Jump to content

  • Curse Sites


Member Since 23 Aug 2010
Offline Last Active Nov 24 2014 06:54 PM

#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.

#2298351 Results of international Guild Wars 2 survey

Posted Beyond Freedom on 20 February 2014 - 05:52 PM

View PostFeathermoore, on 20 February 2014 - 01:56 PM, said:

This isn't representative of all GW2 players. The only group that could hope to get that data is Anet and only if they put up a survey pop-up upon login and even then it would only represent those people who had the time/interest to fill it out. How many of those website surveys do you decline when they popup?

Also, to quote Douglas Adams: "Everyone lies to people with clipboards."

#2312206 Say Goodbye to Armor Repair Costs and Hello to Free Trait Resets

Posted Gyre on 28 March 2014 - 04:25 PM

View PostMazingerZ, on 28 March 2014 - 04:02 PM, said:

I'd say to sell those silly canisters, but from what I've heard, they've added a convenient repair point to every part of the game where you'd want that unless you're going to balk at a waypoint cost or time sink to find a repair station in the open world.

Sure, I could accept that it was repair cans.  I still don't understand why now you have to die 7 times for it to actually confer any sort of penalty though.  Before at least you could argue playing stupidly hit your pockets to discourage the behavior but now it is simply an inconvenience to be largely ignored.

#2309629 The Trinity, Roles, GW2, and You

Posted Beyond Freedom on 21 March 2014 - 09:43 PM

View Postmaster21, on 21 March 2014 - 09:33 PM, said:

This healer react when damage done to some player happened. His reaction is to use some spell to heal. Spell choosen because of experience, intuition, whatever you call it.

In gw2 i watch the boss. Some attacks I'm ignoring some not, so filtering problem.
Puff we have 1 hit kill comming. My reaction is to dodge. Dodge in good direction to just get out of area, dodge with good timing to evade attack or..no dodge because I remember that I have aegis on me.

I don't see any difference in process here. For me it's the same.
That's why I just can't agree healer reaction has more "depth". That's it. That's all.
OK so in GW2 you have to watch 1 person (yourself), and you have 1 spell (dodge) that you have to use at the right time.
In a healer role you have to watch n people when n > 1 (including yourself), and you have m spells where m > 1 that you have to use on the different people at the right times. So you have 2 different dimensions of choice (beyond healing at the right time): (1) who to heal (in what order), and (2) which spell to use. Neither of those two dimensions of choice exist in GW2. Therefore a healer role has more "depth" than your GW2 play.

#2309479 Runes, Sigils, Balance Updates, and Critical Damage updates

Posted Gyre on 21 March 2014 - 05:25 PM

Original Eagles had 3% on 2 and 5% on 4.  New Eagles have 35 Ferocity on 2 and 65 Ferocity on 4.  Taking them at face value here for their own 15 ferocity = 1%...

100 Ferocity / 15 = 6.66667%

8%/6.666667% = 1.199994

~20% loss...things that make you go hmmm.


Their hero panel shows something interesting too.  They are revealing the base 150% critical damage that we already have to pad the hit.  It shows 756 "ferocity" which, again if you assume 15 points = 1%, works out to 50.4%.  Add that to the base 150% you've got already and you get the 200% they show.

#2309125 The Trinity, Roles, GW2, and You

Posted Feathermoore on 21 March 2014 - 12:24 AM

View PostImprovavel, on 20 March 2014 - 10:51 PM, said:


Sigh. You are arguing around me making statements to counter arguments I haven't made. Either that or you are ignoring statements you don't want to respond to. I direct you to a link in my signature. Please read it as your last post just "broke the rules" of a constructive discussion. All you are doing is contradicting my statements, putting words in my mouth, and continuously changing the discussion to another topic based off of those misrepresentations. It is impossible to have a constructive intellectual conversation with someone who is doing that.

Please walk away from a post for a couple of minutes and then come back and read it again or something before responding. You seem to be knee-jerk posting and vomiting up the first contradiction to a single sentence that you can think of.

View Postmaster21, on 20 March 2014 - 10:54 PM, said:


That's nice, but you are still working on the assumption that roles=holy trinity or required to succeed. They don't. End of story. As such, your experiences in WoW are in no way indicative of what a role based game that didn't have the holy trinity would be like.

Puging encourages communication, it doesn't force it. How? Because when you pug in a game with roles you notice and take note of the people who are especially impressive. Be that by how good they are, some play they made, or how they compose themselves in chat. When you notice these things you add a person to your friend list and begin to play with them. Just like how you met some of your friends. You didn't just make friends with a random Joe you never played with, something drew you to them. Roles, as a side effect, allow players to stand out which in turn encourages players to network in order to be more likely to succeed. You network by communicating and by communicating you increase the liklihood of becoming friends. This story repeats over, and over, and over again in MMOs. This is not the main goal of role based combat, but it is a side effect that is desired in an MMO.

Then you want to play next to people which is a sort of psuedo-group combat. You play together, but you don't play together. It actually inhibits personal skill growth since when you make mistakes other people pick up the slack instead of you having to fix them. You might not even notice your mistakes. The other people in the group probably didn't notice them! You give too much credence to this idea that a single person causes a win/fail in a role game (once again, not a trinity though even in a trinity it is hard for a single person to be the end all be all of success).

All of this is the psychology of why the roles are preferential to a group of people. And a little bit on the benefit to an MMO's community building.

#2308741 The Trinity, Roles, GW2, and You

Posted MazingerZ on 20 March 2014 - 02:44 PM

View Postgw2guruaccount, on 20 March 2014 - 02:29 PM, said:

So really, no. Software but not gaming. You've never had to actually design it.

As much fun as it would be to enter into a petty fest I can definitely see why your frame of reference errors are continuous. I could go on about how I actually do product analysis and so forth but it's unnecessary at this point. Credentials are unimportant in forums ( thankfully ).

Lol, I wouldn't say never design.  I would just never claim credit as the designer.  To say that  just because I implemented game systems and mechanics means I have no concept of game design is like saying an assistant director has no knowledge of directing or a physicians assistant has no concept of doctoring.

But you'll have to tell us how your background in product analysis allows you to sit as a higher authority on the concepts of game design or even computer game decelopment.

#2307043 [Reddit] Ongoing riots in Chinese GW2 community

Posted MisterB on 15 March 2014 - 07:43 PM

This version is so hilariously awful. I laughed my head off imagining these bullet points as update notes. That would actually be awesome for ANet to do on April Fool's: Just release the changes that KhongZhong made as a phony changelog. They could troll the players so hard. :D


#2307259 Dynamic Enemy Leveling: Yay or Nay?

Posted Beyond Freedom on 16 March 2014 - 09:37 PM

View Postgw2guruaccount, on 16 March 2014 - 09:05 PM, said:

Instanced content has extreme limitations. It also promotes the already rampant LFG problem and combines it with a lack of reason to replay the instance.
LFG is also a problem with open world content, although it is usually formulated as:
- we couldn't get enough people on our server to defeat Tequatl so we had to guest on another server
- we couldn't find the right people on our server so we had to abuse the guesting mechanics in order to find our own private overflow to do this
- I couldn't get onto the map where this event was happening even though it was on my own server, I got shoved to an overflow where nothing was happening

All these issues are because "open world" content is actually instanced, it's hosted on a server and that server has limitations, and therefore all the problems you want to raise about instanced content are necessarily going to apply. The main difference between explicitly instanced content and open world content in GW2 is that in open world you get no choice whatsoever about who you play with.

Lack of reason to replay the instance? Well, usually a dungeon has several encounters to master and open world events have one. You're likely going to get tired of that one encounter faster than the multiple ones.

Damn, I broke my own rule.

#2304112 "[ArenaNet] trying to make the game easier to learn."

Posted Gyre on 07 March 2014 - 12:33 AM

A long while ago now field combos were added in as a daily achievement category, it was short lived.  They should have seriously left that in if for no other reason it would possibly ask an important question:  what is this and why is it important to me?

#2303860 Why Being Efficient is the Only Thing Left

Posted Feathermoore on 06 March 2014 - 04:24 PM

View PostNikephoros, on 06 March 2014 - 03:58 PM, said:

You do realize what you're doing is defining the word "skill" in a way that suits the particular argument you're trying to make, right?  Saying something requires "coordination but not skill" is narrowly defining what "skill" means.  So far as what I can intuit from your comments the definition of skill for you revolves around being able to respond to unpredictable circumstances in an effective way.  I certainly agree that is a demonstration of skill, but also think it is just as valid a demonstration of skill to utilize timing, coordination and execution.  If I am being overly broad in my definition, then you could test it in theory by finding experienced but unskilled players and have them try to replicate it.  Good luck.

My earlier statement should read "More coordination yes, more skill no." I assumed this would be inferred from my earlier arguments. But the post is poorly written. Sorry about that.

You can write a computer program that does the coordination required of stacking. Developing the plan is a skill, executing it in this circumstance does not require more skill than playing without stacking and arguably requires less. You can be better at executing the plan through practice and experience, but we aren't talking about speed running just the minimum level required to complete content by stacking. You must remember that I am stating that stacking doesn't require more skill than not stacking, not that it doesn't require any skill. You are picking and choosing statements I am making and as a result misinterpreting and even misrepresenting my argument.

Stacking completely removes the need for a skill that playing without stacking requires. Stacking does not add a skill that playing without stacking benefits from. Coordination is used in non-stacking groups as well. The fact that PUGs complete content by stacking proves that random people are perfectly capable of the tactic.

Your entire argument that stacking requires more skill revolves around taking a specific situation that requires stacking to change tactics from the norm and using a speed run as an example of how skill is required to stack. PUGs can stack. They do it all the time. Stacking, on average (as I have been saying from the beginning) does not require more skill than playing content as intended.

I have repeated my central argument several times and even wrote it explicitly. I will write it again. Stacking in general does not require more skill to execute than completing a fight as intended in general. You don't even have to identify my central argument. I have told you it. Your points have done nothing to refute that argument as you continuously fail to address it. You have identified a specific instance you believe stacking requires more skill and I have argued why that is false. Even if it were true it would not refute my argument as one example does not a pattern make.

#2303336 If they came out with an expansion tomorrow would you buy it?

Posted Konzacelt on 04 March 2014 - 09:15 PM

View PostDahk, on 04 March 2014 - 07:48 PM, said:

I think the only reason it would be disappointing is because cultural diversity is handled much better in GW2 than it ever was in GW1.

In GW1, the cultural differences we got were from expansions that just made new areas totally designed around a single stereotype (i.e. the Chinese expansion, the African expansion).  In GW2, we got a mix of cultures that involved more than just humans being involved.  While there are still a lot of archetypes that we're beaten over the head with (all norn are braggarts, all asura are snobbish intellectuals, etc.), the newest characters in the living story have really helped portray the races as collections of individuals that are not just diverse from other races, but also diverse within their own race.

And while the landscapes in GW2 aren't really revolutionary, ArenaNet has come out with some of the most innovative cultures in the MMO genre.  The Sylvari are probably the best example of this.

Wow, I disagree with this lol.  The cultures in GW1 were at the least original.  And when I say original I say it in relation to the fantasy genre.  Did they borrow heavily from real life?  Of course they did.  But they only used as much as they needed to form a framework for the various cultures.  From there they molded their own pottery, so to speak.  You use the Canthan and Elonan examples, but even these are broken down into various subcultures like Gothic, Egyptian, SE Asian, Arab, etc.  And further still, these subcultures, aside from their RL inspirations, have huge amounts of creativity attached to them.  They each have a foundation of borrowed themes, with a highly original house built on top of them.

By contrast, the GW2 cultures borrow heavily from common fantasy tropes.  Asurans are arrogant gnomes, Charr are industrial feline orcs, Norn are drunk vikings, Sylvari are wood elves incarnate.  Even humans are plain Jane white euro-models.  The archetypical sea of races is astounding.  They've been done ad nauseum with fantasy, while GW1 approach was highly novel.  And while Jeff and Ree have given us a higher quantity of cultures to interact with, GW1 had a depth and breadth of quality that can't be matched here.

And yet, the RL things GW2 does reflect on are disappointing.
Example: Hair Styles.  Observe the hairstyles in the character creation screen in GW2.  A ton of them reflect modern, trendy hairstyles that exist in real life today.  There's little originality.  Next check out the hairstyle options in GW1.  Most of them have little to no resemblance to anything we have around today.  Each campaign has choices that are unique to either Tyrian, Canthan, or Elonan lands, not anything we have here on Earth.  It's refreshing and marks a willingness to set yourself apart from the crowd.

If you think that Factions was only a "Chinese" expansion, then you either didn't pay any attention to the game, or didn't play it much.  It's a general shame that the GW1 approach to cultural diversity was "dumbed down" in favor of this theme park stuff we have now.  I'd rather they had simply made a different game if they were going to do that, and not use the "Guild Wars" name for such a gaudy display of cliche this side of the Pacific.

#2302775 Why Being Efficient is the Only Thing Left

Posted RandolfRa on 03 March 2014 - 03:25 AM


All you can do to make it less predicteble is to just make things random. Like you have 90% to make this action. It's still does not make AI any smarter.
It feels smarter though and it makes fights little less repeatitive. It's better than nothing.

For example:
- give mobs healing skills and more defensive skills
- have the mobs go defensive when their health is low. Make them play time until their heals come out cool down.
- if the player has low health, make the mob become more agressive.

- have various tactic packages for mobs, e.g.
  burster: tries to burst the player down. plays defensively when his burst skills are on cool down. sorta like thief.
  exhauster: plays very defensively. perhaps uses condition damage. attempts to slowly harm the player.
  supporter: plays defensively, attempts to heal and buff other mobs.

Then combine these different mobs into groups.

Simple things like this would already improve the overall fighting experience. You don't really even need an actual AI, just reasonable and various mob behavior.

#2298537 How does Arena Net gague the popularity of Living Story?

Posted Gyre on 21 February 2014 - 03:21 AM

View Postgw2guruaccount, on 21 February 2014 - 12:47 AM, said:

No, players really are never happy; if a game caters directly to a player's wishes 99.9% forums like this exist for the .1%. It's not "venting" either, it's just being a brat; you have the right to show dissent but the mood is almost always negative and filled with outright lies about the company, the people, and the players; ranging from the common anycompany argument "MONEY IS THEIR GOAL!?" to the rare "Development should be handled in a manner that is conducive to this [rational] idea." everyone wants to contribute to their own little MMO. This isn't a question of logical semantics it's a matter of real-time human behavior and psychology. IF you're looking for the raincloud you will find it and players have learned, as customers and consumers have learned, to look for that raincloud. Even I have; it's normal because it's a norm mindset we have been taught, and when we can't stand it we quit! Which is fine. However players being happy and content with a game they cannot directly influence is just not something that happens. I'm sure there's people who claim it's the best ever but if you ask them if it can be improved there will be a slight twitch in their smile. It's the Developer's Dilemma. By "Developer" I am not just referring to gaming either, all designers, all innovators, all inventors, and all project managing teams suffer this.

Nobody is upset with them for making money, at least I sure hope not, it's the entire point.  The issue I personally have with them is the 2 week shovelware cycle and abyssmal quality content due to self imposed time constraints they are locked into.  They went from a "when it's ready" studio to a "deadline is in 2 weeks quickly ram code into the dat and break entirely unrelated features of the game to be fixed by minimum 2-3 subsequent patches" studio.

Here's what I think is a pretty fair question:  If this was a sub instead would people tolerate this type of updating or would they be a little more pissed off when their wallet was on the line instead of mooching the other guy who is buying the gems to keep this going?


View Postilr, on 21 February 2014 - 01:10 AM, said:

It's become very apparent over the past year that they seem to believe they can freely neglect all the things that aren't fun to them,  like Bug fixing, event polish, PvE balance/splits, and real equal-terms discussions with their playerbase.  

One thing they are on the ball about is adding invisible walls to fractals and dungeons to stop "exploits".  Big shout out to dredge here which took 2 consecutive updates to finally get that second pad patched to be impossible to leap to, well done Anet.  Perhaps the time has come to actually playtest content to see why people were doing these things in the first place.  Hint:  it's poorly designed.

#2298498 How does Arena Net gague the popularity of Living Story?

Posted ilr on 21 February 2014 - 01:10 AM

I don't think they feel any responsibility at all to actually "gauge" any of it in the first place.
Just like Conquest PvP being their only format there.  They didn't need a survey to know it was unpopular.
Yet they kept balancing every other part of the game around it and never gave a nod to reality there.

It's become very apparent over the past year that they seem to believe they can freely neglect all the things that aren't fun to them,  like Bug fixing, event polish, PvE balance/splits, and real equal-terms discussions with their playerbase.   By all indications, they clearly think they can neglect all of that "icky stuff", and feel no lasting repercussions whatsoever.   This isn't exactly a new pattern for them, often times they usually just added new stuff or new currencies to the first Guildwars to change various Metas or whatever.  But those things were atleast connected in some ways to the general consensus of the community at large.   Now instead, they have a studio of 300+,who all have their own little private circles that are completely insular, and believing they are 100% insulated from the realities of consumer pressures.

I've argued for years that they've actually tended to do what was LESS ideal for pure capitalism.  In that regard, some of the most evil companies like EA and SONY still end up being more responsive to their consumer base than Anet actually is.  Even if it's mainly to exploit them as nothing but dollar signs, it's usually still the consumer's demands that get met in a reasonable amount of time.   This studio however, runs a Crony-tocracry where several different factions inside it controll different parts of the content... and this is the most important part, because it means that there's no real uniting Theme or oversight.  Everyone just does whatever the hell they want or whatever their best guild buddies find most convenient...

While this was true to a lesser degree with GW1 and things still worked okay up until that Gwen's Wedding crap, now the degree to which they've become detached and out of touch from the core guildwars playerbase is so extreme that its no longer sustainable and the "finished product" (if it can be called such) resembles a chimera of loosely stitched together appendages due exclusively to that poor inter-office dysfunction between all of its content creators.  Actually forget the flowery chimera analogy, the best way to really sum up their content pipeline is exactly like most of their 5-man teams and "open raid" group dynamics in general in this game:  A bunch of strangers "Soloing Together".