Jump to content

  • Curse Sites

Rhubarb Pie

Member Since 21 Nov 2012
Offline Last Active Dec 07 2012 04:31 AM

#2095758 GW2 and the Trinity

Posted MisterB on 25 November 2012 - 08:43 PM

ArenaNet never removed the so-called trinity from GW2. It was never there to begin with.

#2095709 GW2 and the Trinity

Posted Red_Falcon on 25 November 2012 - 07:51 PM

I hope we all agree "threat tanking" is obsolete, unrealistic and bland.
I also hope we agree that having a boss or mob only attack one person and only that, is gimmicky and removes a lot of depth to the combat.
Finally, I hope you don't believe a person should be able to put himself between mobs and other team members for a whole dungeon, take baziollions of damage and live through it, because this would imply someone had to refill his life continuously and we'd be back at having mobs hit a dummy who's having his health refilled.

I seriously believe you've all come to the conclusion this is a retarded mechanic.

Still, the role of a full supporter is not unrealistic nor obsolete.
Refilling bars should be gone or at least left as a minor part of team protection and revival.
All forms of team defense that do not rely on bar-filling are welcome.
Thief can stealth-ress, Ranger's got spirits, Ele got rain and geyser and finishers, etc.

I have played a Guardian, Warrior and Thief so far, all of them got strong ways to safe and help the team.
More depth to this is welcome but new gimmicky mechanics are not.
Combat depth is probably the main reason I love GW2, if it was made worse I would shelf GW2.

#2094830 3 months in and now hate paying for armor repair/travel.

Posted DuskWolf on 24 November 2012 - 10:04 PM

Sandpit gets it. I'm glad of that.

The MMO genre is the only one I've witnessed where something which is truly the antithesis to fun can be added and be supported by fans. Let's pick Wind Waker as an example, as it's a lovely little game that I believe most people like. What if you had to pay a large amount of your rupees every time you got in your boat? There'd be no need for it, it would simply be a tax on movement. You'd pay because the game wanted you to pay, not because it was actually necessary, and it would lessen your desire to get out there and explore.

Let me make another point. In past Final Fantasy titles, an airship or a chocobo was something you could hop on and have fun travelling around with. In the MMO Final Fantasy XI, you couldn't do that. Everything had a tax. What happened because of this tax was that people travelled far, far less. They explored less. This was recognised as a problem in that game because this was the early days of MMO gaming, before WoW even. And no one thought that paying just to use a chocobo or airship was a good idea.

The point is is that taxes aren't fun. They're to do with the economic systems of reality, which aren't relevant to games. There are certain things in games that you don't have to worry about: welfare systems, scarcity, governments, and so on. There's no need for a tax in a game other than that the developers believe they need to pad out the game to make it artificially longer. But the more you pad out a game, the less fun it becomes. The dwarf tunnels of Dragon Age: Origins were soundly thrashed by every good game critic because they were distinctly unfun, they were included to artificially add play time hours to that game. They weren't cool.

Portal was only three hours long and yet it's widely considered as one of the best games ever made, by many even more so than Portal 2. Why? It doesn't pad, it doesn't ever repeat a challenge, and you're going from playing with one fun idea to the next until the game is over. The play time for dollar metric is a really bad one, because if you're not having fun for the vast majority of the time you're playing, then it wasn't a good game. And then you have to rely on cognitive dissonance to convince yourself that you were enjoying it, because of hte price. This is a very standard failing in our thinking.

The waypoint cost in GW2 prohibits people from travelling because they don't like paying the cost. So let's say that a bunch of people are getting slaughtered by a boss, and they need others to get there quickly. Those other people might choose to walk instead of teleporting there, in all likelihood, they will. Just as Sandpit pointed out. By the time they get there, the event may have failed, because the slow movement speed took them far too long to arrive. And this is antithetical to fun. The waypoint system would be a brilliant way of bringing people together without the tax.

It absolutely doesn't need the tax, but due to cognitive dissonance, we can't say that anything is bad about the g ame. In fact, the people who're defending against this will tell you that Guild Wars 2 is the most perfect game in existence, and that it has no flaws. This is silly, of course, but that's what they'll tell you. They'll say that the slow movement speed, the new gear treadmill, the taxes, and so on are all actually somehow beneficial and good additions to the game. They'll brush aside and try to not answer why something that is antithetical to fun is somehow excellent for the game, they'll just tell you that it is good. Over and over.

But why does it need it? It doesn't. It doesn't need gold sinks. Let's pick a marginally successful MMO: Star Trek Online. STO has a thriving auction house, and yet it lacks the constant, necessary gold sinks of GW2! I played that game up to being rear admiral rank without having to worry about my resources dwindling away. And yet I never had any trouble affording anything on the auction house. Add to this that Guild Wars 1, the original Guild Wars, doesn't have gold sinks?

And if you're worried about prices 'inflating' (which is nonsensical anyway, due to in-game economies not working the same as real ones, as proven by STO) then the solution is simple: Pour less gold into the game. Just make the rewards give less gold. You'll find that people would care less about getting less gold if they weren't paying for repairs and waypoint costs. But what's that you say? Guild Wars 2 has already hugely reduced the digital money going into the world? Yes it has!

Guild Wars 2 is already the most stingy game I've ever seen when it comes to rewards, the rewards are tiny. So even if you took away the waypoint costs and the repair costs, there still wouldn't be enough gold going around to cause this faux, digital inflation that some people seem to be entirely fallaciously terrified of. So inflation couldn't really happen anyway, due to how stingy GW2 is anyway, but the waypoint costs and the repair costs are still there... why? Taxes aren't fun, most people don't like them (unless they're bean counters). What place do they have in a game?

As yet, we've still not seen any logical arguments for keeping them.

So let's look at the positives andt he negatives. First the negatives:

1.) Gold sinks are antithetical to the design of a videogame, which is meant to be fun.
2.) GW2 is already so super stingy with rewards that the gold pool between players on a server is tiny anyway.
3.) Taxes keep people from exploring and experimenting, how could this possibly be good?
4.) If we believe that inflation is real, then the gold sinks and GW2's stingy nature is actively causing deflation. It's a self-deflating economy. Like bitcoins. If I have to be pulled into the ridiculous argument of economies in a vidyagame, I'll say that GW2 is currently in a deflationary spiral.

Now let's look at the positives:

1.) It controls 'inflation,' if we choose to believe in that. But that's already controlled by GW2's stingy rewards.

So, uhh... what were the arguments for gold sinks again?

#2093287 3 months in and now hate paying for armor repair/travel.

Posted Arquenya on 23 November 2012 - 09:22 AM

View PostGreen, on 23 November 2012 - 01:00 AM, said:

You have a right to your opinion as do I. I have to respectfully say that just because you and some other players dont like paying it, and subsequent forum post/examples therein do not not automatically make your (and others) correct (in saying it does not reduce inflation). Your examples given are purely semantic and offer no actual evidence to prove your point(s).

You you guys are ignoring the larger picture and are only concerned with how the game effects you. I'm labeling it the "me me me syndrome". Game developers on the other hand need to consider the entire player-base (old and new), in-game economy,  and the heath of the game for the long run.
Well .. gold sinks can come in different ways. For instance the TP is a gold sink. Repair costs. Travel costs. Consumables like salvage kits, basically everything vendors sell removes gold from the game.

The question is what methods are viable and don't cause annoyance or hamper gameplay. For instance: I don't see a lot of people agruing against TP taxes. Or that salvage kits should be free.

But things like travel fees have negative side effects. Like people having to run long ways because they're out of money. Or people less willing to help out because they have to pay 6 silver to get there - and back, inhibiting the already limited social aspects of the game even further. Minutes of loading screens because every free travel has to go through LA.

So it's not an argument against gold sinks per se. ANet could picked a lot of alternatives that people would have accepted without problems, like having all kinds of consumables like T-stones available as gold sinks, but they didn't.
In GW2, travel fees just aren't a good game mechanism to remove gold from the game.

#2093779 3 months in and now hate paying for armor repair/travel.

Posted Green on 23 November 2012 - 07:39 PM

View PostArquenya, on 23 November 2012 - 09:22 AM, said:

So it's not an argument against gold sinks per se. ANet could picked a lot of alternatives that people would have accepted without problems, like having all kinds of consumables like T-stones available as gold sinks, but they didn't.
In GW2, travel fees just aren't a good game mechanism to remove gold from the game.
Fair enough

#2091967 3 months in and now hate paying for armor repair/travel.

Posted Daesu on 22 November 2012 - 03:49 AM

View PostSilkath, on 22 November 2012 - 03:33 AM, said:

I seem to remember this idea (waypoint costs encourage you to see more of the game) was part of the reason ANet gave for having waypoint costs.

Just when I read this, a vision of Orr, since I have been playing there lately, flashed on my mind and Risens saying "Everyone!  Come!"  No thanks, I don't need to see more of that than I already have.  :D