Jump to content

  • Curse Sites


Member Since 07 Sep 2012
Offline Last Active Today, 12:26 AM

#2318491 Unlocking traits.

Posted Phineas Poe on 19 April 2014 - 02:59 PM

View Postchefwaffle, on 19 April 2014 - 02:16 PM, said:

They can learn it in time. And besides, there are guides everywhere. They can just read that like what most people do.

Learn it in time? With their weight on my shoulders, you mean.

I must've had the same conversation with hundreds of engineers over the past 18 months since I began writing guides to the class. I've grown tired of it to the point where I don't update them anymore. I just watch Guanglai and Wolfineer do all the talking. I've grown tired of explaining even the basest elements of this game because the game itself fails to teach them. Because players run around with a condi rifle build all the way to 80 because, why not? The game never forced them into doing anything that shows them that it's a shitty ♥♥♥♥ing setup. They just pick flowers and stare at cliffs to 80.

Tell me: are you an officer of a guild? Do you manage events?

Because from my experience if I tell 150 people to read up a guide on how to do Tequatl that I and other people helped put together, maybe 50 will look at it. Only 25 will probably make it to the end of the page. People play games to play them. Most don't care enough to look at outside literature. You think the majority of people read that kind of stuff, or take the work of others seriously enough? Wurm is a very basic fight at the end of the day, but so many people refuse to actually read up on how to do the fight that you're always set back at square one because someone who didn't bother to read up on the fight chose to afk at a merchant and drew the head away from the wall.

You know how WvW commanders are mocked for yelling and repeating themselves all the time? But if they only said it once people wouldn't do it right. Players individually have poor reading and listening habits, and as a crowd they have the intellectual capacity of a group of fifth graders.

The status quo just is not acceptable, and is driving some of my best players into fatigue constantly teaching people how to just use a fire field. Some of the best players I've had the opportunity to play with have quit the game, not because they were frustrated by a lack of permanent content, but because the average player just is so clueless about how to play the game properly.

But the thing is, it's not their fault. The game just failed to institute a system that teaches them.

This is that system being put into place.

View Postchefwaffle, on 19 April 2014 - 02:16 PM, said:

And as if different builds make a difference in PVE ... All class feels the same.

Spoken like a true, ignorant "hardcore WvWer."

#2318458 Unlocking traits.

Posted Phineas Poe on 19 April 2014 - 01:43 PM

View Postchefwaffle, on 19 April 2014 - 01:28 PM, said:

People like something to do that's not forced content. Not like this, it's like you're forcing a toothless baby to eat a steak. Want examples? New explorable areas, new dungeons, interesting LS and not a recycled one.

Okay. As a PvX player that does PvP/WvW and also participates in end-game content like FOTM on a daily basis, I'm going to illuminate a big problem about how GW2 was designed pre-feature that I don't think you're taking under consideration here.

A player could go into WvW and level from 2-80 following a commander, unlocking all of his skills, and having absolutely zero comprehension about his class. This player could do renown hearts and vistas all the way to level 80 and queue up for a FOTM run and have absolutely no idea about party roles or how his class best contributes.

In essence, you have a problem where the game's system doesn't actually make a point to ever make sure that players are learning how to play the game. While it's very possible that same player will just be carried through story mode or will party up with a better player to kill that champ for them, there's at least at its base form some kind of skill check being implemented here. There's also the workaround of being able to outright buy these traits with gold, but because of the addition requirement of skill points, it's not a strictly buy-to-win system.

This system deliberately pushes players into killing champs and doing dungeons so that they are pretty much required to experience this type of content before they reach level 80 and queue up for that FOTM run, or before they join my guild looking to do end-game content like Tequatl and Wurm.

I don't mind teaching new players the ways of the game, but some of the people we've picked up that are looking to do FOTM are just so clueless. And it's not that they're necessarily bad players, it's just that the game doesn't in any way require them to do anything meaningfully challenging before they reach level 80 and are pushed into higher-end content. They never really were pushed to learn anything.

You may argue that in GW1 leveling was meaningless, and that this push to find traits is another form of vertical progression being pushed into the game, but one thing that was in GW1 that wasn't in GW2 was challenge from the get-go, and that to reach the final missions of any campaign you had to complete some relatively difficult content---and have to cap some skills to do so!

So while I understand your position as a hardcore WvWer, and while I do think my suggestion of making badges an alternate currency is something worth considering, "forcing" players to do certain (i.e., more difficult) content than just mindlessly following a blue chip or filling hearts before they unlock the full potential of their class is something that is long overdue and should've been in the game in the first place.

#2317561 Feature Patch Update Notes

Posted Feathermoore on 17 April 2014 - 01:10 PM

Remember that the megaserver algorithm works off of a scoring system. If you are finding that the system doesn't seem to be scoring you correctly, figure out exactly what it is that seems off with your zones and give feedback. Tweaking that scoring system is easy. Equally important is actively taking note of who is around you. Try and remember names that stick out and see if you see people regularly over time. This is especially true of people who have a regular play schedule. The system is way too new for any of us to be able to say it isn't putting the same people together regularly.

View Postchefwaffle, on 17 April 2014 - 11:23 AM, said:

It worked because everything was instanced in GW1, it's not open world like here in GW2. No one's grieving or bothering players like what's happening now.

Game wide communities are perfectly viable in open world games and were common in the older MMOs. The issue being that game wide communities build from smaller communities as a whole. You don't go from no community or just guilds to massive, all inclusive community. MMOs build entire online societies at their peak (not my words, these come from the community development panel at PAX) and these come from interaction between smaller groups. A game wide community is even easier in GW2 than in the older MMOs since the servers aren't distinctly separated.

View Postchefwaffle, on 17 April 2014 - 03:13 AM, said:

As for having a game wide community being better, it's not. There's a saying that "Birds of the same feather, flock together" and we all know how true that is. Trolls, PVPers, RPers, PVErs, and WvWers will argue and cause drama in map chat. And yes, the megaserver is failing in who goes with who. Also, it's a slap to the face to the people who just transferred, mostly RPers and PVErs.

This is a misconception. Colin and I actually talked about it when we discussed the megaserver. Encouraging diverse player groups to communicate and interact is healthier for the game than separating them. Separating them is even counter to the base design goals of MMOs.

It depends on why the person transferred. The only person it is a "slap in the face" to is someone that transferred because they felt their server was underpopulated.

#2317813 GW2 has a content, not a feature problem.

Posted Improvavel on 17 April 2014 - 07:10 PM

Lets stop to think a second.

People say that Anet are allocating huge amounst of resources in the Living Story,
The same people say that the Living Story is just 1-3 hour content (per installment) at most and some of it is cash shop.

Then in those people heads somehow they believe that instead those resources that produced something like 30 hours content could produce an EXPANSION full of content.

No, those same resources would have produced the same 30 hour content.

So Anet instead of Living Story could have created 3 or 4 zones and a couple of dungeons.

Somehow 26 zones and 8 dungeons are devoured in a couple of months but 3 or 4 zones and a couple of dungeons would fill the other year and a half.

The truth is that the Living Story isn't that much content because the resources allocated to it aren't that big.

#2317579 GW2 has a content, not a feature problem.

Posted typographie on 17 April 2014 - 01:44 PM

View PostBeyond Freedom, on 17 April 2014 - 10:26 AM, said:

Hearts, DEs? Totally soloable.

Yeah, renown hearts are almost universally soloable, and boring. Doing that content on a completely empty map feels lonely and lifeless. I find that running into other players doing the same heart or DE as I am to add considerably to my interest in doing them. Hell, even just having an active map chat helps a lot.

There's plenty of DEs that aren't soloable, at least not for the low-level/poorly-equipped/brand new players who benefit most from doing them. Obviously there's Group events involving champion mobs, by and large not soloable, that are now happening with much more regularity. But even just asking those types of players to solo a Veteran and its minions can be a tall order sometimes, and that's not an uncommon situation.

#2317489 GW2 has a content, not a feature problem.

Posted davadude on 17 April 2014 - 07:49 AM

They just spent more than one year exclusively developing features in the form of the Living Story and holiday updates.  If you like them or not, don't care, but it was content-focused.  They do one feature patch that aims at improving the QOL and making it easier for them to add new content (megaserver system makes it much simpler to add zones), and the complaints begin about too much time being put into feature-only patches, even though this is the first one.

#2316142 Pay-to-win

Posted Kattar on 11 April 2014 - 11:49 PM

Okay, I think we've hit the end of any possible productive discussion. I'll point out again that if all you're going to post is "This is why you're wrong and I'm right and I don't care what you say" then you need to reevaluate your posting style.

Although even bothering to say that is a waste of time since everyone is going to think it just applies to the other people in this thread and not them.

It applies to you.

#2315947 Pay-to-win

Posted Gyre on 11 April 2014 - 04:23 PM

View Postraspberry jam, on 11 April 2014 - 03:31 PM, said:

I say pay2win because it's easier to say (and to write) than any alternative.

Ok but, the objective/subjective debate isn't getting anywhere and honestly it's pointless.  If instead this shifts to why Anet is providing a paid shortcut through their content this might actually get somewhere.  If farming was viable you'd have a 3-legged stool here but as is you've got two options as a player:  buy cheap money vs. slog through unrewarding content for the millionth time.  It should be real obvious what most people will pick and which option Anet prefers.  This is not a good thing.

View PostArkham Creed, on 11 April 2014 - 04:08 PM, said:

Because there is a significant difference between the two

Exactly, I think it's the latter and not the former and I also think it's bad for the game.  The closest thing you'll get in GW2 to a Game Over screen and beating the game is the credit roll following the victory over Zhaitan.  The rest of this reads like using the forum as a stress release mechanism for a pointless semantics debate.

#2315926 Pay-to-win

Posted Arkham Creed on 11 April 2014 - 03:47 PM

View Postraspberry jam, on 11 April 2014 - 07:26 AM, said:

So, define "objective advantage". Because it doesn't exist.

I already did, multiple times, you just don’t listen.

Within the context of a video game an objective advantage is anything that makes your character legitimately statistically superior to another player within an officially competitive (PvP) environment or game mode. Going into WvW with exotic armor and fighting a player with only masterwork is an objective advantage for you. You are objectively more powerful than the competing player in a manner that can be universally agreed upon regardless of personal subjective opinions and built on mechanics and systems that can be tracked, balanced, and countered with purely mathematical or logical systems. Opinions and "personal victory conditions" have nothing to do with it whatsoever. As such “pay-to-win” is synonymous with “buying power” in that it can only exist when you are paying real world currency to obtain a degree of statistical power beyond what another player can achieve without having paid for it.

#2315938 Pay-to-win

Posted master21 on 11 April 2014 - 03:59 PM

View Postraspberry jam, on 11 April 2014 - 01:44 PM, said:

"Looks" is subjective, but the only difference is that you use internal valuation instead of external. Besides, external valuation is only worth what you internally value it as anyway. For example, if I told you (external valuation) that I am always right, would you (internal valuation) think that I was always right? No, you would not. Doing more damage is just GW2 (external valuation) telling you that you did something you should, which is only worth as much as you (internal valuation) think it is. Everyone does not agree on that subjective judgement.

For example, getting a legendary is also GW2 (external valuation) telling you that you are a great player worthy of a legendary. As seen in this very thread, a lot of people (internal valuation) subjectively don't consider that as important or even as a good thing.

So you just want to say that statistical objective gameplay advantage does not exists because some players out there don't care about gameplay.
And because you think that way you use strange definition of p2w where everything I call win is a win and everything I can buy by money is win.
There is huge difference between buying some cool looking but still useless skin or mini and booster which gives you twice damage and health. Second makes my character overpower, breaks balance and pretty much much destroys other ppl gameplay because they can't win. First is just skin. Zero impact on gameplay and nobody else.

This logic is beyond me really. It's pretty much a definition of p2w to prove that everything is a p2w, problem is that this definition of p2w is far from common sense one.

#2315602 Pay-to-win

Posted Krazzar on 10 April 2014 - 05:42 PM

View PostMazingerZ, on 10 April 2014 - 05:24 PM, said:


Ah yes, the for-profit motive to change the game-play experience to encourage the gem trade that has not happened and has no evidence.

We didn't defend those practices, I and others refuted them and the only repsonse was repeating the flawed premise again and again.  Then we operated under all of the conditions set and still proved your arguments wrong in every narrow definition set. Here's how simple it is, GW2 is not P2W.  You have nothing but a premise, it has been proven wrong, and you have no evidence to back it up.
Since you have a habit of ignoring what is written and say the exact opposite:


To make it completely clear; I don't want anyone to be exploited and no one is currently being exploited.  On top of that people ultimately make their own decisions with their money, if someone has a spending problem they should reevaluate their habits and seek outside help.  You can't be the culprit and the victim.

The simple fact is it isn't a simple fact.  It's a conspiracy theory that has no foundation.  Not only that, in the game we are seeing barriers being removed in multiple areas; dyes, armor skins, weapon skins, traits, repair fees, and I'm sure I'm leaving out some others. You are claiming Anet is covertly making things more difficult and burdensome while they are overtly making things less difficult and burdensome. It doesn't add up in any way and when called out on it and the lack of evidence all you can do is repeat yourself.

#2315626 Pay-to-win

Posted Krazzar on 10 April 2014 - 06:18 PM

View PostMazingerZ, on 10 April 2014 - 05:58 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. Not only is it not true but it makes no sense.  MMOs make money through longevity and a large community.  Trying to wring out all the cash from your community and not changing to meet their desires is how you go out of business and then you have no one to get any money from. Do the right things because they're the right things, charge a fair price for the extras and have a good product and you can actually grow and that's where the money is.  That doesn't mean Anet always does the right things, but they know they're not at the point where they can do anything and make money, unlike WoW.

Where exactly did I blame people's individual issues as a factor in the products Anet present? People's individual issues impact them individually, but that doesn't mean they can blame anyone else for their failings.  Are you really trying to argue against personal responsibility, that companies should not offer products because someone might not act responsibly? That is incredibly naive or you're reaching for relevance because nothing said so far has any merit.

Your disposition is obviously very firmly set, to you Anet is evil and any changes they make has nothing to do with the buckets of feedback from players and only has to do with making as much money off people as quickly as possible. Again, quite naive.  You're counting positive changes as negatives, why exactly are you here when you obviously hate the game? Seems your fears trump reality. But at least we've cut most of the crap and know it's about fears and personal issues more than any real issue inherent in the game.

#2315587 Pay-to-win

Posted master21 on 10 April 2014 - 05:28 PM

I want to add something.

Every MMO is p2w when we use this strange definition.
You can always, in every freaking game buy account, resources, gear, from other ppl. I can buy WoW account with full everything and win the game. Yupi...
You can't ignore it. You can't just look at "what is legal", because it does not matter much. Money always opens every freaking door. I could even buy whole game if I had enough money and do whatever with it.
Sub based MMO are p2w. You either need to pay more with your time and less with money or more with money less with time. You are even forced if you don't have enough in-game time to pay more.
I could in theory always stop working in real life - so paid amount of my salary and focus in 100% on game. More time = more "win". So p2w.
Every freaking unemployed player is a p2w guy because he/she has too much time. He does not paid this money to game developers, he/she just does not earned it. From player perspective it is the same.

And talking that if something ingame could be bought only by real money is less prestige than something farmed with play time is very strange.
It's just a matter of being jealous. It's less "prestige" because average player can't plain afford it so he just as "jealous response" states that it sucks.

#2315584 Pay-to-win

Posted Krazzar on 10 April 2014 - 05:16 PM

View PostMazingerZ, on 10 April 2014 - 04:44 PM, said:


That transition only happened because all your conditions were accepted because there is no other way to talk about it.  You refuse operate outside the premise GW2 is P2W, mostly because there's nothing but a premise there.

You do know people control their activity, right? If you don't like it don't do it, and there's a catch.  Those "typical MMO'ers" would otherwise (or also) play another MMO paying a sub fee as you said yourself.  Paying $5 a month for a costume is still $10/mo cheaper than any other game (assuming they pay with real money and not gem trade). So if you want to compare to the industry GW2 is less exploitative than other games, even the F2P games that aren't really F2P but slightly larger demos. But then you throw in the gem trade and that goes out the window because they can leverage their time to get anything they want and the exploitation argument dissapates.

No, what Feathermoore is talking about, as we all have, is taking statements out of context and then extrapolating and implying something that isn't there and is the contrary of their position.

Unfortunately for your argument, without narcissistic jealousy there isn't a problem, and as Feathermoore was referring to, that usually only impacts the "top tier" achievers and collectors. When your gaming habits turn into or reinforce pyschological disorders you might want to reevaluate it.  I'm not quite sure why someone would argue in favor of discrimination, grind, and content segregation based on a player's situation, but whatever floats your boat.

View PostFeathermoore, on 10 April 2014 - 04:50 PM, said:

I don't think what you are saying and what I am saying are mutually exclusive. I was focusing on the interaction between game feature design and the gem to gold conversion. I don't really think that gem to gold has any impact on most casual player's game. My original argument was that the only game design changes that could be made to encourage monetization in a way that would negatively impact gameplay only really effects achievers and that the same design decisions that would benefit the monetization from them are also standard practice in subscription MMOs that these achievers come from.

Casual players don't usually fall into the category of achievers. At least not to the level that would impact gameplay since they typically aren't going to put in the time that non-casual players would be that due to interest or time availability. Gems to gold is more likely going to be done by casuals than a non-casual achiever and help casuals get things they want by renting out people with more time. The game is designed for casuals to not feel left behind and the gem store is designed to compliment this design goal.

I'd have to agree, but it gets tricky when operating under all the conditions they set, which is obviously the goal.

#2315557 Pay-to-win

Posted Krazzar on 10 April 2014 - 04:34 PM

View PostMazingerZ, on 10 April 2014 - 04:12 PM, said:

So why break down the demographics?  Why make an assumption on distribution if the intent isn't to mitigate the impact of such mechanics.  "This only affects at most a quarter of the playerbase."  Again.  "Fsck them, got mine."  A quarter of the player-base should be exploited and exposed to those tactics for the good of the the other three?  ArenaNet should be allowed to have a profit motive written around creating an experience that is rewarded when players want to bypass game-play for reward when the option is extended to them?

I rest my case on that front.  There are players who believe others should be exploited with p2win tactics... so long as they aren't the target of them.
Your frustration is showing.  Obviously there isn't much there to back you up so you have to go and make up both sides of the conversation in order to be right.

On that topic is where Feathermoore and I disagree, at least by what has been stated so far given the number of conditions he was operating under in that specific argument.  To me the gem shop has been created and filled with items to help casual players feel more included than they otherwise would, to give them options without having to do things they don't want to with the precious little time they have to play. That is consistent (actually identical to) what Anet has stated as their goal for the gem shop. That means the cosmetic options availible in the gem store are targetted at low-frequency players that pop-in from time to time.  They might see something they like and buy it so they don't have to worry about getting skins they like with the little in-game resources they have.  Players that like their character's customization and spend real money on a game are more likely to be loyal to that game than others, even when there are many options to take up their short gaming time.  The gem shop revolves around better capturing the vast casual player market, following the fewer purchases from masses more people model, rather than continually exploiting the same small pool of players. That all relies on the individual's threshold and what they feel has value.  I know casual players that won't spend a cent on gems and others that like to pop in the game to check the gem store to see if there is anything they would like to buy for their characters.

The problem with the "top tier exploitation" theory is the gem trade; players that are achievers focused on collecting items have the time to dedicate to the game, therefore the resources to obtain gem store items with in-game currency.   It's either time or money, but overall time in-game beats real money in terms of efficiency for most people. This shows a clear design intent, Anet wants you to play the game whether you are casual or hardcore.  Who would have thunk it, how exploitative of them.

To make it completely clear; I don't want anyone to be exploited and no one is currently being exploited.  On top of that people ultimately make their own decisions with their money, if someone has a spending problem they should reevaluate their habits and seek outside help.  You can't be the culprit and the victim.