Jump to content

  • Curse Sites


Member Since 13 Jul 2010
Offline Last Active Sep 08 2015 02:37 PM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: F2P

04 September 2015 - 03:06 PM

View PostShayne Hawke, on 03 September 2015 - 06:44 PM, said:

I guess neo-ANet couldn't make the B2P model work.  You kind of need to make a good game and support it to pull something like that off.

It has more to do with the end of large-scale support for GW2 Core.  As with any game you pay for their attention and HoT is going to get the vast majority of attention. Since they aren't putting effort into GW2 Core like they were before they don't have to sell it to survive so to boost HoT sales they're using GW2 Core as a demo.  Most people would think "if they're giving all this away for free I really need to see what they do with paid content". It's an aggressive strategy but should garner tons of attention from gamers. It's similar to the gem marketing strategy they've used since GW1, that some won't pay anything, some will pay a lot, but most will pay something as they get more and more invested in the game.

In Topic: I’ve been playing GW2 wrong, and loving it.

28 January 2015 - 09:24 PM

View PostArkham Creed, on 28 January 2015 - 08:11 PM, said:


The problem is usually not enough content.  When there aren't new things to learn and master people default into "speed clear efficiency mode" and try to do everything as quickly and efficiently as possible.  In my opinion people get stuck in that mentality and then continue it over to everything.  Some people actually think like that and like to play like that, but most just get carried along under the mantras of "efficiency, speed, and optimal play".  You can play however you want, but the upper limit is clear and easy to see and after a while most players won't want to feel handicapped any longer.

Beyond that mechanics have to be consistent and differing enough to make one character different than the next. That's all easier said than done.

View PostCaptain Bulldozer, on 28 January 2015 - 08:18 PM, said:


The openness of builds is great for engaging players, but when they can't actually use that open system there isn't much of a point.  There's a certain logical trap that most fall into that others are experts and they should do whatever the experts say in order to be good.  I've been in all kinds of groups in all kinds of game and the authoritarian types usually don't do well.  The best groups are open to working together.  In GW1 at the very start that meant changing your own build to fit the needs of the overall group.  Later people began refining their roles down to every step and players in the group were replaceable cogs.  Quickly being a necro meant actually being an MM, being a Warrior meant being a tank, being an ele meant being a nuker, and so on.

In GW2 there is a quite open group and build system, but the openness in builds doesn't really matter. In the end it doesn't matter because all you can do is dump damage on whatever problem you are facing and avoid incoming damage with dodging and interchangeable mitigation skills. The mechanics overall are all the same and interchangeable now regardless of what profession or build you play, instead of the player.  Throw in a tendency to need the zerg for most new content and your personal contribution is impossible to distinguish.

In Topic: I’ve been playing GW2 wrong, and loving it.

28 January 2015 - 06:59 PM

View PostMordakai, on 28 January 2015 - 06:26 PM, said:

But let's not overstate the problem of build-elitism.  The only time I was requested to ping my build was when doing FoW runs: a very specific run devised around a set of skills.

Most content in the game was easy to find a group for (once you found a monk), and only Elite areas in end-game relied on specific builds.

Early on my brother and I both deleted characters because no one would accept those professions in groups.  Even when we had groups they wanted certain builds and even wanted to dictate how we do a mission down to the last detail when just doing the mission the normal way would be easier.  That got so bad some nights we quit playing GW and played another game instead. That led us to start our own guild just to have people to play with that wouldn't leave as soon as they saw a necromancer and ranger in the group.  After we got sick of managing a guild there were constant build pings for the next few years. I joined big and medium sized guilds and had the same treatment in those guilds, a replaceable cog in a machine. I didn't use an original build in PvE for years until heroes showed up, despite having a dozen or so saved per profession.  Then I stopped playing for a while.  I came back for Halloween 2011 for the LA quests and the first thing that was said as I joined the group was "ping build", so I left and did it with heroes instead.  Anecdotes don't mean much, though, because you didn't have my experiences, you may have never experienced any of that, but that doesn't detract from my experiences, it just means you don't understand and don't empathize.

The build wars was the worst part of GW1.  It takes a couple hands to count the number of friends that quit GW1 because of the build wars.  It made simple tasks monumental with all the little glitches and "shortcuts" in a mission, and worse yet it made it impossible to even get a group together at times.  If you have people quitting your game because they can't get set to start the game there's a huge issue. Now with GW2 they've gone to the other end of the spectrum.  You can get a group no matter what but there's no reason to get motivated to do anything novel or really anything at all.  There aren't monumental tasks, there is just zergging and DPS, you really don't matter.  You can fight like in GW1 to do what you want to do, or you can go play another game that doesn't punish you for doing what you like to do. For some just having something to do is enough, but for the masses of players GW2 just doesn't click.  I've heard it first-hand again and again, "GW2 looks nice and has pretty good combat but just isn't engaging".

How do you get players engaged?  How do you make people feel like they matter?  There has to be some kind of originality, there has to be some kind of difference between each profession.  You can find some differences, but the only part of the formula that is universal across all content and effective is DPS, which is a major oversight.  There needs to be a pretty big overhaul, not just adding a new line of traits per profession or hang-gliders.

In Topic: I’ve been playing GW2 wrong, and loving it.

28 January 2015 - 05:51 PM

View PostFeathermoore, on 28 January 2015 - 02:50 PM, said:

Except that build wars was the intent of the game. The specific builds? No. But the game was designed so players could create their own builds and counter them. It was designed off of deck building after all and that is exactly what deck building is about. It was build wars in PvP from day 1. Most people who talk about it don't remember that it was always how the game went and wasn't a side effect of future development. Build wars itself was never an actual issue; power creep was. Building a cohesive team was the entire point of GW PvP (and PvE).

It did get out of their control though. This is true.

Making builds, comparing them, and having a never-ending balance wheel was the intent, but requiring only monks, warriors, and elementalists with certain builds was not, nor was any evolution of the build wars that kept people from playing the game as intended (by creating inventive builds or even using certain professions at all).  Just like the DPS wars it was about saving time and not about having fun or playing as intended.  It's pretty much impossible to get people to play as intended without having a giant nerf train that destroys the game every two weeks. The game is stable and people can choose how they play, for example you don't have to straight DPS any dungeon or fractal, so it isn't a game-breaking issue to Anet.

The build wars was more of a reference to wanting to play your build (or even profession) and being forced to use the build the leader or group says. Removing strict roles means we can play any profession now, but the DPS wars shows controlling the meta is extremely difficult.

The split between solo play and group play also makes things difficult.  One thing I feel would make the game better is to increase the overall difficulty and increase the usefulness of control abilities (as in have them actually apply to difficult content), which would improve team mechanics but that would cut out solo players to a point.

In Topic: I’ve been playing GW2 wrong, and loving it.

27 January 2015 - 09:42 PM

View PostFeathermoore, on 27 January 2015 - 09:29 PM, said:

If it is ArenaNet's intent for the game to be played a certain way, and the majority of players play it a different way, then ArenaNet failed in their design. It isn't the fault of the players, it is a fault of the game's designed rewards not meshing with the game's intent. The players didn't design the game.

Anet does have a history of that, though.  2/2 on their games so far.  First we had build wars now we have DPS wars.  The reality seems to be the problem is too hard to fix (or just easier not to), or at least it's not feasible in business terms.