Jump to content

  • Curse Sites

Bryant Again

Member Since 20 Aug 2009
Online Last Active Today, 05:43 AM

Posts I've Made

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

Today, 04:17 AM

View PostArkham Creed, on 28 January 2015 - 08:30 PM, said:

<p>And as I've said before; yeah there is room for improvement and the game isn't perfect. But there is a big difference between saying "hey you need to buff healing power or rethink that condition cap" and angrily shouting "OMG this game is so bad, trinity or bust!" And likewise there is a difference between saying "the game has fallen short of its goals and needs to try X" and snarkily quipping "the design is wrong, the game needs to be more like other MMOs!"

Right, but I can't say that either of those extremes are being heavily advocated in this thread. Just a lot of GW1 references, which at least have a bit more merit than WoW ones.

Regardless, you're not encouraging anyone to do anything "wrong", just going about it the wrong way. I absolutely encourage anyone playing however they'd like, but I think it's more important that they look into and become aware of the strengths of their class.

And yes, the game isn't perfect and can still be fun, but that doesn't excuse it from being fixed.

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

Yesterday, 08:18 PM

View PostArkham Creed, on 28 January 2015 - 06:48 PM, said:

<p>Ah, but therein lies the irony of this whole mess. I called this thread playing the game wrong because as far as the community is concerned that is exactly what I'm doing. But then look at how the game was promoted; how Arena Net said they designed it.

Well of course they promoted it like that, why would they promote their game by saying "there's a wide amount of builds but they're poorly balanced"?

And no one's disagreeing with the intent of their design, just the balance.

View PostArkham Creed, on 28 January 2015 - 06:48 PM, said:

Cross profession combos, cooperation, any profession being able to play any role, being able to complete any content with whatever build or part comp you want...the reality is I'm not the one playing the game wrong; you are.

Playing and coordinating with others to put together the strongest, most successful builds isn't "playing the game wrong". Again, the issue is just the balance. And again, I bring condition damage up as an example: A warrior should be well within his right to think that using a sword is a non-detrimental way to deal damage.

View PostKrazzar, on 28 January 2015 - 05:51 PM, said:

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.

Wait a tick, what's the set definition of "Build Wars"? The way I've seen it discussed was referring to how the PvE could be completed largely by copy-pasting PvXwiki builds.

In Topic: What will need to be announced on Saturday...

Yesterday, 01:56 PM

View Postlazykoala, on 28 January 2015 - 05:44 AM, said:

I feel like the whole trinity debate is so prevalent with this game in big part because skills are locked to weapons and there are no secondary professions. I remember my first time playing gw2 feeling nothing but restricted by my weapon choice. In gw1 if I wanted to be a healer monk with a dps secondary or a ranger with a staff and nothing but support/healing skills I could do that.....and I find it hard to believe that giving the ranger a staff in this xpac will even be remotely the same thing. The build variety was fantastic in gw and it is sorely missing from gw2.

Agreed. Combat in GW2 is fun but basic and doesn't make up for the tremendous loss of customization. I can't imagine being too invested in any content they add to the game without improving either the shallow combat or amount of build customization.

View Postlazykoala, on 28 January 2015 - 05:44 AM, said:

There was obviously a defined trinity in gw but imo, the variety of ways you could implement the trinity was one of the things that was so enjoyable. This issue alone is literally like 80% of the reason why I can't consistently play gw2.

It's "trinity" was way less "WoW" and way closer to good 'ole DnD, but maybe my perception of that is flavored by the fact that before going into GW1 I played crap loads of Icewind Dale, Baldur's Gate, and Neverwinter Nights. Sure felt right at home though, moreso when heroes got thrown in.

And it's not going to change anytime soon in GW2 since having "everyone do everything ;)" is aimed heavily at the millions of DPS dudes who hated waiting for a tank and healer, and helps to fuel the "'Anti-MMO' MMO" image GW2 tries to maintain.

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

27 January 2015 - 06:37 AM

View PostArkham Creed, on 27 January 2015 - 02:20 AM, said:

Objectively wrong. And Arena Net has said as much. Based on everything said before, during, and after launch their solution to getting people to play together and form viable parties without a trinity system was found in cross profession combos, universal resurrection ability, and most importantly the ability for every profession to spec into EVERY ROLE.

Self-heals and the dodge button are pretty huge, too, and I sometimes wonder how the gameplay would've been designed without them.

View PostArkham Creed, on 27 January 2015 - 02:20 AM, said:

It was the community that decided DPS was the end all/be all of GW2 combat, not Arena Net. Hell since this happened Arena Net has actually nerfed zerker gear. If that doesn’t show you their thoughts on everyone pushing to the highest possible DPS cap I don’t know what will. But I guess it is as they say; denial is not a river in Egypt.

There's nothing inherently "wrong" with the berserker set-up: It's simply going the high-risk, high-reward glasscannon route. There are plenty of other reasons that push player towards it, though, my favorite example (but least favorite mechanic) being the condition cap.

More to the point: I agree with Dimitri that your heart's in the right place, but I think it would be better to not only encourage people to play how they want but to look into how they could improve, by any means. Maybe it's just me but I feel that that's how everyone should want to play an MMO, by trying to be the best teammate they can.

In Topic: GW2 has a content, not a feature problem.

17 July 2014 - 07:18 PM

View PostPhineas Poe, on 16 July 2014 - 06:17 PM, said:

Fluff in the sense that it's of no consequence. Killing Tequatl and Wurm aren't reliant on ascended gear. Being successful in WvW is not reliant on ascended gear. Completing any dungeon in the game is not reliant on ascended gear. There's only one area of one section of the game where ascended gear matters, and that's in fractals.

Yeup, I understood what you meant. What I meant was how powerful, how "good" would a new set of gear have to be to make it of consequence, when it's no longer 'fluff'? What if Ascended 2.0 was released and it was 3% stronger than the previous? Well, how about 30% stronger than exotic? What about 60%?

That line right there - the point where it's "too good" - is really murky, and it's a line I fully expect ANet to pursue at a point in the future. That's my main concern with introducing more vertical progression to the game.

View PostPhineas Poe, on 16 July 2014 - 06:17 PM, said:

If you still don't believe me that crafting ascended gear and legendaries doesn't drive player participation, reflect on the the fact that content that isn't profitable isn't popular. Look no further than dynamic events.

I wouldn't even need to do that. Look at the free content we've received for almost two years and the gemstore, put two and two together and it's fairly obvious that GW2's reward-driven focus is doing very well for them. But, I'm not sure which is driving more player interest: The 'content' or its rewards, and I doubt the game would be at the same place if it focused solely on one or the other.

Personally, I'd like to hope most people are more interested in the gameplay that arrives with this free content. Then again I'm not a terribly extrinsically reward driven player. Maybe that's why I find that the game has incredibly little replayability.