Jump to content

  • Curse Sites


Member Since 19 Jul 2012
Offline Last Active Private

#2315000 How Players are Permanently Changing Guild Wars 2's Living World

Posted swordmagic on 08 April 2014 - 02:13 PM

Well... if they are gonna continue with LS and NOT bring an expansion into GW2, i am most likely to quit the game in a month or so.
I want new area's to explore, new enemies, new sights.

Whatever is the plan with LS, it's not for me.
Its a little quick content - sometimes nice, most of the time annoying - which i really don't care about anymore.

Lately, i find myself logging in to the game, do some dailies, maybe a few world events and then ... i get bored.
Could be only me, but thats the way it is for me atm

#2290929 What's the thing with GW1?

Posted Desild on 05 February 2014 - 02:25 PM

View PostHaruka Zahm, on 05 February 2014 - 02:05 PM, said:

It's mostly due to rose-colored glasses.  These people are unhappy with their expectations of GW2 and revert back to the "golden years" of GW1.  It's impossible to please everyone, and those who are most upset happen to be the most vocal.

It most be due to jade-colored glasses that you must feel the need of diminishing those that truly enjoyed the original, were upset when they announced they were going to cease all development in favor of a sequel, got ensured that the sequel would be just as good, and got something else entirely.

This is not a matter of being pleased. We were robbed!

#2279699 ArenaNet to "address [...] the dominance of Berserker/DPS"

Posted Noob Alts Ringleader on 13 January 2014 - 04:04 AM

I have serious reservations about this.

In an ideal world, this is a fine step, if it's done by buffing other types of classes.

Knowing Anet, however... Anet is terrible at balancing anything. These are the people who seem to have serious issues letting rangers have decent condition cleansing and pets that work, engineers have working turrents, et cetera while seeing no problems with warriors have a variety of condition cleansing, easy access to high damage and tough defense, and incredible mobility. Oh, and Signet of Healing. WHAT they will do to berserkers scare me.

#2267162 Now, how do you feel about the Living Story? (11/13/13)

Posted Konzacelt on 03 December 2013 - 05:58 PM

I think the idea of the living story is completely at odds with a B2P model.  I mean...the whole point of B2P is that you don't have to keep playing everyday like a sub tries to force you to do.  This wouldn't be an issue if the LS element of GW2 was trivial or not very relevant.  But it just happens to be the main focus of the game now...and for the foreseeable future.  The fact that almost none of this content is permanent totally nullifies one of the prime benefits of the B2P model.

The LS/Gemstore duo is not really B2W because little of it is actually needed for gameplay purposes.  It's all aesthetic.  Yet the end-game content is almost entirely centered around aesthetics so what else can you do besides the LS skin grind?  TP speculate?  Outright buy it off the gemstore?  It's like they want the revenue of a F2P cash shop game...without calling it that.  They stop juuuuust short of it by the simple fact that it's almost all cosmetic.  But what else is there?

The LS is simply a means to an end for ANet.  The means to get revenue.  There's nothing inherently wrong with wanting to make a profit, it's a healthy thing actually.  But there is something wrong with going about it in a backhanded way.  If they want more money from us, give us a good friggin reason to.  This LS crap doesn't even come close.  And yes, it is crap...despite what ANet thinks passes for good story these days.

"Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining." quote from Josey Wales

#2244812 What Happened to the Direction of ANet?

Posted El Duderino on 15 October 2013 - 06:06 PM

View PostLordkrall, on 15 October 2013 - 10:17 AM, said:

That would only matter if they were EXACTLY as skilled, had EXACTLY the same latency, used the EXACT same profession, weapons, skills and stat-combos.
A good player will defeat a decent player even if he have a few more stat-points.

As a developer yourself, do you compare balance based on two unequal opponents, or on two equal opponents? Just curious? Because, and I'm not a developer, but it seems that when two people play a game, one side shouldn't be at an initial disadvantage because one side just might happen to be better than the other.

Of course, there is also the flip side, what if the better player has the ascended gear? Do you like the fact that it would then be almost impossible for the underdog to win? Me, I'm an underdog kind of guy, so I like to make sure they get a fair chance.

My guess is that being fair and balanced isn't a design principle you hold dearly. Makes sense why you defend GW2 so much then.

#2243813 What Happened to the Direction of ANet?

Posted SZSSZS on 13 October 2013 - 08:11 AM

View Postdavadude, on 13 October 2013 - 07:13 AM, said:

Although changed, look at the similarities in both games that are different from standard MMOs:
  • GW1 levels and GW2 levels features a close to linear progression (where x is last level, each next level is x * 1.2.  GW1 had this, and GW2 has it, too).
  • Both games have the usable and decent weapons unlocked by completing the campaign.
  • Both games have armor which is decent to the highest available by completing the story (karma earned completing PS is enough to get temple armor, money earned in GW1 campaign is enough for elite armor).
  • The best upcoming/available armor is earned through an extreme or high grind (GW1's obsidian armor, GW2's ascended armor).
  • Both games had in-game stores that provided statistical or luxury benefits (GW2s gem store v.s GW1s in-game store with PVP, PVE, skill, summon stone, and armor unlocks)
I feel the philosophy has not changed, only the way in which they implement it (GW2 is a bit more obvious in the implementation than GW1 was, see above), but both are still here.  If you find the implementation part to be a change in direction (which I could understand), then I guess I simply don't find it big enough to be worth worrying about.

You're right, there is a clear continuity in philosophy moving from GW1 to GW2, but I'd just like to point out a few key differences I feel were glossed over. These, I feel, go beyond mere implementation.

Linear progression is something both share. But the fact that GW2 inflated progression to 80 levels, where GW1 allowed you play much of the campaign at the maximum level of 20, was a significant departure in my opinion.

Completing a campaign in GW1 afforded a weapon of max stats, whereas the Pact Victory Token provides only rare weapons. However, this isn't such a big deal as Dungeons tokens readily provide exotic weapons.

Obsidian Armor was entirely cosmetic, and regardless of whether or not Ascended Armor provides a significant boost, it isn't in any way cosmetic. Comparing the two, I don't believe is really fair.

As for pvp titles, rather than comparing them to Ascended Armor, I'd look no further than our current spvp/WvW titles. Both in GW1 and GW2 the progression is pretty steep, and while it may not be the case for WvW, people do gate teams with phrases like:

"r40+ only"

Finally I'd like to add that as they are now, PvE titles in GW1 progress no further than rank 5. Any further rank is simply cosmetic, and r5 can easily be achieved by simply playing the campaign. This of course wasn't always the case, but if they recognized it as a mistake, and made the change, why does GW2 repeat similar mistakes?

People always say that comparing GW1 in it's 7th year isn't fair, as GW2 is still young. Regarding subjects of this nature, I tend to disagree. I feel Anet should have learned from their decisions in the original game.

#2264198 Why GW2 needs an Expansion

Posted raspberry jam on 26 November 2013 - 12:36 PM

View PostIllein, on 26 November 2013 - 09:07 AM, said:

Yet judging by what friends and guild mates told me about GW1 - it seems that ANet always had a knack for meaningless grinds over actual challenge? I don't know how much frustration actually funnels into their latest statements, but they pretty much agreed that both those games are basically purely meant to be one big achievement grind that you either like or you don't and move on.

Which is disappointing, because I genuinely love GW2's aesthetics and graphics and part of its gameplay, but the most important things for a MMO, it lacks. Which would be:

- A variety of builds
- Challenging content
- Team-orientated gameplay
- Long Term Goals that seem feasible (Maybe I am a hypocrit on that one, because I like LTGs but at the same time, WvW Rank 9999 holds absolutely no appeal to me, despite fitting the bill.)
- Rewards based on time AND skill invested - rather than time alone.

If they are going that direction, I could see myself playing more regularly again.
Actually, your list is exactly what GW1 was. Yes, at some points it had meaningless grinds, but the core of the game was all about build diversity, high challenge and team-oriented play. Long-term goals/rewards such as titles and FoW armor existed as well, and were "meaningless" only insofar as that they didn't give any advantages in play other than looking good (well, apart from the LB/EotN titles). Also, they were well constructed, because many of them gave freedom of how to achieve the goal (for example, you could get a FoW suit without setting foot in FoW except for buying it, if you so liked) without having to introduce so many in-game currencies that a separate feature had to be added just to keep track of the currencies!

About variety of builds: One "good" idea that ANet had when they hade GW2 was to limit the number of builds by reserving a healing and elite slot, and by gluing weapon skills to the weapon. In retrospect, they not only failed because it's still possible to make a bad build, they also limited build diversity and creativity compared to GW1. And I'm not talking about how it's impossible to make very stupid builds such as MS warrior, 4-element elementalists or minion master monks. I'm talking about how diversity of good builds is extremely limited in GW2.
My conclusion is that when it comes to build systems, you need to give people enough rope to hang themselves in order to let them run free.

Team-oriented gameplay: In GW1, you had to have people with you. Even if those people were AI-controlled bots (henchmen/heroes). Alone, you could usually do stuff only in certain circumstances with specialized builds. GW2 on the other hand is built around soloing, most of the content is soloable. Open-world content is supposed to scale up and down depending on how many people are present and that is supposed to make people play together, but in reality that just makes people solo together, so to speak. Since content scales up there is no real reason to work together. People play their own little game independent of people who might or might not be nearby.
My conclusion: if you make a soloable game... People are going to play solo.

Can this be handled by an expansion? Well, not without changing the core gameplay... So no. Therefore, I think it would be best for the existing game if there wasn't an expansion. (For me personally, it would be even better if they just released a true sequel to GW1 instead.)

#2264441 The Great MMO Migration -- 5000 Free Copies of GW2

Posted MazingerZ on 26 November 2013 - 07:06 PM

Relevant... the woman in the video is Meg Turney, an apparent Internet personality.

Google's first hits on her turned up two pictures in her underwear.

Glorious.  I'm sure she cost a pretty penny to employ in the video.

#2264420 The Great MMO Migration -- 5000 Free Copies of GW2

Posted Arkham Creed on 26 November 2013 - 06:58 PM

View PostLordkrall, on 26 November 2013 - 06:24 PM, said:

What are these MASSIVE bugs you talk about?

How about, just as an example, the engineer turret skill line having over twenty confirmed bugs that make turret based builds basically unplayable? Including but not limited to overcharging randomly not working and turrets refusing to attack world bosses.

#2264363 The Great MMO Migration -- 5000 Free Copies of GW2

Posted El Duderino on 26 November 2013 - 06:29 PM

View PostLordkrall, on 26 November 2013 - 06:24 PM, said:

What are these MASSIVE bugs you talk about?
I play daily and as far as I know I have yet to find any of these massive bugs.

You also seems to be under the illusion that changing in a budget is done by simply flipping a switch which isn't really the case.

Major changes in budget tends to be made at the start of a new budget year after all, which might also be the case now.
It is quite possible that they have been given X amount of money form NCSoft to market the product. Said money will be "lost" if not used before the end of the year. Thus they do something like this in order to not "waste" any of the money.

Quite logical.

You mean the ones that the developers couldn't fix when they were live casting the game?

I don't know... I guess you are just lucky to not run in to them!

But, I see that either you work ArenaNet, as you presume to know much about how they work, or you don't know what you are talking about and are just presuming you know how they operate to make a point that is based on nothing. In either case, I'm not really worried about it - the point has been made. Other people agree. It looks bad and is definitely a "toe in the water" as Captain Bulldozer puts it.

#2247695 Why you Can't Ignore Ascended Gear

Posted Bryant Again on 20 October 2013 - 03:51 AM

View PostMisterJaguar25, on 19 October 2013 - 11:46 PM, said:

The other theory (suggested on early page 1 of this thread) is that Ascended was added because exotic was too quick and easy to obtain, so they're adding ascended gear so people have to take a long while to get the BIS, so they can't just lol buy the BIS as soon as they're level 80 (from saving up gold till then), instead of the gear being there to appease gear treadmill fans.

I didn't see any issue with this. Maybe it was because it was what I came to expect having played GW1. Maybe because this was pretty in-tune with saying "everyone, by level 80, should have the best statistical loot in the game".

View PostRobsy128, on 20 October 2013 - 12:49 AM, said:

A basic game design concept would be to have players using any gear they like in regular dungeons, but for the elite areas, they'll have a much easier time using exotic/ascended gear (although other gear wouldn't be ruled out).

This is a big part of the problem: When difficulty is determined by gear score.

#2245469 Why you Can't Ignore Ascended Gear

Posted El Duderino on 16 October 2013 - 08:30 PM

View PostFoxBat, on 16 October 2013 - 08:19 PM, said:

You don't have to like it for other players to. All of the scarcer insignias continue to command a decent price.

But then someone with nothing positive to say about their game probably doesn't rank high in Anet's target audience.

Funny, maybe that's because they are scarcer that they command decent prices? Laws of supply and demand?

Also, I'm not sure exactly what business you are in, but one of my yearly reviews is participating in a meeting where all we talk about is what the people who don't like us said. We pay thousands of dollars to have one of the biggest survey companies do a complete breakdown of people that didn't buy our services, but considered them - and what they had to say.

I'm thinking that anyone that is interested in MMO's, games or Guild Wars at any point might be ANet's target audience, especially if their goals are as lofty as you seem to make them out to be. If that is the case, then negative reviews are actually the gold that propel you to be a better company and create a better product. If you think that listening to people that fawn over you will help you out in any way shape or form, you are just dead wrong.

#2263373 Fractals: The source of the problem

Posted Phineas Poe on 24 November 2013 - 05:48 AM

View PostFeathermoore, on 24 November 2013 - 04:25 AM, said:

These are the leads that are being brought up as having left. Not just some designers. They were the ones telling others what to do. Their leaving is significant. How much of an impact or the exact reasons for them leaving are not really known though and we likely never will.

Telling them what to do when it came to ... creating cut scenes? Sorry but I don't see the relevance to the conversation regarding Fractals of the Mists or the overarching "they LOVE games" plug-in. Guild Wars 1 was a different game with a different design philosophy. For one thing, it wasn't an MMO. It was a PvP-centric online RPG. There was nothing truly "massively multiplayer" about it, so of course they're not really concerned about giving people reasons to log in every two weeks year after year.

I thought this conversation was about Fractals of the Mists "ruining" Guild Wars 2, not "how/why Guild Wars 2 isn't like Guild Wars 1." I understand this tangent began from discussing their shift in design philosophy pre-release into today, but last I checked Colin Johanson has always been the Game Director for Guild Wars 2.

View PostFeathermoore, on 24 November 2013 - 04:25 AM, said:

Please refrain from breaking up other posts into "quote wars" it is ugly and makes it harder to formulate responses.

Well, I'm sorry if you think it's "ugly" but I conversely think quoting a gigantic block of text, or worse, "snipping," is unclean. Breaking up posts allows me to tackle every issue raised in a post individually. I thought it was a pretty common thing to do, exhibited by the fact that I am hardly the only person doing it within this thread.

Is this a rule posted somewhere?

#2262944 Fractals: The source of the problem

Posted Maldeus on 23 November 2013 - 07:18 AM

View PostAKGeo, on 22 November 2013 - 10:51 PM, said:

As for missing living story content...oh well. If you weren't around for real world events, you should be content with simply hearing about them. The Living Story is meant to mimic that concept:

And dear lord has it failed. The living world isn't even remotely similar to the temporary nature or real life events. Real life events are caused by chaos, ended by chance, and replaced by something that has been shaped by how people reacted to the original event. Real life events are happening constantly, in all places, at all times, everywhere. Real life events can be created, affected, and ended by the people who are a part of them. The "Living" World is such a pale imitation of how events occur in reality that I'm almost insulted when people try to use realism to defend the Living World.

The Living World is completely artificial. It's a scripted series of attractions. It is identical to the Personal Story in all ways except that it is temporary, and its temporary nature is known to be an undesirable quality amongst general markets. Yes, known. I'm not talking about looking at forums and making guesses, I'm talking about DVD sales and Netflix's entire business model and the fact that vast swaths of the television world have converted to making shows that are sold by the season in box sets, and offered an episode at a time on television as an afterthought. I'm talking about how abc.com offers the past four episodes of Once Upon A Time so that people can get caught up if they missed one, and they offer it for free. I'm talking about Netflix television shows being produced and released exclusively for Netflix, where they are archived forever. If you think that what the people want is fixed, static content exactly like the Personal Story (or any other linear game) that also goes away after two weeks, then there are entire businesses founded on nothing but the fact that you are wrong. The market has spoken and it hates you.

If you wanted a genuine Living World, Guild Wars 1 and 2 both have examples of how to do that better. GW1 had Alliance Battles, where players fought to actually change the territory controlled by different factions on the map, with significant (though not redefining) changes to the affected areas. GW2 has dynamic events, where the success or failure of the players actually changes the map for a short while. The Living World isn't like that. It doesn't matter how many people beat the dungeon, fight the invasions, or gain the achievements. If, for some reason, everyone woke up when the Toxic Alliance content was released and decided they just weren't going to run any of it at all, ever, the plot would've moved forward in exactly the same way as if every single player had played it for 12 hours straight every day it was available. There's absolutely nothing living about Scarlet's story.


Fractals are random by design...it represents the instability and unpredictability of Dessa's fledgeling experiments. Anyone anywhere near a scientific profession will understand and immediately relate with this.

This argument is so feeble it borders on the disingenuous. If the Fractals must be random to reflect scientific experimentation, that means Fractals are the wrong way to reintroduce content. As a writer of fiction, you command the world in its entirety. Pretending that ArenaNet just had no choice but to put this in the Fractals is just bizarre. Of course they did. They could have had some Durmand Priory guy build a historical simulation chamber. Or just a library, and have the playthrough of the content be a metaphor for researching different primary sources to build a unified historical perspective of the situation, which is basically what GW1's Bonus Mission Pack already is. Or they could have derandomized the Fractals with the explanation that Dessa's experiments are complete and now produce repeatable results, which would have ruined things for the Fractal fans but would still have been a perfectly sensible in-universe explanation for having non-random reintroduction of previously temporary content.

#2262740 GW2 Meme Thread

Posted Sacred Gee on 22 November 2013 - 09:13 PM

Posted Image