- Viewing Profile: Reputation: Bloggi
BloggiMember Since 27 Aug 2012
Offline Last Active Mar 05 2016 12:25 PM
- Group Members
- Active Posts 858
- Profile Views 9601
- Member Title Savant
- Age Age Unknown
- Birthday Birthday Unknown
Posted Featherman on 01 October 2013 - 10:53 AM
What's funny about this dear tier is that the people it's supposed to cater to apparently got their weapons within a few days of no-lifing the game. Tme gating and inflated list requirements that's supposed to slow these players down ends up hurting everyone else (especially WvW players).
Posted El Duderino on 14 September 2013 - 02:22 AM
I'm sorry, but I really have to disagree with this. If this was the case, then people would think that GW2 was perfect and gaming would never have evolved past games like Wolfenstein 3D.
Even some of the most ardent supporters of GW2 suggest that at the very least, enemy design should be better implemented. Why? Because it isn't enough to create an engaging game of killing foes by just DPS. That is a very shallow way to look at gaming, and in return, you get a very shallow experience.
People actually enjoy problem solving. People enjoy creating and constructing and testing and tinkering and so on and so forth. Good games not only test your ability to spam the same keys over and over again (which is all you need for pure DPS) but provide obstacles and challenges to overcome. In order to do this you need more than DPS. you need a system of balances that effectively creates a complex game of rock/paper/scissors. Basically, you need choices. Choices are what make games great. Not DPS. Even if the objective is just to kill monsters.
That is why GW2 combat and the lack of trinity fails. Not because there isn't a trinity. There are tons of trinities in this game and every game. But, because there is no balance for DPS. Therefore, there is nothing to make this game interesting in the way of choices in combat. Or, at lease very little.
The only thing that GW2 did was create a game where people don't have to look for specific classes that they think they need to complete content. To me, that is the antithesis of utilizing the amazing part of the MMORPG - namely the massively multiplayer part. If we want to make a game where everyone can solo everything without anything being special in a group - then why bother playing a game online with other people anyways? For the social aspect? If that is the case, then GW2 should be putting way more time and effort into the social and roleplaying aspects of the game. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be a priority either.
The #1 reason why this game will never be esport is because combat is uninteresting. Not uninteresting in the subjective sense of the word - but uninteresting in the objective - lack of choices - sense of the word.
Posted Fantasy Trope on 08 September 2013 - 03:05 PM
I'm not interested in complaining for the sake of complaining. This question has been asked in various ways by various people, but I would like to revisit it. How is it possible to return to horizontal, cosmetic based progression?
Let's take a hypothetical: ArenaNet observes the massive number of complaints and is genuinely worried that stat creep was a mistake. The devs would like a way out.
My suggestion is austere, but I think it is necessary at this stage: make a video that announces ascended was the wrong direction and plans are in place to drastically reduce the amount of time and resources necessary to obtain "the best statistical loot in the game." This video contain the following:
- A promise that ascended is the final tier (and the final increase in stats).
- Plans to design better cosmetic rewards--armors and everlasting tonics, for example.
- Develop systems for these rewards that tie them to feats of skill (speed clearing a difficult dungeon, clearing a dungeon without any party downs, defeating a set number of monsters in an instanced encounter, etc.) rather than RNG boxes or excessive material grinds.
- Provide players who have already obtained ascended gear the option of turning in their old ascended for an equitable amount of materials and/or gold. They can keep their current gear if they prefer, of course.
- Explain the reasons ascended was introduced in the first place: not the marketing "reasons," but the serious ones, such as a concern about losing player retention or a change in philosophy of the developers. Public relations personnel should not be allowed to edit or critique this part; it needs to be as honest and open as possible.
- Plans for a new activity: The Skill Hunt. (This could coincide with a larger, much needed revamp of the skill system.) Horizontal progression can be maintained by hunting elite and powerful bosses, whose skills must be captured after they are defeated, much in the spirit of GW1.
Posted MazingerZ on 13 August 2013 - 10:36 PM
If you ask me, one should expect that.
Stopped reading right here because you don't understand.
People are willing to work twice as hard.
They're willing to work harder.
But they're throttled by DR and daily rewards that are account bound.
Read the thread before offering your wooden nickels.
The rest of your tripe is telling people how they should play the game.
Posted EvilSinzGW2 on 22 May 2013 - 10:56 PM
Posted ExplosivePinata on 24 May 2013 - 02:47 AM
Posted ShezuTsukai on 01 May 2013 - 04:34 PM
There is a sense of urgency but most players will have a chance to experience it with a little planning. And at the same time very few will be able to farm the dungeon.
Personally I missed the Karka finally and chance at a precursor simply because it was only on a Sunday. Should never have to compromise RL for a game.
Posted Dasryn on 24 March 2013 - 12:02 PM
- i have screenshots of 20+ players united in places like harathi hinterlands and snowden drifts completing large scale open world Dynamic Event content.
- i have screenshots of dramatic and breathtaking vistas ive come across.
- I thoroughly enjoy the combat in this game, like, for serious.
- i love the armor skins
- i love the graphics and character models
- i feel personally invested in the story, the lore behind the locales and the threat of the elder dragons, their minions and champions
- i love transmuted armors and seeing all the customization and different armor combinations the player base creates
- i love the dye system in place - seriously, its fantastic and innovative and ingenius
- i love the quest structure and how i can enter an area, complete a quest and get my reward without ever having to manually speak to an NPC
Posted Lord_Demosthene on 07 February 2013 - 03:26 PM
1) "Trait Points are for hitting desired traits, not for stat numbers"
It all comes down to opportunity cost in a given scenario.
Builds are not fixed in place, rather they should be viewed as a baseline strategy for particular encounter.
I'm not trying to argue here, I merely bring some points that might've been overlooked or not properly emphasised, either in opening post or it's following replies.
To give some examples:
A) DPS builds, and crit-DPS builds in particular, are far more stat-reliant than utility, control, support or in-between variants of these concepts - for this reason alone, great attention should be paid to major & minor trait benefits, at the opportunity cost of picking other major & minor traits AND the passive stat bonuses they provide (this is true for all builds, even more so for DPS builds, however - and while equipment customisation gives powerful tools to patch "statistical holes" in the build and make taking certain traits worthwhile, it's because the total "sum" of what X traits and Y total stats bring to the table still outweights the alternatives, rather than because passive stat bonuses from trait lines are to be completely discarded)
B) you can't re-allocate trait points inside fractals (e.g. convert 25 strength 25 arms 20 discipline to 20 strength 30 arms 20 discipline), therefore going for a more generalist trait point allocation that gives benefits in most encounters in the given scenario (while still allowing for swapping major traits before said encounters) might be a better idea; on the flip side, the possibility of X encounter impossible or unreasonably risky without Z traits/utilities and Y equipment might beg for a seemingly overall inferior choice, if it guarantees dungeon completion within your static/PUG group (difficulty of measuring risk properly is another matter here), therefore becoming the actual optimal solution catered to your group composition and encounter
C) elaborating on previous point a bit, there is generally no harm done from carrying different armour/trinket sets and all weapons, as well as designing a build towards swapping key major traits before particular encounters in an instance, as opposed to viewing a build in static fashion - build is dynamic and heavily reliant on the user, as well as remaining group members, the only "static" part of it is how much you limit yourself with the alternative major traits you can pick AND inventory items you can swap to (this even goes as far as making use of "special" equipment such as spy kits, and then measuring how much leeway your build has got in terms of maximising overall effectiveness)
2) "I agree with most of what you said but 20/25/0/10/15 is the highest Warrior DPS build atm" and similar statements
Same story as before.
A few points:
A) depends on particular scenario, encounters within that scenario and group composition - generally speaking, regardless of whether you run axe or GS, 20/25/0/10/15 will be better for "static DPS" only if sufficient number of unique boons are stacked, preferably with 100% uptime
B) similarly, gimping yourself by limiting access to game-changing traits such as "mobile strikes" (20 discipline) for GS, "leg specialist" (10 tactics) for GS/axe/rifle or any other alternatives might severely handicap your group's ability to maintain highest effective DPS (dynamic DPS) in a given encounter in X scenario, as well as lock you up to a very static and conservative trait point distribution, giving very little or no viable alternatives for major trait points swapping to adapt better to remaining encounters within the specified scenario
C) a little bit of my terminology: "static DPS" counts for attacking a monster 100% of the time, it's up to personal preference whether you assume there is a full 25 might stick and 120 seconds fury uptime on you already, or whether it builds up over time and might or might not rival a less boon-oriented build in terms of raw damage over X time; "dynamic/effective DPS" counts for the actual damage you can deal, while getting away with it - this term is most objective if it's results-oriented (e.g. comparing dungeon completion times in team setting, as opposed to trying to add up team DPS in a fictional, artificial testing scenario or diving purely for your personal DPS, not caring for group's total effectiveness)
D) the objective here should not be maximising individual DPS under X conditions, maximising group/team's DPS under X conditions, but reaching best possible completion time of a dungeon in group/team setting (time efficiency) OR best "(reward - cost)/time" ratio (cost efficiency) - alternatively, you can strike for a compromise between these two
Now a bit of conventional wisdom accumulated over the years of playing games overall, MMORPGs in particular and GW2 as of late:
1) in a PUG setting, people generally should gravitate towards self-sufficient builds with good self-sustain (self-healing, damage mitigation & on-demand control skills, 1st priority), good group sustain not reliant on precise positioning, voice communication and training (passive party support & static force multipliers, 2nd priority), best possible damage having accounted for the other two priorities (3rd priority)
Biggest weakness of PUG is it's random nature, making communication and group synergy difficult. Completing the instance with highest possible success rate, followed by completing it in reasonable time while reducing stress, tension and reliance on precise manouvers greatly increases PUG's success.
Why PUGs can be extremely frustrating experience?
Most people fend for themselves, prioritising self-sustain and damage, without regard for the group. This backfires in various ways, but usually - the group overall will be weaker, eliminating weakest chains first, and then striking back at the most selfish, self-reliant group members, which no longer have a buddy to support them and neutralise critical opponents.
Similarly, PUGs are reliant on natural leaders if they are avaiable, and cruel taskmasters if natural leader is not present - since latter is the case most often, most optimal builds and group strategies will be culled in favour of popular (not necessarily best in a competent team, but for instance easy to use & understand, with instant & measurable benefits) and tested strategies, often on a "copy-paste or kick" basis, where the only form of group communication is following strict gear, trait and strategy guidelines specified by the ringleader, group cohesion reliant on fear & intimidation (picking a black sheep to throw insults at as soon as possible to keep other members in check; measuring performance by ineffectual but easy to understand metrics such as "how many times you died" or "you didn't dodge", regardless of their actual relevance; threatening to kick on the basis of undermining taskmaster's authority, even if criticism was well deserved).
The following nuissance is further confounded by people reliant on PUGs to access end-game content, conducting themselves in social interactions & designing their builds in a "job portfolio" fashion, trying to appear as law-obeying, conforming member of society, that has no opinion and follows orders to the letter. What this leads to, is mediocrity:
- "only constructive criticism allowed" mentality, which means not saying things that will get you kicked regardless of their merit (group feedback is severely handicapped because of it, making the group even more static, unable to adapt, easy prey for ragequits if a sufficiently elaborate encounter shows up - that can't be pre-built for or pre-learned, but requires on-demand team communication and flexibility)
- builds designed around meeting arbitrary performance metrics such as primitive "DPS/heal/damage taken/attacks dodged" checks to avoid group scrutinity and kicks; in a guild/pre-made group setting the only objective metric would be completion time or "(reward-cost)/time" ratio instead, as these are objective but can be reliably tracked only over lengthy periods of time (similarly, the potential for misuse of tools and addons is narrowed down in pre-made group setting - they help players to improve, but aren't the absolute metric of team's performance)
2) individual doesn't matter in pre-made group setting, because he is already accepted for what he is, has no particular pressure to show off, and can instead focus on maximising group's efficiency without feeling bad for it
3) individual is the only thing that matters in a PUG group, short of successfully completing an instance - the conflict between these two distorts game meta and player perceptions of what is or isn't good, works or doesn't work
4) GW2 is not free from pressure towards selfish solutions - even the loot distribution in instanced content is based around tagging monsters, and for this to happen you need to hit a monster, and take sufficient part of it's hit points (long-term implications: inability to root out selfish mentality completely even in a pre-made group setting; erring more on the side of "(reward-cost)/time" ratio rather than completion time even if it's against group's best interests; prioritising weapons that are good for tagging over weapons best for the job).
Another example of this is design of dungeon bosses - rarely if ever hard CC (stun, knockdown) has any use due to stacks of defiant, required group coordination outweights any perceived benefits. There is a fine line to be walked here, between requiring CC as means of completion and making CC completely unnecessary or detrimental; so far GW2 is on the latter side of this spectrum, and fails to achieve competitive balance between control, support and dps builds, in turn relegating support towards increasing group's dps almost exclusively, and control towards gimped if potentially unintended strategies (spam of feedback and wall of reflection to completely neuter ranged mobs, as opposed to providing alternative cost stemming from another viable strategy).
5) build & damage calculators, DPS checks, even in-house statistical tools used by developers - are exactly what they are, just tools. They can help in discovering new builds or optimising existing ones, but most often are used by uneducated peers of the community in wrong manner. Wrong assumptions lead to wrong results. Lack of education leads to bad conclusions and assumptions alike. Finally, artificial testing environment is no rival to conventional wisdom and direct game experience of actually using a build; even then, for most intents and purposes our experiences are subjective, whereas tools used fail to account for the context.
In your pursuit of knowledge, don't fall for a trap of optimising your build for your testing environment or popular opinion (collective perception of the majority), as opposed to actual in-game results. I noticed many of you to be manipulated by numbers themselves or to use unproven (experimental) calculations to prove your goal; let me tell you something, you proved nothing but your desperation. Calculator is a tool, means to an end, not end in itself, and definitely not proof of your build's superiority (unless you all agree on the same calculations to be correct, and on the same testing environment to be used for testing, and then only draw conclusions as to effectiveness in that sterile environment, under specified conditions - in which case you theorycraft for the sake of it, or improving your testing methods as opposed to testing a build's actual validity in gaming environment).
So far I haven't seen a simulation tool so elaborate to account for movement, dodging, feinting, strategising and group dynamics. In fact, people struggle even now to produce a convincing DPS sheet for skill rotation, which would realistically account for input delay on a static target. Until that happens, you don't even have a scientific (and statistically measurable) testing environment to account for build's validity, without playing the game itself. You have no material for scientific hypothesis, even less so for a theory. Burden of proof lies on you, my fellow theorycrafters (yes, I do that too).
Next time you log to game, watch how you play. How you move, how you communicate, how you coordinate attacks. Your build is just a small part of your input-based strategy (backup armour sets & weapons, swapping major traits & utilities/elite), and just a small fraction of your output-based strategy (what you actually do with the tools given - moving, dodging, attacking etc., and to what end, what result). THIS (overly simplified) is your build. In fact, it's almost impossible to distinguish from the environment itself, including it's user (you, the player). Above is further confounded by group dynamics (how your team reacts), and environment dynamics (how mobs react to what you do). Notice a pattern? Your tools are not just incomplete and based on assumptions, they're for the most part static, and restricted by very limiting conditions for the test to be even remotely comparable to results from past and future tests.
6) Humans are not machines, we are not numbers and cannot be accounted for. In fact, we're even difficult to simulate. The folly of statistics and testing methodology doesn't lead to knowledge, if results themselves are treated as knowledge itself. Knowledge is experience, nothing else.
As for players themselves - everyone has his own pain threshold and innate abilities, both for thinking and mouse/keyboard input. Many of you might think that the only purpose of "optimising" a build is to make it best for either fastest completion time or the best reward ratio, assuming top-tier player skills of the user, unrestricted & 100% efficient communication and virtually no pain threshold or physical limitations disallowing the player from excelling at or even executing the build. Unfortunately, it's not - because even build's success has a cost.
Previous point elaborated on this already, but summarising, a build is essentially a strategy. And like all good strategies, good builds require planning, to make sure they are employed in right conditions by the right people. Hence, a real build should include:
- technical description (traits, primary equipment, inventory swap equipment, utilities & elite, variants)
- the environment it's competitive at, as well as it's specifics (labelling build as "tPvP bunker" is simply not enough - at the very least specify preferred team composition, preferred opponents/maps/circumstances and video feedback of build in action)
- advantages and caveats in it's environment, current meta
- what skills are required to utilise the build, including information on keybinds and gaming equipment, among others (is it a high-level strategy? pre-made, professional pre-made or "Joe the Average" build?)
Anything less than that I'm afraid, is just a declaration of your preferences, of what you use. Unfortunately for the reader, it conveys very little relevant information, just a bunch of data to be eventually transformed into information through factual game experience.
Elaborating on the cost itself, executing a build requires sacrifice. Time, money, skills to be picked up, physical and mental tiredness, perhaps even injury or life/health hazard (my flatmate got a carpal tunnel for his love of twitch-action FPS games). Similarly, the reward itself isn't limited to just in-game results, but can include improved RL skills (such as communication, stress management), mental benefits (better concentration, abstract thinking, better self-esteem) and the like. For this reason alone, when you design a build, ask yourself the following questions:
- who is it addressed for
- what skills are required
- what it's good for, what it's not good for, how do you maximise it's effectiveness in it's competitive area, how do you deal with critical drawbacks in unexpected situations
- how it works in a high-level strategy of it's environment, how it fits with the current meta
- in what ways build is biased by it's user, what are it's best counters (actual game experience) and what are it's best complementing factors (what team composition, what builds, why)
In essence, you have to convey your actual "know-how" into useful information. Not data, information.
7) ultimate build optimisation - optimising for risk
This point is last, because it's easiest to understand having read at least two previous points. If you know what build is good for, in what environment, employing what strategy and who is it addressed to - it is time to measure the risk of failure and potential setbacks, expected return value i.e. reward (from experience - highest return and it's circumstances, average return and description of average runs/matches/battles; theoretically highest outcome), and distinguish that risk from uncertainty.
Ideally, a build for average Joe's would maximise the fun & learning factor, provide easy entry and modest learning curve, all the while getting the job done. Secondary but not required attributes would include easier time for other members (positive synergetic effect in a team of Joes each supporting each other to their best ability), as PUGs inevitably break if they take too long to complete, require too much communication to get job done or face critical setbacks. For obvious reasons, build shouldn't require highly customised keybinds and dedicated gaming peripherals to function optimally. It's a bonus but not requirement if build provided "further reading" at the bottom, in case Joe gets bored and wants a more complicated toy to play with, becoming a better player in return.
A good real-life example of this build is sonic boon, it combines the comfort of on-demand healing & condition stripping from rune of the soldier/healing shouts with great popularity of greatswords among warrior players, and while definitely not the pinnacle of warrior's performance in this game, it gets the job done with the path of least resistance. The very reason it's popular despite it's many forum-dwelling antagonists is because the author clearly identified an audience, designed a build for it and presented information in professional fashion. If you want to make builds, start doing them properly - excel sheets prove nothing, they should be only used to help you design a build. The very moment you pop a DPS sheet to prove your credibility, is the very moment you lose it.
A bad real-life example of how to design and market a build is 9 boon knight, it pulls up excel sheet to prove it's superiority, yet actual game practice might nail down the problem to personal preferences rather than objectively superior build, strategy or technique. The author designed a build (like his many others) which he particularly excels at, yet gets defensive about it when his build's effectiveness in hands of other players is put to question. One problem among many to consider, is what is this build's ability to stay on the target, and what is it's damage in actual encounters. Does the boon burst create enough opportunity to justify build's other drawbacks? Is it's prolonged DPS actually higher than more conservative DPS builds? Does it have a competitive edge recognised by the meta, or does it argue player preferences?
Answer to above problem won't be found through forum arguments or excel sheets popping numbers, but actual in-game evaluation. Even then, it might still boil down to player preferences. Whatever you do, discard "static DPS" comparisons. You can't mathetically prove or disprove a statement of superiority, when it comes to builds in this game. Doing anything else, would be a misuse of the tools you were given, for all the wrong reasons.
Posted Calebrus on 25 November 2012 - 04:07 PM
This is a game. It isn't and shouldn't be work. It should be fun.
If you're playing for any reason other than fun, you're doing it wrong.
Just because a certain game has made a gear treadmill a usual thing doesn't mean that the usual thing is the right thing or the best thing. If people need to feel that they're WORKING toward something, then perhaps they should find a more productive hobby than playing a game. Go build a bird house or something instead.
In my not so humble opinion, anyone that requires any kind of progression at all beyond what this game already provides should find another hobby.
Posted Dove on 15 November 2012 - 09:32 PM
Ascended gear would be arbitrary if it was the same as exotic gear? Really? Then why do people chase Legendary weapons? They are the same statistically as Exotics. The absolute only difference is cosmetic.
People keep acting like the phrase "filling a gap" makes everything okay, while failing to understand what's actually happening here. Defenders of Ascended tier introduction keep using the true premise of "filling a (time to obtain the item) gap" to justify the more insipid thing that ANet is actually doing: CREATING a STAT gap. That is a gear treadmill, and that is exactly what ANet promised would never be introduced.
Take away the introduction of the stat difference between Exotic/Ascended/Legendary, and I'm 100% cool with this. In fact, I'd bet that almost everyone would be. More options is good. But essentially taking max gear away from people who have worked toward it is absolutely against their stated paradigms in development.
And if you claim it needs to happen because there's nothing else to do, keep in mind that this paradigm worked for years in GW1. You could get max armor and weapons very fast and very cheap (Exotic), 15k armor and some better skinned weapons for more cost/effort (Ascended) and the coolest things in the game like Obsidian/Vabbian armor, Crystalline Swords, etc for very much time or money (Legendary). But NONE had any stat difference.
Posted Krazzar on 14 September 2012 - 03:35 PM
Posted XPhiler on 10 September 2012 - 02:59 PM
Some people say GW2 is overhyped and is really a bad game while others say that Arenanet Delivered everything they promised. Each side acuses the others of begin Fanboys of GW2 or Fanboys of other games depending on which side you're on. After participating in various threads I think it all falls down to perception,How people play the game can really make one see the same thing in completely opposite ways. Those who say GW2 is amazing are right but those who say its nothing out of the ordinary are also right. Let me start by explaining the point of view of those who like the game, in their views:
Guild wars 2 is an amazing game that
A: Delivers an amazing experiance if you like story and lore
B: Avoids many of the repetition that exist in other MMOs
C: Allows you to play your character in anyway you want
D: Provides you with a rich world to explore
E: Immerses you in so much richness and details that it will blow your mind
But there are catches for this to be true you need to be patient enough that you have to be willing to reach your goals in a fun way rather then the quickest way possible and most importantly you need to be ready to stop and smell the roses.
On the other hand for people who arent willing to slow down, Guild Wars 2 is just like any other MMOs with possibly some of the features players like missing because the game is really not designed to be played with a competitve edge mind set and I am not saying this a crutique, if thats how you enjoy playing that is how you enjoy playing I am not here to tell you how to play but your experience will be different to someone who plays it like the game is meant to be played.
I think this is what has caused this disparity in opinion more then anything else.
Let me elaborate.
In most other MMOs the first thing you do is rush to Max Level and you do that using the path of least resistance. What this translates into when playing GW2 is probably more frastration then enjoyment. Keep reading I will give specific examples of all I mention, yes this is going to be one long post. If you're looking for progression in the sense that you're just looking to get stronger that coupled with trying to get there as quickly as possible will result in one not finding anything to do once they reach max level and worst yet that coupled with what will likely seem as an ordinary game while leveling up will make it very hard to justify to yourself why you should keep playing.
But how can it be that two people have such a completely different and opposite experiance. Let me quote the usual dynamic event I quote: It starts with a treasure hunter who leaves his home to walk to the beach in order to seek artifacts he then intends to sell. He starts by asking the players to help him grab Dwarven artifacts from the bottom of the sea. After he gets a large enough shipment he walks back to his home where he meets his fense. The fense checks out the artifacts and finds one that troubles him. Pirates show up and try to get the artifacts. The players will hopefully push them back and the two talk some more and decide that this one troublesome artifacts needs to be dealt with, luckily the fense knows this guy that should know how to deal with these things so they agree and transport is called. Transport is provided by 2 asura and their dolyak. There is some trouble along the way but finally you get there. The asura has sensed that the troublesome artifact is in fact a summoning stone, he offers to help out as he has experiance with this sort of thing so you all walk out to a field, after a short ritual whatever is in the summoning stone is summoned and players have to kill this nasty demon that has now been unleashed into the world.
Or well thats how the dynamic Event chain plays out but what does someone who's rushing to end level ends up most likely seeing? It depends at what stage they are passing by really. If they experiance the 1st stage all they will experiance is collect these artifacts from the bottom of the sea, kill some annoying skate or pirates that happen to be close to the artifacts and quickly move on seeking some new event to do. If they pass by the second stage they exeperiance kill X amount of pirates. If they come by the 3rd stage its a kill these wolves and worms while walking next to this dolyak and 2 asura, perhaps ressurect one of them if they fall in the fight. If they pass by in the last stage, kill this somewhat challening mini boss. Thats it. They will not stop and talk to the various NPCs they will never know the story or context of each single Dynamic Event they participate and they're ultimately right, without the story or the context Each dynamic event plays out more or less the same and not only the same like other Dynamic Events but the same like every quest in every MMO when you dont bother to read the story behind it. After all what can you do in any quest or dynamic event? Kill, interact or move from point A to point B, its the story and the presentation that makes the difference.
Now conversly how will someone who wants to enjoy the game experiance this event? first things first they're likely to pass by when the event hasnt start or perhaps if they catch it in the middle they will simply look for the start and redo the missing part later on, in any case it will start with a bit of a wait most likely until the event starts. Thats building anticipation, hmm this npc told me he like artificats, this sounds like it could end up badly but i wonder how. That anticipation is likely to enhance your enjoyment ultimately. Then you get started and you get to admire the great attention to detail. Fense calls for transport by actually whistling, you get to see this pigeon fly in, land on the ground, the fense walking to it, knelling next to it as to attach the note, the pigeon flying away and 30 seconds to a minute later this 2 asura with the dolyak walking in. You get to hear funny dialog as the asura and the Norn negotiate for the transport. You get to learn that Asura used to tinker with summoning stones and that that tinkering eventually resulted in a his lab being blown up. This is something that some people enjoy a lot and makes the game come alive for them!
But what's more you get to compare how this would have played out in a traditional MMO. In such an MMO You're likely to get a quest that said hey I collect artifacts go kill pirates and steal their artifacts for me. Then you'd get a quest telling you to go kill another 10 pirates to show them who's boss and ensure they dont try taking the artifacts back. And then you'd be told to take the artifact to this person who'd finally tells you to kill this elite mob that would spawn right next to you.
So lets be honest people cant we see the differences clearly right there? Those who like to rush through their game and do events as they come across them rather then seeking them out will do event without having any story and context and ultimately they really end up experiancing what any other MMO does and nothing more, they still just killed pirates and skate to get the artifacts, they still just killed this miniboss etc.. But lets be also honest on the other side of the coin, those who love to experiance the story and the lore, those who are patient enough to do this from start till end get to experiance all that Arenanet promised. This doesnt feel like kill a bunch of wolves in order to get from point a to point b, it feels closer to an interactive movie then anything else! the world truely feels alive! Both experiance are 100% true in my opinion, in depends on how you went through each of them.
Its also not just Dynamic Events, lets take map exploration for example. Someone who just is trying to get to max level quickly is going to do Hearts, skill challenges, POI and all the stuff necessary to get map complition just like anyone else. But doing those challenges just for the sake of getting the XP will alas make them become mechanical. There is no wonder in traveling to a POI, see the name of the area pop out, open the map, make a mental note where the direction of the next POI is and rush in that direction. People who do that and claim there is no real exploration are right ! But what does someone who loves exploration Experiance when doing the same task? So one of the POIs you find in Harathi Hinterlands is the Martyr's tomb. Well okey good to know but who's the Martyr? An investigation around the area will uncover an NPC that will tell you the tomb is allegedly that of Saul D'Alessio and import figure from GW1, The Martyr's tomb already suddenly becomes a lot more interesting and something that has to be explored in detail cause such an important figure might hold further secrets that have to be discovered by the real explorer. Next to his tomb there is the ruin of a statue dedicated to the godess dwayna. Once again thats some nostalgy for players of GW1 but more then that if you interact with the statue you're told that you can see the impressions on the ground where thousands of people used to kneel. There is also a candle you can interact with and if you light the candle and actually make your character kneel the avatar of dwayna will appear to you. It will tell you more about Saul D'Alessio and a particularly fanatical guardian that even in dead still guards the tomb. She will tell you that calling out his name will have him appear to you and that he needs to be stopped as he indiscriminately kills anyone living who happens by. You go back to the same place where you unlocked the martyr's way point and if you interact again with the tomb that previously did nothing, you get this mini boss fight and associated dynamic event that not only rewards you with the usual XP, gold and karma but also drops down a chest!
See the different experiance, someone who rushes will just experiance a sound effect, some XP, a few fight with the surrounding ghosts and nothing else. Can we really blame them if they claim Such an experiance is nothing special? On the other hand however someone who is in it to explore and stops to smell the roses will get Lore, story, XP, karma , coin and Items as well as the satisfaction of having discovered a hidden secret.
Once again for some it will be just like any other MMO for others the amazing experiance of living world they were promised.
So people please once and for all lets stop calling each other names and be more understanding of one another point of views. Its okey to argue points I am sure those who like to take the game slowly will correctly argue that those who rush need to slow down and those who like rushing will also correctly argue that the game isnt anything out of the ordinary for them and that slowing down isnt really a solution because they dont enjoy the wait that entails. Obviously you cant tell someone to play in a way they hate in order to enjoy the game, its not as simple as that for sure!
Diverse opinions are okey but people who like the game like the game for a reason, they are fans because they like the game and not the opposite, they dont simply like the game because they are fans!
Like wise even though for us that like taking the game slow, the game seems amazing and find it very hard to understand how others dont share our same opinion, playing it in some ways can really make it no different than many other MMOs on the market, its natural that such people would not understand how people can ever believe that Arenanet delivered on their promises because in their Eyes they didnt.
Lets all try to keep this in mind and avoid fighting each other and repeating the same arguments over and over again. Lets make sure reading this forum doesnt become grinding cause lately to me personally I started getting this feeling and I blame that on this disparity I talk about in this post. Each side think they're right and they think that by repeating their opinion they will finally get the other side to abandon what they view as bias and change thier ways. Unfortunitely its probably not as simple as that.
Posted DuskWolf on 01 September 2012 - 07:55 PM
And every once in a while, people have persevered with me. Like certain jumping puzzles which lead to certain chests. Some of those are bloody hard, and even harder if A.) you're a giant charr in a tiny passageway, and B.) you have very poor sight. But yet people are patient. I've found that they'll put up with you.
My charr characters have met plenty of friendly, lovely people.
And this is even after release.
I don't know why, but this harks back so much to Ultima Online. Before, I never really had a reason to socialise with people. I could cite the obvious problems which don't exist in GW2, like stealing ores; stealing objectives; stealing mobs; and so on. But it's just the feel of the game itself. It takes me right back to UO. I want to login. Not because I want to battle the next big bad, that's just not my thang, my scene if you will. No. Because I want to explore more. I want to find more points of interest, more vistas, and maybe even more chests.
And I want to meet the wonderful people who're also on their way there.
So if you, like me, have ever been one of those persons who've patiently helped others through difficult jumping puzzles and things, then allow me to thank you. This doesn't go recognised a lot, but it really does do oh so, so, so much in order to help build a community. If you've ever done this without getting annoyed at people for being slow or not as capable, then you are awesome, and you should feel awesome. This is your right.
Also, is it just me or are you finding that players are mailing you random junk, occasionally, too? Sometimes when I've hung out at the Canton Factorium (charr crafting place thingy), I've had people mail me stuff. This is incredibly confusing at first, until you realise that, hey, someone made some stuff and instead of selling it for pittance or putting it up on the trading post, they've just decided to give it to some random stranger.
Not to mention higher level people whom occasionally come across a lower level item and decide to pass it along.
That's also completely awesome. If you've ever done that, know that there are people out there that appreciate it.
But yeah, this is... genuinely unusual. I thought this feeling would go away once the game went live, because, you know, betas tend to be more friendly than the live game. That was the case with LOTRO. LOTRO had a fantastic, friendly, happy beta, and then when the game went live, the community went to hell. That was genuinely saddening to watch, because it was a very enjoyable experience in beta, but that didn't last. Nothing has, not since UO.
And now GW2. GW2 is like the new UO - in a lot of ways.
This is why I'm all for ArenaNet taking a strict stance on the troublemakers, and to be honest, if I were to ever get banned I know I'd feel more disappointed in myself for letting down their standards for a good community than I'd feel angry. I've known some horrible, horrible communities, some of which will go out of their way to ostracise and make people feel like outcasts, and will generally seem quite acidic, so much so that they're a poison to anyone outside of their clique. But that description just doesn't fit GW2 yet.
If ArenaNet can keep GW2 from becoming that? More power to them!
That's something we should all be able to get behind.
Posted Jaehan on 04 September 2012 - 12:52 AM
I, am not. I was following this game for over 2 years and looking forward to this one because of the single player aspect and the whole "the game cares that you are there" speech. However, reality came crashing down when that realization was just the personal story. Most of my friends are never on because they have families and other commitments and frankly other hobbies, but playing this game by myself... not doing anything for me. The single player part you can't even finish without doing tons of pretty boring and repetitive quests like you see in every other MMO. I'd rather collect 20 things in wow all day than wipe graffiti off another wall. Does every city have graffiti that a dragon slaying hero has to wipe off? It seems like a game that will get better with time, but coming into this as a single player gamer atm, I was less than impressed. Most of my friends have no interest in coming back because of the broken launch of the party system and we were in the same party but could not play together for the first 2 days. So they are gone now. I feel I need friends on all the time to enjoy it, which means I'm enjoying the friends not the content. Just my honest opinion. [Played 4 years of WOW, stopped at cata launch because that also got boring without people on 24/7, so maybe it's just me, but most of GW2 world quest are boring as hell too (world quests are boring and meaningless, personal story i could run through fine and enjoy it but id have to drudge through the open world junk and I just don't have the patience to do stuff I hate to get some enjoyment out of the game). Just the way of the MMO I guess]
The only time I've had to do demeaning tasks like that was pre-level 20. At that point, you ...
Become Mr. Badass or Mrs. Badass of your Order and wipe the floor with entire armies and pewpew people. If you're a Charr or Asuran, it gets even better, because you run your own Krewe and Warband.
I'll take this time to say: Charr and Asura have the BEST freaking storylines of all time.
That said, please don't play alone. Make friends! I'll be your friend. Playing a game with someone or alone will ALWAYS make or break it for you.