- Viewing Profile: Reputation: MCBiohazard
MCBiohazardMember Since 07 Sep 2012
Online Last Active Today, 01:16 PM
- Group Members
- Active Posts 35
- Profile Views 941
- Member Title Fahrar Cub
- Age Age Unknown
- Birthday Birthday Unknown
17 Nov 2012 - 14:18
Posted DusK on 05 March 2014 - 09:36 AM
This time around, I've composed a short loopable for one of my characters, Semele Isra.
I'm thinking about opening this up a bit and taking commissions for people that might want me to compose their own characters' themes, but I dunno if there'd be any interest in that.
Posted FoxBat on 04 March 2014 - 08:57 PM
That's generally about gear rather than skill.
Dark Souls is very much the exception these days. I think EC had it right, making a "good" (read: fair) difficult game is actually rather difficult. Many old games skipped the "fair" part and kids just put up with it anyway.
Posted Rahlek on 20 February 2013 - 06:43 PM
I think part of the problem here is that people are getting the terms "casual" and "bad" confused. The terms are not interchangeable. I've run across players that consider themselves "hardcore" (many with Legendaries) who are downright awful (don't know how to dodge, stand in AOE circles trying to facetank bosses, etc) and many "casual" players who I wouldn't trade for a hundred of the former.
--There is nothing wrong with wanting to optimize your character's damage down to the last decimal point.
--There is nothing wrong with specc'ing in a way that may not be 100% optimal but that's fun for you provided you are not doing so at the expense of the fun of the people you are playing with.
There IS something wrong with people who think they can define what's fun for either camp, and there IS something wrong with people who deliberately play in such a way that they are making things more difficult on the group they're with just because they want to be special. When you get into a group, it stops being about your unique snowflake build and YOUR fun and starts being about the COLLECTIVE fun of the other four people as well as your own.
I'm in a sort of situation currently that gives me a bit of an understanding some may not have. I am a hardcore player that belongs to a casual guild because my career/life does not afford me the time I would like to devote to Guild Wars right now. We don't do speed clears, and we're only in the late teens-20s in fractals. While I could probably go join another guild and be much farther progressed than I am, I don't. I like playing with the people in my guild. I don't mind tweaking my tactics a bit to cover something our less-than-100% optimal group is missing, nor do I mind taking a little longer on runs.
Does this mean I'm going to change my style of play for the folks I run with and not play glass cannon Axe/X like I enjoy? Nope. Does it mean they're "bad"? Not at all. They know how to dodge, get out of AOE, and they understand fight/profession mechanics. I just have no problems adapting a bit and making a concession here and there in order to keep things fun for everyone, and nor do they. (I mean, how fun is it to pop into vent straight into a math/theorycraft conversation for a class you don't even play? Ask my guildies. They know all about it.)
TL;DR: No matter your style of play, you do not have the right to say what's fun for someone else, nor do you have the right to make the game less fun for someone else. One is just as bad as the other.
Posted Thaddeuz on 20 February 2013 - 02:05 PM
Never tried that one before. I usually go either with my Ranged Glass Canon and we pretty much kite the mobs and keep their number low. Or even better, its when everybody is a ranged glass canon with me and my Hybrid Guardian. I keep the mobs on me, my omnomberry ghost keep my hp at 100% pretty much all the time, and i got enough toughness to stay alive when they knockback me 3-4 times (got two break stun that help too). The 4 other simple smash the mobs that a keep all together. This way we keep the mobs' number to a minimum, we even go out of combat sometimes between the waves.
This is good build for bad players and bad party composition
Some of my best friend are casual player, that you call bad players and i really don't like it. You have no reason to be mean against someone that just enjoy a game not playing it like you play it. I agree with a part of what you want to say, but i totally disagree on the way you communicate it and your disrespect while doingg so. In the end its a game and people can play the game as they want, you can propose them some way to improve their build, but what your doing is not a good way. Sonic Boon is a good build for casual player which represent a LARGE majority of the players. And surprise, this large majority that you seem to dislike are the ones that allow you to play GW2. The hardcore gamers are not enough to keep the game going, and that you like it or not helping these casual player by explaining dungeon when they come on your party is a better way to improve your and their game time and not by kicking and insulting them.
Maybe ludicrious are a strong word. But i agree on that. The term ''invincible'' should never be use by someone posting a build. And the words ''Great Damage'' is often wrongly use. Only Glass Canon build have great damage, because they sacrifice all they can in defensive to reach the best damage. How a more defensive build can have more defensive and more offensive at the same time?? Its just a bad choice of word.
Posted Thaddeuz on 18 February 2013 - 03:18 PM
Yes and no. I don't see the defensive build as training wheel. Being a good Glass canon take commitment. Not only do you need to know really well dungeon, you also need to know really well each fight (especially in melee). You also need to be active and concentrate on the situation. This is something that i enjoy, but not its not for everybody. Its a game and a lot of people prefer taking it relax by using a good amount of toughness/vitality, regen Banner or Healing Shout. Its maybe not the best way to go, but this is what they enjoy playing. At the end, the best build is when you have fun playing the game.
But for my personnal point of view, i totally agree with you.
Posted Raemyi on 18 February 2013 - 09:58 AM
It's probably naive of me to think that chiming in on a heated debate is ever a good idea, but whatever, this seemed like a good opportunity.
It looks like, on this point at least, you two aren't really in disagreement. The more specialized DPS builds will excel in organized and professionally managed groups, while builds like Sonic Boon do bring advantages to the table for more casual or simply unorganized play, where not all of the variables are under strict regulation. The crux of the debate, at least as far as I've been able to tell (and feel free to correct me), seems to have arisen from a different set of assumptions. You assume the most optimal situation (organized guild, specialized roles, practiced veteran players), whereas Brand assumes the most *common* situation demographically speaking (PUG, unpredictable builds, unpredictable team skill or synergy). You call builds like Sonic Boon pretty much useless, but you're assuming a certain context, and then people like Brand defend said builds, assuming a *different* context.
Does that sound about right? Honestly, I don't see the big deal, here. No one ever claimed that shout-healing builds were a good idea for speed clears or perfectly optimized play. That would be silly! Of course, maybe you're just arguing that any sane player *should* play in organized settings, aiming for optimization, and that things like PUGs are a bane on society. But, if so, shouldn't that be its *own* debate? Such a philosophy certainly seems contested enough to warrant one, from the way this thread's been going. Can't exactly take that as a matter of common sense, especially when elitist (not in the derogatory sense) philosophies are, by definition, the very opposite of common sense.
Please note that not a single word of this post was sarcastic. Just to avoid any misunderstandings. Looking back on it, quite a bit of it could be read that way.
Posted Targozha on 18 February 2013 - 09:24 AM
Thanks for reminding me why I quit WoW btw. Maybe I should just stick to single player RPG's. Might help my sanity.
Posted Lunacy Polish on 29 March 2013 - 06:06 PM
GW2 works for me for that reason. My younger self would not have liked it. I agree it is something of a condensed experience but that is perfect tor me. There is really not another MMO I can play that lets me be as competitive as this one because /age just does not matter.
To be honest I so not expect the traditional MMO junkie who places a higher premium on games occupying his time to like it. Ten years ago I would have burned through this thing in 6 weeks. But old fart me loves it despite its warts.
Posted Trei on 30 December 2012 - 03:03 AM
Players will always gravitate towards the path of least resistance.
Not everyone plays for the challenge, most just want to get the most reward for the least time and effort given.
The mere option having trinity style threat mechanics being available in gw2 will kill every other option in pug lfgs, because players are used to it and will perceive it to be the easiest, least risky group comp.
Once this mindset gets established, anyone not conforming to it will suddenly become the noob.
Posted MisterJaguar25 on 30 December 2012 - 01:50 PM
If you're a dedicated healer, you're responsible for yourself and the rest, and the same is true for tanks. It's definitely not less complicated than GW2's "taking care of yourself" - and that's it. Keeping in range of people running around, watching your energy levels, your own health .. it's not that GW2 has made it all so hard and challenging and it was so mindnumbingly simple and predictable before. GW2´s skill rotations aren´t exactly nuclear physics.
And yes, in GW2 playing a guardian feels like I'm also a lvl5 prot/heal monk at the same time. I keep people alive, remove conditions, a number of small HoTs and protection and aegis between their self heals. I did Arah path 2 today and it was really fun to (try to) take care of people during the Lupicius fight. A little extra hp regen for that person, removing conditions from the other .. and we didn't wipe. I don't know, I think a lot of people just feel the need to have a kind of more organized teamplay with more designated roles than "everyone dps, dodge and use the support skills you happen to have". I know I do.
Which doesn't mean it has to be mandatory to succeed. Just as in GW it was already possible to kil certain bosses without tank. The option to have more specific roles doesn't rule out that you can also do without. The more options a game offers, the better in my opinion.
But here's the problem, the dps in the trinity design have no responsibility whatosever, they can just mindlessly attack a boss and only move out of the occassional fires, and a really geared healer can sometimes keep them up through fires. The tank and healer hold the dps's hands to victory, they never have to worry about taking care of themselves beyond moving out of a fire. And here's my worry with making the trinity optional in this game : I think most people will ALWAYS use a crutch when available, and since dpsing in the trinity system is so mind-numbingly easy and utterly devoid of personal responsibility, most players are going to want to do trinity runs as dps, therefore leaving very few of us who want to do non-trinity runs left, giving us excruciatingly long que times.
So, how about we don't add the trinity in this game, and those of you who want it can go play games where the trinity system is in place, and not try to ruin this game for those of us who don't want it. The devs made this game with the design of not needing a trinity system in dungeons (which works perfectly fine) so buying this game then demanding that they put in a trinity system when you knew full well that there wouldn't be one, is beyond my comprehension.
Also, you would never have been able to keep those players up in your Arah dungeon on your own, if they weren't dodging attacks and healing themselves, they would've died. In this game, you HAVE to watch your own back or you WILL die.
Posted Teagan on 10 December 2012 - 11:06 PM
Not sure about the gloves though. And the headwear. Sadly, her hair coveres most of those I like.
Posted Feathermoore on 19 December 2012 - 09:08 PM
I am not saying these things don't happen. I am saying the basic game design doesn't encourage it. There is no reason for you to ever enter a party with a random person in the open world, not being in one is just as effective as being in one. This makes interplayer communication less likely as talking is annoying. Crafting can be done completely alone (as opposed to EVE where it requires a chain of players or alts to make things) and trading even involves no interaction. Multiple guild systems is great for staying in contact with multiple groups of people... except that I can only talk to one group of them at a time.
These things don't seem to matter as they are so small, but this group of small features is what fosters and encourages connections. Being able to create your own chat channels to keep in contact with different groups is such a simple, yet powerful tool. Crafting and trading systems that require the input of multiple players and other systems that cohesively bring players together that have similar goals is a powerful system that builds connections.
GW2 doesn't help the players come together. That doesn't mean you can't, or that it doesn't happen. It just means that the game doesn't foster such interactions that are crucial for the longevity of a game. Some of the "features" even inhibit such a community from developing.
The world is important (EVE's is the most expansive I have encountered), but it is more important that the players can actually become a part of the world. Not just immersion, but actually develop their own structure. I gave the examples of chat, trade, crafting, and grouping. Here are some other simple features that foster this feeling.
GW1 sent out messages to the entire game whenever a party won in the HoH. Everyone saw that and certain names/groups became well known even among people who didn't have a connection there. Simple stuff like this fosters a sense of community that transcends individual groups. Alliances claiming outposts in factions did this as well. You just looked at the map and saw these groups of players and how they were impacting the world.
Individual players become infamous or famous which increases this sense of a living world. GW2 has nothing to help this happen. It can happen on its own, but the games that have it the best are the ones that actively foster it.
Posted Raemyi on 15 December 2012 - 11:27 PM
No, Rae; It doesn't look like that's what's being said at all. It's all about being able to speak your mind in a discussion. If you feel betrayed by someone, and you're passionate about what you have to say, then expecting someone to pronounce their love for something openly before they can speak their mind is ridiculous, walled garden nonsense. Seriously, just how 1984 do fans want forums to be? It's not particularly fun having to watch your exact words and phrasing, having to feel like a sleazy PR guy rather than the honest person you are, simply because if you don't you may find your words or right to them taken away.
The fallacy you're purporting here is that base decency implies that you have to propose your love for something before you're considered decent, rather than merely acknowledging that someone else can like something. Do you realise how ridiculous of an idea this is? That's like saying that I have to open an argument with "I love Daikatana, it's a fantastic game, but I wish..." because it clearly isn't. With a bad game, you need to make the poor design choices really obvious if you don't want people to repeat them.
But what you're hoping for is repeats, you want everything to look like praise so that everything that isn't praise tends to be ignored. Since the person reading over it sees "Ah, another love thread, yawn..." rather than "Huh. That's an interesting viewpoint to have..." because the latter might threaten the sanctity of your game, your game. Not our game, not their game, your game. This is where the walled garden BS comes from. And you'd prefer for all future games to be what you like, without anyone else ever having the chance to have a look in, or a chance for a product targeted at them.
That's what you really want. Wrapping up your desires with a diatribe about good debating principles, and then tying it with a ribbon of duplicitous claims to humanity aren't going to make them any less obvious.
This is why fans bug me. Just be honest and allow everyhone else to do the same. That is the cornerstone of a good debate.
Wow... apparently we're reading different things! I never said anything about wrapping stuff in love and praise, just avoiding distinctly rude wording. To quote my post, my example of a good post was "I don't quite like how Fractals are handled, perhaps these changes could help." That's straight-up criticism! "I don't like". What's so disingenuous or dishonest about that?
Honestly, I think you *may* be reading a bit too much into it. All I'm saying is that manners have a place in healthy debate. That tone and wording matter as much as what actual points you're making. That's it. That's all. Anything more you see is coming more from your expectations than my words, and I apologize if they ever seemed to imply otherwise.
Posted Raemyi on 15 December 2012 - 11:03 PM
For instance, if you start with the topic "What Anet did wrong", without a doubt that'll be deleted pretty quickly (or downvoted to oblivion in reddit). But instead, if the topic is "I love xyz and here's how we can improve on it" and if you follow that up with a constructive post that again doesn't directly attack Anet, the post will stay around and probably start a healthy discussion.
To put it in a crude way, if you want to be heard on the official forums or reddit, you need to circumvent by pretending to be one of the "fanbois" instead of a direct frontal attack.
Reading the middle paragraph of this post sounds like a straight-from-your-parents explanation of how to start a discussion in a civilized and constructive manner. Then, reading the first and last paragraphs, it sounds like you're looking down on that sort of thing as a sad circumvention that has to occur, rather than a common human decency that *should* occur, by default.
Personally, I think that's the problem with most "hostile" threads, here. The tone. Oftentimes they're posted by educated, thoughtful people who have valid points and opinions, but they phrase everything in the rudest way possible. Instead of saying "I don't quite like how Fractals have been handled, perhaps these changes would help.", they instead say "Fractals are garbage! ANet is a bunch of money-grubbing, two-faced scammers who can't make a good game to save their lives!". Note, that's an exaggeration, I'm trying to demonstrate a point. Manners are the only thing separating constructive criticism from pointless negativity.
In other words, I think the official forums have the right idea. Criticism is fine, but bad manners just aren't cool.
Posted WinterSnowblind on 15 December 2012 - 10:56 PM
On the flip side, almost everyone who actually enjoys the game has been driven off the forums by the ridiculous amount of whining that goes on here. I acknowledge the fact that the game has problems, but the type of posts you see here are not criticism, it's basically become a site for trolls to complain about how much they hate the game . Any attempt to post something positive results in you being labelled a zealot or a fanboy, no matter how innocent the context is (and yeah, I bet a good number of you are already typing a response to this post with those exact words) and there's very little actual discussion going on.
If you think this forum represents the common GW2 player, then you'd be lead to believe that the game is an utter failure that no one is currently playing.. And that's because those who actually care about the game stopped posting here because of the immaturity and general stupidity of a good number of the regular posters.