Jump to content

  • Curse Sites


Member Since 31 Aug 2012
Offline Last Active Mar 17 2015 08:58 PM

#2350108 Was level 80 cap, and Ascended a mistake?

Posted draxynnic on 08 February 2015 - 07:09 AM

View PostMordakai, on 07 February 2015 - 05:09 PM, said:

OK, if your theory is true, then why not add more levels and tiers in the Expansion, where the majority of MMO players expect it?
Because masteries are intended to fill the same role.

Personally, I think Ascended was a mistake. People talk about people leaving because there was no endgame carrot to chase - I know people who quit (some even demanding - and receiving - their money back) around when that announcement was made because it raised the specter of endless gear treadmill from other MMOs. Stat grind may keep some people playing, but it acts as a wall to fence out those who play more casually.

I've been playing since release, and my activity both in and out of game is such that I wouldn't describe myself as a 'casual player', but contrary to Phineas' claim, I don't have any characters fully kitted out in Ascended. I play an average of a couple of hours a day... but I prefer to do different things each day rather than getting the most potent build and repeating whatever seems likely to give the best rewards over and over again.

The Guild Wars franchise was based around the idea that getting the best stats and being on a level playing field with the obsessives was a fairly easy target to make. After that, progression came in the form of chasing better-looking skins (obsidian armour, legendaries), acquiring and learning how to use new skills, and so on. Problem is, Guild Wars 2 largely failed on the second part, with only a handful of new skills and abilities added in between release and the HoT announcement.

However, it seems fairly clear that they're taking the route of new skills and abilities over simply bumping up stats so you can fight monsters with ever-increasing stats.

#2320516 Unlocking traits.

Posted Baron von Scrufflebutt on 27 April 2014 - 07:42 AM

View PostPhineas Poe, on 26 April 2014 - 05:15 PM, said:

Do you guys even play Guild Wars 2?

I thought I made it perfectly clear that my GW2 playtime is limited. Not just that, but when I do play, I don't always consider champ-zergs to be the way I want to spend my playtime.
So, if you play that way (limited time, barely any zergs, new characters, possibly alts), as I said, there's a pretty decent chance that you don't have skill points to throw around. Which means that you are stuck with exploration as you only way of unlocking traits.

Now, folks that play this way are already very much limited in what they can achieve in game, so the question is: why is a trait system that additionally limits what they can do an improvement? Why would I argue for a system that leaves me with less skills and less traits and I need to pay more for the ones I do have, over the old one?


View PostPhineas Poe, on 26 April 2014 - 05:36 PM, said:

For new players that actually care about playing the game this is cheaper for them than the previous system.

By "caring about playing the game" you mean 100% world exploration, personal story and 5 select WvW activities, right?

#2320534 Unlocking traits.

Posted ExplosivePinata on 27 April 2014 - 09:41 AM

The new trait system made me want to get off that panel asap. New traits I don't care about because I just don't won't to go back to it.  

Whoever thought clicking a trait that asks you if you want to spend points without showing you the actual traits descriptions available was a good idea needs beaten about the head with a clue, what a mess.

Unlocking elite skills in GW1 was great. As usual the GW2 shoehorned version fails to even come close. Thank god I'm not a new player.

Uninstalled, again :zzz:

#2320044 Unlocking traits.

Posted Konzacelt on 25 April 2014 - 03:02 PM

To say they have badly placed unlock conditions is an understatement.

For one thing, as someone already mentioned, this makes it virtually impossible to exclusively play WvW as a new player.  That part of it is just wrong.

For another, it does actually force you into certain areas you might otherwise not go.  For instance, I recently started a condi ranger just to see what the new system would be like.  Using a shortbow is an obvious choice for ranged dps for a condi ranger.  For it to be at all effective, I'd need to get both Piercing Arrows and Sharpened Edges.  Both of those required me to go to areas I never intended to, my plan was to do all the human areas, and follow my storyline to Orr.  Now I have to take a lot more time running around a map I've already gotten world completion on 3 times just to play my toon effectively.  Not only that, but now I have to wait until at least level 60 just to have the ability to use Piercing Arrows.

I agree the free respec is very nice, but it would have been better if they had simply added that to the old system.  As it is now, I don't really want to even play my new toon because of it.  It's extremely frustrating.

#2319990 Unlocking traits.

Posted Baron von Scrufflebutt on 25 April 2014 - 07:04 AM

View PostFeathermoore, on 25 April 2014 - 12:58 AM, said:

The change is designed for three purposes. To create a learning system for new players, to evolve an existing system to create more horizontal progression for new players, and to create another method to encourage players to return to older content. All of which are positive. All of which the system is successful at. I don't need to quote Colin. The design goals were pretty self evident when the system was explained.

I am bothered by the bolded part.
As you also pointed out, the game already had too much progression. If we look at progression as a learning tool, that would mean that we already had a system in place that failed to teach players: had the previous system been usable as a learning tool, I don't think we could have made the argument that the game has too much progression. The new system also didn't didn't expand the quantity of content that would demand that new "lessons", we just got more "lessons" instead. Also, some of the requirements (for instance, jumping puzzles or super-mega zerg events) "teach" players playstlyes that are either completely secondary or actually wrong.
Regarding horizontal progression: the game's shitty balancing really turned traits into vertical progression. There's a selection of traits that are insanely superior to other options and that's really not an example of horizontal progression.
As for encouraging players to visit old content: pre-patch characters already have the majority of traits unlocked, which means there's no reason to visit the old locations for them, as for new players, the system is a bit bad at encouraging: given the cost of buying traits, it's closer to forcing players to do this content than it is to encouraging them.

Now, as folks have been saying, hunting traits could be a good addition. The problem is that it's currently implemented poorly and the same poor implementation has been seen in basically every addition to GW2 since release. So, with that in mind, does it still make sense to support additions that are good in theory, but have been botched up consistently for the last two years with no sign of improvement? Maybe it's time to accept that what we are seeing here isn't an exception to the rule, it's the rule?

#2319816 Unlocking traits.

Posted Konzacelt on 24 April 2014 - 02:57 PM

The problem I have with it is that it's both lazy design and presumptuous.
  • The new system is obviously designed to be in-step with new players as they are exploring the map, I get that.  But there's little rhyme or reason to it, it's just randomly assigning objectives with little thought to it.  And it shouldn't be tied to world completion, that's making a rather large assumption that you want to see every nook and cranny in Tyria.  If you are going to go this route though, a better system would be having the traits tied to the PS.  For instance, if you are a Charr and a member of the Vigil, the unlocks should be around Ascalon and Vigil story areas.  I also don't think you need to wait until the top level areas of the game to finish this, it should come around lvl 40-50 or so.

  • My other issue is the cost for gold unlock for non-new players.  I understand there are lots out there who easily come by gold in this game through specific daily tasks, trading, dungeon runs, etc.  But there are also those like myself who don't play the game to make any gold.  As an almost exclusive WvW player, gold is very hard to come by in this game.  Asking an older player to shell out 40g to unlock all traits for a new character hits you hard.  I got really lucky last month and managed to get a drop that finally put me over the 100g mark for the first time in this game, and I've played from launch.  Since then, it's been slowly dropping though.  Why should I have to farm in PvE just to stay afloat, much less equip a new toon?

#2319661 Unlocking traits.

Posted Shayne Hawke on 23 April 2014 - 09:55 PM

View PostFeathermoore, on 23 April 2014 - 08:56 PM, said:

If the unlock tasks are retooled to make more sense, then these complaints are completely nullified.

So is this conversation about how good the system is now, or how good it could be?  This statement makes it seem like you're giving far more credit to the current system based on how it could have better been implemented rather than what ANet actually ended up doing.

I mean, if you want to just talk in hypotheticals about how great things in this game can be, there's a hype train that ran through here about two years ago that you could revisit.

#2319271 Unlocking traits.

Posted Konzacelt on 22 April 2014 - 04:25 PM

I'm starting to see a trend here...

Instead of introducing new content, they just rehash old maps with temporary events, make crafting BiS gear take forever, and now this new trait redux which really just makes leveling take longer.

ANet is trying reeeeally hard to extend the basic gameplay.

#2316556 Why Healing Power Sucks, By WoodenPotato's (also bad mob design)

Posted raspberry jam on 14 April 2014 - 04:35 PM

View PostI post stuff, on 14 April 2014 - 02:55 PM, said:

The paragraph was one more line, which was about something different and not what I wanted to address, so I cut it away for greater clarity.

#2316532 Why Healing Power Sucks, By WoodenPotato's (also bad mob design)

Posted raspberry jam on 14 April 2014 - 02:07 PM

View PostMazingerZ, on 14 April 2014 - 01:33 PM, said:

It's the question that pretty much burns everywhere... They the hell do we have such useless (less efficient) stats and why are there item builds that promote stacking the useless stats?
Exactly... Or rather, there are such things in every game, sure, but when they (ANet) intentionally made few available choices (compared to GW1) so that every choice would be good, and there are still worthless choices... It's obvious that something is wrong.

#2316070 Pay-to-win

Posted Miragee on 11 April 2014 - 08:53 PM

View PostMordakai, on 11 April 2014 - 08:32 PM, said:

I called Black Lion Keys "pay2lose" and I'm sticking with it.

I would call it an unethical cash grab.

View PostMazingerZ, on 11 April 2014 - 06:53 PM, said:

Okay, seriously, you keep starting from that position... it's very simple.

Remove the effect of money on game-play.  Segregate the RMT from the game-play.  No amount of game-play will get you cash shop items and no amount of money (to the devs) will get you in-game items.

Once that's done, the game has to survive on merit.  Because you're not going to pay for extras a game that doesn't have fun, rewarding game-play unless that money makes the game-play fun and rewarding (boosting, creates gold).

In this instance there isn't any way to change that with your wallet, so it comes down to bad design rather than egregiously adding piss to the water so you'll occasionally pay for a clean glass when you're tired of drinking piss.  And since you cannot buy your cash shop items with gold, you don't have to balance your in-game economy with the RL economy.

If you find yourself enjoying the game, you spend real money for items in the cash shop because that's an enhancement to your experience without affecting the other rewards in the game.  Pretty much how if you're enjoying a game, you pay each month to continue enjoying it.  Especially if you're expecting additional content for free.

The only time they can ever get in trouble is when they're releasing cash shop armors at a ratio of 6 for every one in-game armor set.  Your players should never feel like they're being backed into a corner when it comes to spending cash.

Create parity.  Do your best to create parity (armors in the cash shop and game that people will like equally).  People enjoy a fair system.

I like the core of this post. Extra Credits just did a video on f2p done wrong and in the end they had a perfectly fitting statement: Make a good game (first) and the money will come. If the game is good and I enjoy playing the hell out of it I like to support the dev's. And if you want to spend money on the game, sub-only games are very fair because everyone is the same in this system. Fair f2p/b2p system sacrifice a bit of the fairness in favor of other things like little start investment to get into the game etc which make up for it. Sadly, gw2 is in the categorie of f2p shops done wrong imho.

#2315815 Pay-to-win

Posted raspberry jam on 11 April 2014 - 07:53 AM

View Postyugas42, on 11 April 2014 - 02:06 AM, said:

Hi, i'm one of Moriz's guild officers. Today i'm celebrating playing the game for one month exactly, I bought it 32 days ago, and today was my 31st full day playing. My character, along with the rest of our members, are much higher geared than what you say they should be, i'm not making an argument here, i'm just backing moriz up.
It's a nice character. You are definitely not a typical GW2 player so your achievements aren't really appropriate to bring up in this discussion.

View Postmoriz0, on 11 April 2014 - 04:33 AM, said:

i'm not sure if you're being dense on purpose, or you really are this dumb.

the 12 minutes statistic was derived by the reddit post's OP, based on the number of "active" players per week and hours played per day. it is by no means valid, because it makes a number of baseless assumptions.

the number of minutes played "on average" by no means tells you what the typical number of minutes a "typical" player plays. trying to calculate for it is pointless, as is bringing it up in any meaningful discussion.

as myself and yugas have already pointed out, it is easily possible to have fully decked out characters within two weeks, starting with nothing on your account. we tend be to fairly hardcore, so a more casual player can do the same in maybe 2-3 times that amount. a fully decked out character within a month, even for casuals? how is this "P2W" again?
No, even if a casual player would play 2-3 times less than you (and thus, according to you, would need 2-3 as many days or weeks to get what you have), they also play less efficiently, and they aim at different things.

I fail to see how the average time played can be anything but a pointer to how the typical player plays. The nature of averages is that it usually takes on a value near a typical one. Comparing to the median is always worthwhile, but the average is an important value.

#2315812 Pay-to-win

Posted raspberry jam on 11 April 2014 - 07:26 AM

View Postmoriz0, on 10 April 2014 - 11:55 PM, said:

legendaries as being better? right. tell that to the poor dude that i jumped last night, because i could see the glow effect of his legendary unicorn-shooter even when he was attempting to hide behind a ledge. never mind his glowy footprints conveniently told me how he got there.

i'm failing to see how legendaries are supposed to be good, or even worth getting. sounds like you people are chasing after something, that's actually giving you a DOWNgrade.
No, legendaries as in being something to show off with. Using a glowy legendary when trying to hide somewhere sounds kinda stupid, but people are stupid. This is not about what is sensible or even sane to want, it's just about what people want.

View PostArkham Creed, on 11 April 2014 - 02:42 AM, said:

Oh I have no doubt that we could have a very....interesting "discussion" on the subject of time investment and its subjective value. (And make no mistake it is subjective; in my home town highschool dropouts flipping burgers at McDonald's were trying to petition for $14 an hour.) But this isn't the thread for that. The fact is you can, at least in theory, obtain every item in the game and the gem store with nothing more than time investment, so "buying speed' isn't an objective advantage and therefor isn't an appropriate sub-topic for this discussion. Yeah some time limits we'll all instantly agree on because they are ridiculous; a year to get a legendary with normal play being too long, a full month of dedicated work to get a full set of ascended armor being "pushing it" a bit.

But go beyond that, get more specific and into the finer details and suddenly agreeing on time isn't easy. How much gold should we make in an hour with casual play, for example. Is it cool to only get a few gold a day, or should we get a few gold an hour? Maybe one gold every ninety minutes? Fifty minutes? Forty five minutes? That is when "common sense" starts turning into pointless arguments and you need an objective baseline of what is and isn't okay to start building your subjective changes off of. I guess you could say this thread isn't about fleshing out what we do and don't want from Guild Wars 2; its about agreeing on the skeleton. We're building a foundation, not putting up walls, and some of the more...over zealous, posters here have been getting a bit ahead of the discussion.
So, define "objective advantage". Because it doesn't exist.

#2315721 Pay-to-win

Posted raspberry jam on 10 April 2014 - 10:39 PM

View PostArkham Creed, on 10 April 2014 - 09:28 PM, said:

You say it is there in a quantifiable and objective sense, and yet you only offered one example that I (easily) dismissed to such a degree that you didn't even bother to quote my counter-argument. I ask you again directly; how is buying in-game wealth with real money an example of objective pay-to-win when in-game wealth itself offers no objective advantages? To be blunt if you strip the subjective value off any items found in the trading post then buying in-game wealth is no different than buying a statistically irrelevant costume hat from the gem store. You could spend a million dollars for gems and convert every one into gold and not only would it not hurt me, it won't help you. There is no objective advantage to having a lot of gold, so buying gold is not pay-to-win.

When distilled down to its essence gold, like karma, is just another path to skins. And skins are not themselves objectively advantageous. So logically obtaining skins, however you do so and however rapidly, is objectively irrelevant to every other player in every game mode. Thus pay-to-obtain-skins-faster (buying gold) is not objectively pay-to-win, especially with upcoming changes.
Why are you still babbling about "objective advantage"? There is no objective value, in GW2, in the real world, anywhere in the universe. Read some ♥♥♥♥ing Kant please.

View Postmoriz0, on 10 April 2014 - 10:35 PM, said:

let THAT sink in. GW2 is not a P2W game, because it is REALLY ♥♥♥♥ing easy to get fully geared up. and once that happens, ingame gold becomes basically meaningless. you'll get enough money by just playing the game if you want to branch out to new gear at that point.
But because it is so easy to level/gear up, levels and gear doesn't really mean anything. What matters after a while is getting the coolest armor along with one (or several) legendaries.

And that is a slow process unless you pay.

#2315716 Pay-to-win

Posted raspberry jam on 10 April 2014 - 10:30 PM

View PostKrazzar, on 10 April 2014 - 06:18 PM, said:

Translation: "we all know I have no evidence and there is actually evidence to the contrary, but I'm still right!". You should look into logical fallacies, just becuase it might make sense doesn't mean it's true.
That should read "just because it was reasoned using a logical fallacy doesn't mean it's not true". (e.g. appealing to authority when stating something that actually is true).

View PostMordakai, on 10 April 2014 - 04:52 PM, said:

But I thought you said winning is subjective... so if getting a ship in Eve is my winning condition, then Eve is pay 2 win.

GW1 you could buy skill unlocks.  (Pay 2 win?).

In WoW you can buy experience scrolls....  how is that not pay 2 win if leveling is my goal?
You have a point, if getting a ship in EVE is your win condition, it would be pay2win. However, of the more experienced playerbase, it seems to be rare to find people who think that merely getting a ship constitutes "win", compared to winning a huge space war that your corp is involved in - and while you probably could invest RL money to bribe/affect enough players to make your side win the war, the RL cost is likely to be prohibitive.
In GW1 you could buy skill unlocks, but IIRC it was only core skills and (not sure about this part) it didn't unlock elite skills in PvE? That's not really pay2win I think, but I admit it's borderline.
WoW's exp scrolls I didn't know about. Regardless, leveling in WoW, while arduous, isn't really considered a major goal (for other characters than your first) compared to all the stuff that you do when you are at max level.

View PostI post stuff, on 10 April 2014 - 03:53 PM, said:


I don't think you understand what that term means.

In order to understand what p2w stands for, you should first define "winning" <insert a Charlie Sheen pic here>. Now, that's a toughie because the meaning of this word varies greatly in gaming;  games are won differently depending on the genre! So it can mean simply becoming good at the game, achieving highest rank on the ladder or simply killing the final boss.

But... How do you win an MMORPG? Gosh, that's even a bigger toughie!

I'm sure some will have their own definitions that are different from mine, but in my opinion you win an MMORPG simply by being waaaay stronger than everyone else. Do you have 10k more hp than everyone else? Can you take on 10 people and win effortlessly with the power of your dragonrage supersteelstar gear? Are you the only one on the server with "xX 3p1c N00B PwNz0R Xx" title? Yes? Then congrats, you have won a MMORPG! Obviously I'm exaggerating here, but this should give you an idea. I'm writing this from experience playing MMOs (lots of p2w ones at that).

Some games let players become so strong just by playing a lot, others not so much. Regardless, now that this is out of the way we can look at the term "pay 2 win". What word do you think is more important here, "pay" or "win"? I'm guessing you will answer "win" because thats what your posts focus on. In your view, as long as there is any amount of win as a result of pay, the game is p2w. That's not necessarily true.

The word we should focus on is in fact "pay", that's the keyword here! In a pay 2 win game there can be no win without pay. Just say pay 2 win out loud and it will instantly become clear to you. Pay is the key! In such games an average freeloader will be able to play as much as he wants but will have almost no chance to get that nice, shiny dragonrage supersteelstar gear that CS users have. Why? Because the unobtainium required to craft it is only availible from the Cash Shop. That player won't even be able to join any dungeon runs because his +1 dirty napkin gear he managed to get after 1300 hours of playing normally is simply far too weak. Not that it would matter anyway, because the final boss won't drop that T0gg4f Slasher of Eternal Doom unless he buys a 100000x droprate booster.

There, now you should get an idea. =)
No, as has been said before, pay2win does not necessarily mean pay to not lose. It means pay to win. I am sorry, it was a comprehensive argument you posted, and it might seem silly to trip it all on a single small point like that, but it is one of the most important points. By creating a situation where winning is possible without paying, you make it possible to make those who pay to win seem as if they might have played to win instead. And that is so crucial to the GW2's business model that this discussion cannot be understood at all if you miss that point. Paying for vanity only becomes attractive if what you pay for is actually prestigious, and that prestige (in GW2) comes from the fact that the player might have gotten the vanity skin without paying for it.