- Viewing Profile: Reputation: Tellia
TelliaMember Since 19 Jul 2012
Offline Last Active Private
- Group Members
- Active Posts 378
- Profile Views 1752
- Member Title Vanguard Scout
- Age Age Unknown
- Birthday Birthday Unknown
Posted Konzacelt on 03 December 2013 - 05:58 PM
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
Posted El Duderino on 15 October 2013 - 06:06 PM
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.
Posted SZSSZS on 13 October 2013 - 08:11 AM
- 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)
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:
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.
Posted raspberry jam on 26 November 2013 - 12:36 PM
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.
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.)
Posted Arkham Creed on 26 November 2013 - 06:58 PM
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.
Posted El Duderino on 26 November 2013 - 06:29 PM
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.
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.
Posted Bryant Again on 20 October 2013 - 03:51 AM
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".
This is a big part of the problem: When difficulty is determined by gear score.
Posted El Duderino on 16 October 2013 - 08:30 PM
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.
Posted Phineas Poe on 24 November 2013 - 05:48 AM
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.
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?
Posted Maldeus on 23 November 2013 - 07:18 AM
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.
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.
Posted Averath on 19 November 2013 - 09:48 PM
1: The amount of time fractals takes to achieve an ascended item is exorbitant. 10 runs at least per character to even get a sniff at an ascended ring. I've done dozens of runs since the introduction of ascended weapon boxes and have yet to receive one. And regular rewards are as stale as they have been for the last year. I still only do it for the skins, and all I've gotten on that front are two scepters.
2: I don't want people who have to only do a level 2 to be in my level 40. I want experienced people in my group. If I want to do a low level, I'll do a low level to show people the ropes. But new fractalers should go through the same painful experiences the rest of us have in order to earn their place in higher levels. None of this trophy-for-trying BS.
3: The only repair canisters I've ever used in fractals were because I went in unknowingly with already-damaged armor. I've done many a higher-level run without incurring any damaged armor at all, and I'm not alone. It doesn't take many wipes for a skilled party to get through a single fractal run. I suggest upping your level of skill instead of relying on gem store items to carry you through. It may sound harsh, but it's the truth. I'm not the most skilled fractal runner out there. I'm happy admitting that I'm probably around the middle of the road in that aspect. So instead of calling me elitist and brushing off my constructive criticism like I'm sure you will, try evaluating your personal skill level and those of the people you party up with, and improve on it. You'll have a much better time of things.
4: Reliably obtain ascended items. Right. You can get rings reliably. Everything else, not so much. I can farm up the gold to buy items needed for ascended crafting much faster and easier by running regular dungeons. And I've been doing just that. Crafting ascended weapons may be expensive, but it's faster and much more reliable than hoping for RNG to smile upon you.
I'll try to get to the rest of your post later, but probably not.
So, effectively, what you're saying is: 'Don't look at my elitist attitude and label me as an elitist! If you label me as an elitist, it's your problem, not the fact that I'm an elitist!'
You're trying to blame your elitist attitude on other people?
The problem with Fractals content is that it exacerbates the 'Haves' against the 'Have nots', and those who are in the latter category should 'L2P' and get better at the game. The problem therein is that it is inherently an elitist attitude to tell other players to simply get better at the game. There are countless variables that dictate 'skill' in an online game. You've already summed up one of the largest barriers that players must pass to even be considered 'skilled' in Fractals. Why would you want to play with someone "new" when you want to play with experienced players? The only time you'd want to play with someone new on a lower difficulty is to teach them how to play, but that desire to instruct newer players is anything but the 'norm', and hardly ever happens.
In essence, Fractals are a first-come first-served style of content. If you're with the initial group, you'll have an easier time progressing. But if you take a break or join after it has been established, you're going to have significant difficulties that are above and beyond what the initial adopters had to face.