Jump to content

  • Curse Sites


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

#2314187 Cash->Gem<->Gold Conversion

Posted Mordakai on 04 April 2014 - 07:57 PM

View PostGyre, on 04 April 2014 - 06:23 PM, said:

Kind of amazing that what was a bannable offense in GW1 and still is in GW2 is now perfectly reasonable provided you go through the correct channels to do it.  It's even more interesting that it's now socially acceptable so long as it's going to NCSoft at large and not necessarily GW2, just not those terribly evil gold farmers.


You are suprised that ArenaNet bans bots and account-stealers?

If you are working outside the system to make profits for yourself, then of course companies won't like it.

Of course more people are inclined to pay the ones who make the game rather than a 3rd party!

#2314190 Cash->Gem<->Gold Conversion

Posted Improvavel on 04 April 2014 - 08:15 PM

View PostMazingerZ, on 04 April 2014 - 07:29 PM, said:

But their system is adhering entirely the fact that they have a default market built in around the desire to play the game, not obtain rewards in it.  To some extent, yes, rewards are a driver to retain players, but the actual parting of money outside of the cash shop, comes from a desire to play the game and retain access to it.  This means making a game worth playing and matching that worth with a price.

The same cannot be said of GW2.  You can play the game and do not need to give any more money to maintain access, so there have to be other avenues to encourage reward.

Sadly, with this implementation, they cannot institute any regressive policies to equalize player contribution to the money-pool as opposed to whale-hunting.

The best they could do is to institute a VIP program where paying 10 bucks gets you access to a better reward-generation.  Better drops overall.  Increased node-collection.  Basically permanent boosters in all but the combat.  Accelerated rewards track.  Removal of account-bound limitations?  More intelligent loot RNG.  The question becomes how would people react to a VIP program?  I mean, theoretically, its just the same as cash->gold, but its more integrated with game-play.  And its all the same stuff you can get in the game without paying, just faster.

I wonder how well such a program would be perceived from that angle.  How many people would start assuming GW2 kept the non-VIP members held down for not being VIP, and how does this differ from a cash->gold system in which reward is already tweaked to be a driving factor in cash->gold.

Your argument is based on your belief that Arenanet will be forced to implement something in the future.
And based on that you want us to believe that "pay or leave the game, losing all the money and time you have invested in the game and stop your progression" is a better approach for the player than "buy cool stuff or some commodity if you want".

In fact you come and say that you haven't spent any money in GW2 in the last year despite playing whenever you wanted. You also didn't feel forced to buy anything.

Still, GW2 generated some 50% more revenue than CCP with Anet having 350 employees vs the 600 (as of last June 2013),

As I said before I've been reading that Anet cash shop will become P2W since GW1. Hasn't happened.

View PostGyre, on 04 April 2014 - 06:23 PM, said:

Kind of amazing that what was a bannable offense in GW1 and still is in GW2 is now perfectly reasonable provided you go through the correct channels to do it.  It's even more interesting that it's now socially acceptable so long as it's going to NCSoft at large and not necessarily GW2, just not those terribly evil gold farmers.

Kinda like saying that you should be able to sell a pirate DVD just because the studios that paid for the movie also sell it.
Game companies didn't ban people because they were buying gold, they banned people because someone else was making money out of their product without permission.

#2299680 Living Story Vs Personal Story

Posted Nesiko on 23 February 2014 - 07:38 PM

View Postgw2guruaccount, on 23 February 2014 - 07:17 PM, said:

You again? I remember the last thing I asked you was how long you thought the coding would take. As much as you wish to try and jump on Arkham's agument I won't just let you. So I'll just ask again: How long do you think recoding the maps would take?
Not long because you don't have to re-code the map. Take out the current map. And put in the old one. And simply do minor bug-testing to make sure each npc avatar works and that that the instance will be read as such. For New Players/Existing Players old LA.
If Arena Net wanted to make it such that the to can co-exist together in union. Delete the NPCs that has no need standing around, the playing childeren re-acting the scene of their favorite hero. And re-script the dialog and the AI interface of how they choose to leave the instance for everything to make sense.

And thank you honey :D -smiles at husband-
And jumping on Arkham's arguement? Um, hello lady. Whose thread is this? Mine? Oh yes. He was redifing my points that you have chose to ignore. Which is the MAIN point of my first post I said. The Look and feel.
Imagine any trip you just want to "get away from the real world" Disney World, Disneyland, Universal Studios, Six Flags, Cruise, sky diving or whatever. Imagine while this is happening masicure happens during these places, lives are being tortured, burned, hanged, captured alive or dead. But the staff of wherever you are just treating that day just like any day. Another day in the neighborhood. Wouldn't you be in a WTF moment of staff disregarding the scene like "whatevs" and a human life tugging at your jacket while being decapitated.

#2299677 Living Story Vs Personal Story

Posted Arkham Creed on 23 February 2014 - 07:35 PM

View Postgw2guruaccount, on 23 February 2014 - 07:17 PM, said:

You again? I remember the last thing I asked you was how long you thought the coding would take. As much as you wish to try and jump on Arkham's agument I won't just let you. So I'll just ask again: How long do you think recoding the maps would take?

If you don’t mind, I’ll jump in to my wife’s defense here. Ahem….

Considering that both maps already exist in game, and that both are currently on the hard drive of every player, and that the entire map reloads when you enter an instance, I would say recoding the personal story to use the old version of Lion’s Arch instead of the under attack version would take about five minutes. Well, maybe a few hours if they have to go in and check to use every asset individually rather than just having everything packaged into a kind of “Lion’s Arch” bundle.

Now just to preempt; if you think that they actually replaced Lion’s Arch on your hard drive you are a fool; considering everything else that was added and changed the patch wasn’t that big and the base map is the same (IE reused) so they just swapped out some asset models and changed the lighting parameters. As someone who went to school for this sort of thing and has working experience in 3D rendering technology (I’m an aspiring game designer myself) swapping out classic Lion’s Arch for burning and vice versa isn’t that hard. Like I said since both asset sets exist it is just an issue of loading the right ones. And even if (and I stress the IF) they did replace the old assets with the new ones for this patch the old ones still exist in their database, and as such can be swapped back in at any time with a simple post-patch hot fix.

#2299689 Why Being Efficient is the Only Thing Left

Posted master21 on 23 February 2014 - 07:54 PM

View PostEl Duderino, on 23 February 2014 - 07:21 PM, said:

So, you're saying a person who runs a sub-optimal build who is great at the game can be better than someone running the best build who is just good? If that is the case, then why are people whining about people bringing bad builds into groups? If bad builds are just as good as good builds, then it doesn't matter what people run, right?

And, then that means that Phineas Poe is wrong about everything!

Yes it's true from my expierience.

My friend playing ranger runs build which is far from today ranger meta. He uses most of the time greatsword, axe, shortbow, most weapons really and quite rarely sword because for him it's broken weapon.
His has different armors but his loved one is celestial, so it's also way far from meta.

So build and gear is not even close to meta, but this does not matter at all, because he is just best ranger player i've ever played. He adapt, he know how to use weapons and pets for any encouter, knows which skills fits where the best and even if his gear does not give him highest possible dps output because of great dodging skills he puts probably way more then average meta builded pug.
And because of it I would always pick him for anything instead of even best geared, best builded pug.

#2293299 Why Do People Call GW2's Combat "Action"?

Posted Echou on 10 February 2014 - 05:02 PM

I always thought GW2 is an action-RPG rather than an action game. In action-RPG's are flavored with action game's reaction and movement skills but the combat is still RPG-like number racking and dice rolling. Compare Diablo 3, an action-RPG and Metal Gear Rising, an action game. In Diablo 3 your weapons and armor have different stats which work as factors (don't forget criticals and fumbles) how much damage you do/receive. You always dont do/receive damage when there's moving involved. In Metal Gear Rising only your movement and reaction skills are being tested, not stats.

It's a Real-Time RPG With Free Movement (RTRPGWFM).

#1605375 I hear a lot of mixed information regarding the item mall

Posted Craywulf on 16 July 2012 - 09:18 PM

"Pay-to-win" is open for such a broad definition that it doesn't really belong in this so-called debate. People's perspectives of other games and how they ran their cash shop has no real bearing on how GW2 is set up. Clearly this cash shop does not provide anything that circumvents gameplay for a reward. In other words, what they sell doesn't allow you to cheat, or give you competitive advantage.

You're welcome to argue this until you're blue in the face but there simply isn't anything that is sold to gives you a competitive advantage. Furthermore anyone arguing about advantages in PvE is misinformed or refuses to acknowledge that PvE is fully cooperative. You don't compete in PvE, everyone is on the same side regardless of your race, profession, Order or guild(s). So an XP boost for PvE player does not provide a disadvantage to those who don't have it. There's no "advantage" gained of having more XP than your fellow players in PvE. The game doesn't deny you for having less XP than your fellow players in PvE. If it does, it certainly isn't as vast as to "need" an XP boost.

XP boost are virtually an inconvenience if used in WvW, because wasting your time killing mobs is not going help your teammates and server. You become a detriment to organizing an army to siege or defend a structure of importance.  If anything I don't think it be wise to advertise that you have a XP boost active, because no teammate want to you running off killing mobs instead of helping the server attack & defend structures.

#1593594 Should level cap rise with future expansions?

Posted Phys on 12 July 2012 - 03:57 PM

View PostIron Legionnaire, on 12 July 2012 - 02:15 PM, said:

I don't know how I'm supposed to reply otherwise, I'm replying to specific points. -_- Otherwise, it's confusing what I am talking about... OK, let me not quote you separately and let's see if you can understand me.

Once in a blue moon, maybe. BW was the last exp for a VERY long time, for YEARS. Pro players have stated a new expansion is a new game. There's some concern that SCII doesn't really exist as a functional game until the last exp comes out so everyone can calm down and learn the new game. Even then, it has been like 2 years since SCII came out?

What about GW's campaign cycle? They had 4 campaigns. That's a lot of skills and abilities. I don't mind minor expansion, but you'll find it impossible to balance if you add too much stuff. I don't want ANet to add skills just to appease the masses, they should add skills because that was their original vision and it helps the game.

Expansions adding content and mechanics is sufficient for me. There's projection that they'll probably add new races, for instance. I am not against adding a new class. But if you're adding new skills, you have to be extremely careful, because that multiplies combinations per every class and your entire balance goes out the window at that point.

League of Legends seems to be doing fine with 4 skills per champ for the entire time of its existence. Once in a blue moon, they add a new item.

I haven't played GW1 much but I heard the joke about burning the banner with "balance" on it.

StarCraft existed for years with no new expansion since BW, no graphics update, no nothing. So SC is not a good example.

Not like I ever said that, anyway. I just do not think you need 20 new skills every expac or everyone will magically run away or something.

My answer is, yes there should be new skills, yes the game should evolve. I want expansions on a game to bring new and exciting things, one of the most exciting things about this game are the skills that are available.

Change is exciting, but for those who prefer to stay with an old tried and true skill set, i would just make settable limits. in Spvp(IE GW2 vanilla setting for opponents), and maybe a classic rule (vanilla) WvWvW map. (if there is enough people who want to play classic for it to be viable)  In Pve, it shouldnt really matter much, you dont need to use new skills if you dont want to, and if you really hate the new zones, you can just never play there.

#1570573 Elitism! \^^/

Posted 98percentcute on 03 July 2012 - 10:59 PM

I remember in GW1 I was standing around in one of the high lvl content areas. More specifically the Realm of Torment where Mallyx runs were done.
I remember thinking I felt like doing Mallyx or one of the runs up to him. I was on my monk at the time and was about to join a group until I saw "must be HB monk"

For those not in the know, HB is an Elite skill short for Healers Boon. It's been a while since I last played GW, and they are always changing the way skills work so I don't know if that's still the standard healer monk skill or not but
regardless, at the time it was.

I had HB and could put it on my bar but I wasn't going to conform to the idea of forcing certain skillbars on others. I had done the quest multiple times before and know that there are other bars you can use that can be just as effective if not more so.

If they didn't have that attitude they would have gotten the monk they needed a lot sooner, and I have no doubts we would succeed in the quest.

Another time, I had just finished doing a mission with hero's and henchies, and decided I wanted to do it again and help the people who were struggling with the mission.
we were short one person, and everyone was squishy so we decided a hero warrior was best. I brought mine in and we are about to go, when they ask me to ping the bar.
I do so, and they kick me from the group based on that hero.
I had just done that quest with that hero in my team, and on top of that his particular bar was great for that mission it just wasn't one they were used to seeing.
So unless they played worse than my other heroes and henchies it's just silly...

So yeah Elitism can actually harm people's progress when they don't keep an open mind to the possiblilty that something different might actually work better.

#1500737 Confirmed: Tiered Traits AND Utility Skills

Posted Diogo Silva on 07 June 2012 - 01:55 PM

View PostN0rdicNinja, on 07 June 2012 - 01:40 PM, said:

He is just being dramatic.

The new tier system will make you choose between flexibility or power. In the old system, picking more flexibility wouldn't sacrifice your power at all, so 10/10/10/10 builds were the best. Especially because after you picked the best trait for your build in a line after speccing 10 points, speccing 20 would mean you would only pick the second best, and 30 points would mean you would only pick the third best. Specialization was leading to diminishing returns before.

Games that usually give you a lot of freedom always have a system where flexibility comes at a cost. Or else, your character becomes a god, with extreme flexible means to deal with its problems, and only very slightly weaker than a specialized character at a specific goal.

In GW1, you had skills with no attribute points. Those were weaker than normal, because they required little to no investment and gave a lot of flexibility. In Magic: The Gathering, you have artifact cards, which can be placed in any colored deck to give it options that it wouldn't otherwise have, but artifact cards are generally weaker or have higher costs than colored cards for that reason.

You want more flexibility? You sacrifice power. Want more power? You sacrifice flexibility. That's how it should be.

In the old system, you would have BOTH power and flexibility, and even if all traits were equally balanced, that wouldn't change.