- Viewing Profile: Reputation: Chabby
ChabbyMember Since 19 Aug 2009
Offline Last Active Nov 25 2013 06:15 PM
- Group Members
- Active Posts 379
- Profile Views 3332
- Member Title Vanguard Scout
- Age 23 years old
- Birthday January 29, 1991
Posted Nuclear_Herring on 12 July 2013 - 11:05 PM
I was playing Sanctum Sprint, and due to a combination of truly awful lag (I'm in New Zealand, and my ping is horrendous) and my own inherent lack of skill I was solidly bringing up the rear of the group. My personal best was 7th and I'm not entirely sure how I even did that well.
Then the awesome thing happened. The group I was playing with had been reasonably consistent and so a couple of other sprinters started asking who hadn't got the achievement yet. As a result of this, those who had the achievement would wait at the finish line and /dance or /sit until a first-time winner came on through.
Eventually, I think I was the last person in the group without the achievement and the whole group followed along behind me. While I must admit I felt like the special kid who needs a crash helmet to play in the sandpit it was really cool for everyone to put their own needs aside so that someone else could get something out of the race.
I eventually finished in first place and got the achievement and title (which I'll be too embarrassed to ever wear) and to make the evening even better I got a windcatcher skin from the end chest.
To those who were there: You guys rock and I hope precursors drop for you in the near future.
tl;dr An entire group of players followed me through Sanctum Sprint to allow me to get the achievement despite me being rubbish. It made me feel all warm and fluffy inside.
Posted Desild on 12 June 2013 - 08:11 PM
Would someone get Anette-chan out of here?! We don't need her tomfoolery now. Shoo you damn charr, go back to Ascalon!
Gems are bad 'kay? That's what I always say. And thanks to Cube's assistance and her (his?) Survey, I'm going to get to the bottom of this silly business. Her (his?) data will prove most invaluable. After
The survey itself is a better attempt at trying to understand our habits with the Gem Store and try to figure out the data that ArenaNet herself (Anette-Chan) is withholding from us. And maybe take a good wack at trying to figure out what exactly is going on in their heads. Some insight could do wonders in the midst of all this insanity...
Without further ado, I give you... The Gem Store Survey! In Five Seconds... *pling*
A good sample is important, and without a doubt this survey managed to capture a decent picture of the overall state of the Gem Store.
Precisely 359 gamers and 1 dummy* answered this survey. Gender wise, the sample included 309 male gamers and 51 female gamers (85.8% and 14.2% respectively). Age wise, a majority of the sample was included in the “16-24” and the “25-34” age groups (160 and 135 subjects respectively, 44,4% and 37,5%) with the remaining subjects distributed between the 35-44 and the “45-54” age groups (36 and 22 subjects respectively, 10,0% and 6,1%). The outliers were considered for statistical accuracy, distributed between the “under 16” and the “55 and above” age groups (2 and 5 respectively, 0.6% and 1,4%). “16-24” was the Mode and “25-34” the Median.
For statistical accuracy, the sample was split in two: those who have bought and still buy gems, and those who have never bought gems. Using the Gold-Gem exchange is not considered as a Gem purchase for the sake of this survey, as I only considered the cases where real money was actually spent. As a result, 124 cases (34,4%) were discarded in regards to where they spend their Gems, in virtue of the white knights saying that it counts as “using resources within the game”. It also worth pointing out that 57 of these cases (43,5% out of the 34,4%) didn’t report where they were spending their Gems, since they never acquired any. This change will allow a better clarity determining how the sample spends their Gems bought using real currency.
For better clarity, and thanks to the feedback I obtained, I condensed the amount of Gems purchased into intervals. The original survey had fixed Gem values obtained on a monthly basis, and it turns out most subjects answered it on a rounded down approximate figure. The data was interpreted based on that estimative.
The intervals were: Bellow 800/Stopped Buying; 800-1599; 1600-2799; 2800-3999; 4000-5999, 5000-7999 and Above 8000.
Also worth pointing out that survey asked for average numbers of purchased Gems on a monthly basis. If over the course of four months a subject purchased 1600 gems, the average would be included in the “Bellow 800 Gems/Stopped Buying”. This estimate was also obtained from feedback.
*- The dummy being a friend of mine, who answered the survey while it was being processed
Does anyone even buy Gems?
Surprisingly enough, a valid chunk of the sample purchased Gems in the past or actively buys Gems. What is not surprising is number of Gems bought. Of the 235 subjects who bought Gems, about 51,1% have bought “Bellow 800” Gems on a monthly basis or stopped buying them altogether. 20,4% and 11,1% bought a number of gems between “800-1599” and “1600-2799” respectively. The remaining 17,5% were somewhat evenly spread in terms of the number of Gems bought above 2800 Gems.
What about the ones that don’t buy Gems?
Of the reasons given as to why the subjects didn’t buy gems, of the 125 sample 59,2% stated that the were content in exchanging their gold for Gems. 15,2% stated that they think Gems are too expensive, 12,8% is morally against Gems, 5,6% said that there’s nothing of interest in the Gem Store and 7,2% gave other reasons.
Most of the other reasons that were provided were in the lines of dissatisfaction with the state of the game, dissatisfaction with the Gem Store, or the belief that they already had given enough money towards the game in their initial purchase. These valiant soldiers are voting with their wallet.
Is the age group a determinant for those who buy Gems?
This was one of my first questions when I ran over this survey’s data. Is ArenaNet scamming innocent kids out of their lunch money or their parent’s credit card?
Sadly that is not the case. With the average Guild Wars 2 player being slightly above the age of 16 with a modest share of older gamers around and above the age of 24 (Mean of 1,81 between the sample for age groups), I can safely assume ArenaNet preys on college students and graduates’ wallets. Those bastards…
The data also shows a slight tendency of older gamers to spend money on gems but this might be a skewed correlation, due to the uneven sample, but it seems older gamers are more willing on spending money on gems. Even if the significance is small (0.119 Pearson) it is still there.
For those who buy gems, the correlation with the age group when compared with the amount of gems purchased is even lower. Age at first glance seems to have little influence on the amount of gems purchased (0.083 Pearson), and this backed up as the case by case shows:
- Every subject “Under 16” has never bought Gems.
- 48,9% of the subjects between ages “16-24” bought a number “Bellow 800” Gems. A cumulative of 34,7% bought between “800-1599” and “1600-2799” Gems (21,7% and 13,0% respectively). Number of subjects is 92.
- 51,5% of the subjects between ages “25-34” bought a number “Bellow 800” Gems. A cumulative of 34,6% bought between “800-1599” and “1600-2799” Gems (25,7% and 8,9% respectively). Number of subjects is 101.
- 54,5% of the subjects between ages “35-44” bought a number “Bellow 800” Gems. A cumulative of 13,6% bought between “800-1599” and “1600-2799” Gems (4,5% and 9,1% respectively). 18,2% bought “4000-5999 Gems and 9,1% bought “Above 8000” Gems. Number of subjects is 22.
- 58,8% of the subjects between ages “45-54” bought a number “Bellow 800” Gems. A cumulative of 35,2% bought between “1600-2799” and “4000-5999” Gems (4,5% and 9,1% respectively). Number of subjects is 17.
- Each subject of age “55 And Above” bought a number of Gems between “Bellow 800”, “2800-3999” and “Above 8000”. Number of subjects is 3.
Where do they spend their Gems?
I can tell you this much, it was a nightmare to crush multiple choice data… My fingers hurt.
Of the sample of 235 subjects, only 32,8% actively buys Gems to exchange them into gold. 63,7% of these subjects buy a number of Gems above 800, with the remaining 36,4% buying only “Bellow 800”. For their actual spending habits we would need another survey but this shows the reason as to why the Gem exchange rate is soaring as high as it is.
Of the sample of 235 subjects, only a measly 3,4% actually spends their Gems on Boosters. Their actual use is a testament of their overall failure as this was one of the biggest points of dissatisfaction from the anti-Gem Store advocates. This could mean that the subjects don’t find Boosters worth spending in. More surveys are required.
Of the sample of 235 subjects, only 22,6% actively buys Town Clothes and 29,8 buys Armor Skins and cosmetics. What is worth mentioning is that, most of the discarded data of subjects who didn’t buy Gems also mentioned that they spent the gold converted Gems so they could buy Town Clothes and Armor Skins. This could mean that people are circumventing from actually spending real money on these sorts of goods.
Of the sample of 235 subjects, only 14,0% actually invests in things like Dye Packs, Finishers and other assorted goods. With a good deal of finishers (and quite good ones) being obtained from PvP and Dyes being a common commodity, this is a no brainer. Regarding less cosmetic things, like Cox Boxes and Black Lion Chest Keys, only 22,6% invest in these sort of things. If you were wondering why ArenaNet is trashing us so hard with low drop rates while keep adding more and more rare and exciting items in these boxes, it is safe to assume it is because they aren’t happy with these numbers… I say we burn the Cox witch!
Of the sample of 235 subjects, a grand total of 40,9% invests in Services (Name change, cosmetic change, Black Lion Salvage Kits, etc.). As for Upgrades, a whopping 76,6% invests in things like Bank tabs, Bag tabs and Character slots. T
his reveals two things: one, the subjects are more willing on spending Gems on quality of life goods rather than cosmetics, exactly as we all thought and two, this means that a great deal of development is thrown at cosmetics that the subjects aren’t actively buying.
I can almost see people lining up to twistedly defend ArenaNet and tell me that this data isn’t valid or something. Well, I crunched these numbers myself with a calculator and it made a smiley face, but if anyone wants to check it out themselves, I’ll be more than glad to share with you the database. I used IBM SPSS in case you are wondering, and went to a great deal to avoid posting Descriptive Statistic Tables than nobody could understand.
But what can I say about this data? Well, for one, people are cheap as they are avoiding at all costs spending much on the Gem Store. But what is more disturbing, is that people are spending the equivalent in Gems as if the game was subscription based.
If this data is correct… Then ArenaNet is receiving in sheer Gem Store revenue at least half as much income as if they were pushing a subscription based model! And worst of all, we are NOT receiving content that justifies this revenue! If we don’t consider the sheer amount of time put into making Gem Store cosmetics that is. What’s worse is that most of them aren’t even spending their Gems in cosmetics but in quality of life goods!
ArenaNet must know this, as they have this sort of data more reliably available than I do, and yet they continue to invest time and effort on a Gem Store that is not reliably attracting Gem buyers. What’s worse, they are actively dissuading Gem buyers with ludicrous Cox Boxes that have a great deal of chance of giving out nothing of value!
You can’t ignore this data anymore, or what I’ve been saying all along. ArenaNet has to wake up!
.... Gmr Leon is silly.
Posted Baron von Scrufflebutt on 30 May 2013 - 07:32 AM
I absolutely do not disagree with the loot issue.
What I meant by "killing trash" though, is that DEs have the same point as killing trash does in other games: you kill trash on your quest to do something amazing. Trash, regardless of its strength, is just something that gets in the way. And GW2 feels like you are always killing things that are getting in the way, but there is no pay-off: killing trash is the means to a goal in other games, in GW2 though, because its a game that is built on DEs, killing trash is the goal.
There's no point to GW2, you are just running around, "killing trash". That's why I feel like that there's a game missing in GW2: somebody forgot to connect the dots. They threw in a lot of good ideas, they just didn't finish the game.
Posted Eon Lilu on 30 May 2013 - 05:29 AM
They didn't even eliminate grind, in some ways and areas they even increased it, if you even go after a legendary most of it is just grinding gold or using your credit card to skip ahead because the game is so heavily unrewarding for the actual materials and thing's you need for legendary, I am also sure that it is all on purpose and designed that way along with diminishing returns to extend the life of the game through artificially increasing the time it takes to achieve things, and to push players towards buying gems to sell for gold in the micro-transaction store to skip the artificially created time increase and grind.
This is not the GW2 that was told and sold to us before launch and beta, it is some other weird twisted abomination of what they said it would be....
"Guild Wars 2 takes all the things you love in Guild Wars 1 and put's it into a persistent living world"
"As a structure the mmo has lost lost the ability to make the player feel like a hero. Everybody around you is doing the say thing your doing, the boss you killed respawns ten mins later, it doesn't care that I am there".....remind you of anything?
That was released in 2010....3 years later and look at the topic comment on that video and try to say the comment isn't true...
Quoted 3 years later ....
I'm currently playing some game that looks a lot like this, but it has increasing amounts of grinding, vertical progression, gated content, repetitive events, bland combat, loads of missing features, and a dev team that doesn't respond to what its players are saying.
Posted Lydeck on 30 May 2013 - 12:42 AM
Posted Arquenya on 12 June 2013 - 11:43 PM
Posted Gileas898 on 12 June 2013 - 06:11 PM
Am I wrong?
The reason why cosmetic progression is not working for Arena Net is because there is none in the first place.
Posted ExplosivePinata on 04 February 2013 - 03:04 AM
This is not the Guild Wars I remember and played for years.
Posted lilPricea on 03 February 2013 - 04:42 PM
After 5 months of pretty hardcore playing and farming, I saw 3 precursors drop to pretty new players (between 1500 and 2500 achievement points) the past few days I decided I’m pretty much done with the game.
In 5 months …
- I have farmed over 5000 events, yet I never found an exotic / precursor.
- I have farmed over 250 dungeon paths, yet I never found a named exotic / precursor.
- I have farmed over 250 fractals, yet I never found a named exotic / precursor.
- I have opened over 50 black lion chests and only received a few boosters along with transformation potions.
- I have spent over 500k karma on Orrian Boxes and have yet to receive a mini (love gathering these in any mmo).
I have reached world completion on 5 characters of which I deleted two, I have seen the world inside out and I have dropped absolutely nothing anywhere while doing so.
I have hoarded nearly 5.4k achievement points (only 200 are from infinite sources) yet again nowhere any closer to my legendary.
Now after 5 months I have absolutely nothing to show for it, I am nowhere closer to my legendary with my bad luck, I have only half of a T3 set along with a few dungeon skins on all my characters.
I played Korean MMO grindfests for 6 years and even had better drops there. This is simply mindblowing that a supposed AAA mmo can have this much RNG involved.
Anyone else who has the same experience as me?
Posted kalendraf on 16 January 2013 - 06:39 PM
In terms of the "carrot" concept, I'd be perfectly happy to do the work to chase a tasty carrot if there was actually a tasty carrot for me to chase. Right now, all I'm seeing (and smelling) is an orange piece of rotting vegetable matter hanging on a string, and I have no desire to get any closer to it.
Posted Lordkrall on 22 January 2013 - 05:22 PM
No I am not thinking about mounts. I simply think that it is a bit weird to use a picture of an animal that have not been seen in the world for over 250 years.
Posted davadude on 22 January 2013 - 05:09 PM
So new ascended infusions? The 30+ gold I spent on infusing my current ascended gear left a bad taste in my mouth, I was glad it was at least going to last for a while.
To find out the most optimal combination for my build may now be available really pisses me off. I wish I would have waited! Correction, I wish Anet would have given us a heads up that more changes to our gear was coming down!
I sincerely hope they added the ability to salvage ascended gear to reuse the mats! That would make up for it I would hope. Or here's an early good-bye to half of my savings... again!
Anet haven't you guys learn anything from the flame of the last changes?
They gave you a heads up quit a few times. I'm sorry your feeling of "exclusivity" is gone, but the announced (ever since the November update), that Ascended would be slowly phased in to be less exclusive and more attainable. This is part one of that process.
Posted Sheepski on 22 January 2013 - 03:20 PM
Posted TheBandicoot on 25 January 2013 - 12:54 AM
Its not 100% guarantee free pass through the puzzle, but if you're there to farm tokens you should be at a point where you can fairly reliably do the puzzle all stealthed.
All other scenarios require the camping enemy to be really stupid or AFK. And no, you cannot manage the darkroom stealthed by a fountain on your own except you have that glowing book of the Mad King providing you a samll glowing shine. Or you are incredibly good at jumping in total darkness. Being stealthed by a fountain means removal of weapons, traits and the like as well as being unable to interact with anything, for example the torches at the entrance of the darkroom.
Long story short: I dont want the puzzle to become a non hostile area. But ArenaNet should consider making the torches usable in stealth, thus enabling good jumpers to pass the darkroom AND the arena in stealth as well as requiring camping people to at least spam the exit with AoEs to decloak hidden people instead of just waiting half-AFK. This way both sides are happy, providing a possibility to jumpers to remain unseen and still allowing camping in the area.
Posted Gilles VI on 11 December 2012 - 06:30 PM
I for one find the GW2 stance on Charr much better than in GW1.
In GW1 they were just the bad guys, while in GW2 there are differences.
Charr are a society, where different people have different opinions.
What feels better?
1) A pure good/bad portrait like we had in GW1. Charr were evil that killed the good humans.
2) A more variable society, where some Charr are hostile to almost everything (flame legion), some only accept the peace treaty with the humans, and where some charr just live among other races.
This feels much more realistic/mature to me..