Crom_The_Pale

Khomet, on 16 August 2012 - 09:56 PM, said:

Well said, Khomet.  I would add that the ultimate result of what you've outlined (and the path ArenaNet is on) is everything turns into a DPS race.
When there is no tactical decision in combat (for PvE or PvP) and all you can do is delay the inevitable demise of your team (which is evidently the current design goal) then your options are: kill them before they kill you.
Defense, support, healing, mitigation, strategy, tactics, all go out the window, and everyone builds for the most damage in the smallest amount of time, and you end up with a remarkably one dimensional game.  DPS || Death is not a valid design, but that's where this is all going.
The shorter the fights, the less the non-damage abilities are used.  Eventually things like immobilize, chill, vulnerability, blind, confusion, poison, weakness and cripple won't even be used because you're better off using a damage cast than a condition cast.   Even burning gets tossed out the window because it needs time to actually do damage, and that's time you're dying if you're not DPS'ing.

2 second combo fields, 1 second boons, and similar short term durations are all indicative of the same problem.  DPS || Death!  Death || DPS!  heheh.  Don't bother with the heals, kill them faster!

This is already true, to a degree, but we're not there yet.  Still time to pull out of the death spiral.

I think ultimately the root of the problem is impatience, and the desire for instant gratification rather than tactical strategic combat.  However, if there is one thing the MMO genre has the greatest potential for, it's tactical strategic combat.  This, unfortunately, flies in the face of the zerg > all, which has been the cornerstone of all pvp design since UO.  Tactical and strategic combat allows a small force to defend against a larger force if they play smart.

This current path allows for the zerg to steamroll any and all resistance as "normal", while reducing fights to shorter and shorter durations both in PvE and PvP.  It's hard to believe they can't see how dangerous this is.  Will they notice when it gets to "3 casts and you're dead" or will it require "2 casts and you're dead" before someone at ArenaNet figures out there's a problem?

I disagree with the staff/sceptre argument.

The scepter works well as single a target at long range (ok, I think the orb speed is a bit out but that's another topic).  The staff works well as multiple target at close range.

The only reason the staff/sceptre argument exists is people want the staff to be the sceptre instead of just accepting that for that role you're going to have to use the sceptre.

With the staff's abilities, either you make it way OP by increasing range but keeping Cone-AoE, or you lose that unique ability so you can play around with a staff instead of a sceptre.  It's not worth it when the staff work's so well in group situations right now.

At the moment how do you know that these items are only available from those chests or even the rarity of the keys to drop. We have had access to the starting, low level areas of the game only. A mere fraction of the PvE content is in no way indicative of the availability of items.

Too many threads complaining when they are based on the assumption of the OP only. Wait till you actually have evidence before you start throwing accusations around.

The option (if you are a non-Asura) to grab one nearest to you and use it as a weapon.

It's perfectly fine in PvE, leave it as it is or split the skill.

Crom_The_Pale, on 14 July 2012 - 05:50 PM, said:

After reading all the posts (and many are relevant), you hit the nail on the head.  The 'human' aspects of one's personality.

Anyone can be a guild leader - and everyone should try if for no other reason than to understand 'what it takes' and in turn then are able to better relate to being part of a guild in the future.  If you are a good leader then players wanting to be part of your guild/community will  reflect if that is the case or not.  Having operated one of the largest gaming communities in Guild Wars, i can personally provide two responses to the question:  1) it comes from the heart and soul - a desire to enable others to achieve and be successful and through doing so you enrich not only yourself but everyone around you, it becomes a perpetual motion of which the community revolves around, and 2) you recognize that everyone within your community has talents, strengths, and weaknesses.  As a leader - your's is not to be the best at any aspect of the game more than your members, rather yours is to be the best at leading; to be an effective leader who allows their members to succeed and be the best they can be in the game.  If you do your 'job' right - you will have a long, enduring, prosperous gaming community filled with friends for many years.   Great discussion.  I've enjoyed reading it.  Cheers from LaZy NATION.

First, they must be active in the game and supportive.  While every organization might need an "enforcer", it should not be the guild leader.
They must be outgoing and communicate activities clearly.  If he wants the guild to do WvW on Sundays, he needs to make it clear.

They must be a good judge of character in that they know when someone is toxic to the guild.  I've been in guilds/gaming communities where one immature outburst can drive people away; especially if that person has any kind of authority in the group.

They should be extremely knowledgable of the game aspects that guild will focus on.  A RP guild should have someone who's done some DM before, while a WvW focused leader should have a lot of ideas on how to best use manpower.

Lastly, they should know their weaknesses and limitations.  If the GL is on the East Coast of the US, he should find trustworthy officers on the West Coast to manage the later schedules.  Also if guild members want to engage in a game format they are not well-versed in, he should formally appoint someone to lead that activity (aka, "IM Elric if you are interested in joining our PvP Tournament Team")

ImTasty, on 13 July 2012 - 09:03 PM, said:

I believe they only use the account names for entrance by the Closed Beta testers. I have used my email for all the stress tests and the open betas, but that may not be the case now with the new launcher.

Tregarde, on 13 July 2012 - 08:36 PM, said:

You can't say it's normal when it's a brand new client we haven't seen before.

Same goes to dss_live, Nicator, and Taran.

It doesn't say it's too early like it did before. It says Error 9. Does anyone in this thread ACTUALLY know what Error 9 means, specifically? Was there a Twitter post on it? I doubt it. What if someone else gets a different error? Like, error 30?

That's why these error messages are bad, they're very cryptic and leave people guessing. You think it's the BWE3 not starting but some other time it's actually something to do with your account.

this is what joss was trying to get at...

Crom_The_Pale, on 09 July 2012 - 02:26 AM, said:

THIS!!! as a mesmer myself they have almost no pve elites.... pretty much all of our elites (mass stealth, moa morph) only really work in pvp ... as such i will probably be using this elite instead for pve.

oh and the cooldown for our only good elite time warp.. is soooo long as well.

My only real options for pve as a mesmer are.. hounds of balthazar as i will be human... or the mistfire wolf.. depending on which one i like more and having not seen the mistfire wolf.. ill probably choose the wolf just because it will look nice using it and im not a fan of the hounds of balth.

@ the OP:

I read this entire thread. ALL of it.

What I gleaned from the original post:

1. You want a guild cap of 3-500 or more, and alliance capabilities
2. You do not like it as it is now.
3. You think A-net and GW2 will fail if they don't fix things to match what you think it should be.

OPINION ALERT!!!

1. If you have that many members, congratulations. You win. I prefer to wait and see what they implement at launch and how high the cap eventually goes. What you see now is not necessarily what you get.

2. I'm sorry. I understand your frustration and your unhappiness, but what youhave to understand is that you are not "everyone" and dropping everything to please "you" is not something that's going to happen. Before you make a final decision, wait and see what they do.

3. A-net and GW2 is not going to fail because you say so.

I am sorry you're not happy. I wish you the best. But, I have to say, if you don't like the system, then at the risk of being cliched, maybe GW2 is just not "for you."

You may have a point in that GW2 needs a better guild/alliance system, but as of now the OP is just a long-winded rant. Just because it is well-written and about the size of a novel doesn't make it any more true. If anything, it makes me hope that your demands aren't implemented just so I don't have to deal with you, or people like you, in game. I'm spiteful like that.

I’m not telling the world anything new when I say, a lot of MMOs fail.

Either they fail outright with next to no subscribers and close within a year, or they start off ‘OK’ but never quite get the numbers and become an ‘also-ran’ in the market. A very few might even get the numbers — initially — then start bleeding subscriptions after the first month or two as people get to the end-game, realise there is no end-game, and look for something new.

As someone who has sat out here, in the MMO community, since Ultima Online was the hot new game in town, I’ve constantly marveled at how many times the same mistakes are seemingly made again and again and again.

End-game, that I mentioned a moment ago, is one of the big ones. “The end-game has to be there… it has to be solid!” says the MMO community, “Yes, yes, we hear you! We agree!” say the developers of countless MMOs that have come and gone over the last 15 years. And yet, when it came down to it… when the rubber hit the road… the end-game wasn’t there.

Its not always the end-game, of course, that’s just one example. But it highlights that “everyone” seems to know what would make a great MMO, yet so far, few companies have been able to put the right ideas in motion.

Enter Guild Wars 2.

It’s perhaps telling that the original Guild Wars is a game I have gone back to, again and again, over the years since it first came out. Partly because of it’s free-to-play nature, yes, but also partly due to the fact that it was different to other MMOs. Indeed, it was so different, many people still have a hard time even calling it an MMO at all. The debate still rages on about that.

So as we sit here, on the verge of Guild Wars 2 coming out; a game that is better than the original Guild Wars in every single way by a factor of 1000, are we about to see the release of a game that not only gets these 15 year old questions right, but which also doesn’t charge a fee, to boot? I really don’t want to be cast in the ‘fanboi’ role, but I think we might be. Seriously.

From what I have played of Guild Wars 2 so far, via beta weekends and ‘stress tests’, I have found a game that is visually gorgeous, deep in lore and fun to play. It’s WvWvW also evokes (and surpasses) the legendary Dark Age of Camelot, which was a game released in 2001 that was still the benchmark for ‘Realm versus Realm’ combat, all these years later, until Guild Wars 2.

Even though I have played Guild Wars 2 and can report to anyone reading this blog that, yes, the game is real and, yes, it’s as good as all the reviewers say it is, it still feels strange, unearthly and even just a little unreal, to think that this game exists. This game goes beyond what any $15/month MMO is offering… and yet is doing it without ANY monthly fee. Incredible.

Crom_The_Pale, on 07 July 2012 - 01:27 PM, said:

The Glicko matching system is "supposed" to balance things out... I haven't personally studied it or examined it closely, but it's based on server wins... and matching other servers with similar scores.  In this way, servers that constantly win face off against other servers taht constantly win... and servers that constantly lose, will face off with servers that constantly lose.  Now waiting for the matching system to more accurately gauge a server's succcess will take time... probably at least three or four months (based on a two week match cycle).  I haven't done the math nor ever used this system... but you can look it up via Wikipedia etc.

As for rpg servers... in the past, several official rpg servers... more so, pvp-rpg servers kicked a lot of butt.  Do not underestimate them.  Sure you may think players engage in wild Asura/Norn love or talk like... orcs from the Warhammer universe... but believe me, there are some very very crazed blood thirsty and effective WvWers on those servers.  RPG does not equate = care bear.  Maybe pve does, but not always the rpgers.  It's been a while though, not since WAR, that I have seen solid pvp-rpg servers... Phoenix Throne, how I miss thee.

Also note that a lot of times, people on RPG servers are there more for the slightly "more" mature players.  One could find a LOT less Barren's chat - like stuff about Chuck Norris or checking out so-and-so cause she's so hot etc.  General chat usually was kept for in-game purposes, not ... general chat about the newest game or whatever.  Anything out of game or character (OCC) was kept in whispers or on different channels.  Likewise, one wouldn't find themselves being led by Paris Hiltoon on the latest siege against a castle, or by Super Bob, or XXXXXXXXXX... talk about ruining immersion...