nothing constructive to the discussion, report them and get them removed. Or respond to them and showcase how shallow they are.
But it's utter bullshit to be running around and going "somebody posted something somewhere and now the whole thread/forum sucks". There's absolutely nothing productive about such comments.
With that in mind, there's probably nothing on-topic about this discussion either.