Jump to content

  • Curse Sites

Obscure One

Member Since 21 Oct 2010
Offline Last Active Oct 20 2013 01:45 AM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Why you Can't Ignore Ascended Gear

15 October 2013 - 10:30 PM

Vertical progression isn't a problem if it's properly tempered by horizontal progression. If ascended gear was awarded properly there would be no disagreement among the bulk of the community that it is a good thing. Implementation of this vertical progression is faulty, not the progression itself. Driving any player base into a progression that is gated by specific content alienates the player base that simply doesn't do that specific content for any number of personal reasons. Gating progression behind a shared element within the mechanics that all players engage in regardless of personal play style is good progression. This was the initial design intent behind Karma rewards which has at this point been almost an entirely abandoned game element. Why not offer ascended trinkets for 500k Karma and weapons for 2 million Karma? Because that would not serve to contribute to the game economy, simple. The lower the value of gold in relation to gems the higher the perceived value of physical real world currency becomes in relation to gems. Ascended gear simultaneously reduces exotic item value, and with the implementation of unprecedented gold rewards that conveniently coincided with the tier release the proliferation of gold has deflated it's own value.

Ascended gear implementation was not intended to please players seeking vertical progression, but rather to please a parent company and it's share holders by diminishing the incentive to convert currency obtained in game for a currency that is in their best interest to get you to pay real world money for. Good business, bad game design, but they'll get the ROI they're looking for and monetize the next game in like fashion (Wild Star is next) over and over title after title. Nexon is superb at designing games with their accountants.

In Topic: What Happened to the Direction of ANet?

15 October 2013 - 07:54 PM

Guild Wars 2 is not on track with their design philosophy, and has not presented another to supplement it to get the studio on the same page. The problem with Arena Net's direction is that it doesn't have one. Departments operate without a unified goal, thus the whole of the studio must revert to the only tactile goal possible in that environment: profitability. The mismanagement and underdevelopment of PvP game modes in contrast to the content assembly line established for PvE is a strong indicator there are very few in development leadership that are on the same page.

Stepping back and looking at this objectively from the perspective of a new player attracted to the genre, the first thing I see is the lack of a sub fee, the hype on bi-weekly PvE content, and the other options I have with my money. This Q4 season is not a season to be taken lightly. It contains an element that will in one fell swoop make a great number of existing titles buckle under the stress. I'm of course pointing at the next gen consoles, next gen games, and specifically next gen MMOs. Two titles off the top of my head sit at the epicenter of a perfect storm as next gen console games that are MMOs: The Elder Scrolls Online, and Destiny. Both games signaled a spring launch window, and with plenty of launch titles looking to inundate the market with advertisements in Q4 there looks to be plenty to play until those games hit the shelves. Ultimately, objectively speaking, do I purchase a game that's already a year old with volumes of content I've missed and a progression system that puts me at a disadvantage? Or do I hang on to my money and use it on a next gen title for my next gen console of choice, whilst hopping on the hype train for the next gen MMOs?

This puts Guild Wars 2 into a interesting position as being a Nintendo Wii of the MMO genre; a secondary or Plan B for people who like options. Unfortunately this is not good for profits as players that treat the game as secondary are less likely to put money into purchasing gems for frivolous gem store items, which very likely could starve the game for profits. It's sensible to expect the response to save the game in that climate is a singular major content release, I.E. an expansion. However development direction lacking a unified design goal regarding even the very subject of an expansion does not indicate doing so would result in success. Long story short, there simply is no direction for the studio, thus the only goal is to produce content that pays the bills, makes investors happy, and keeps them employed. Dangerous waters for an MMO to set profit as the primary heading. That heading puts them into territory belonging to a title we've all heard often, World of Warcraft...and they don't like to share.

In Topic: New Gem Store Items: Flame & Frost Dye Packs and Molten Alliance Mining Pick

19 April 2013 - 05:07 PM

View PostRedhawk2007, on 19 April 2013 - 11:10 AM, said:

There are people who have already spent thousands of dollars on this game. I have personally spent more money than I would have if I had played a comparable subscription game in the last 7 months. So let's not pretend Anet is somehow going to be on life support if it doesn't gouge people for an item that should have been in the game for free from day one.People have been complaining about what a bogus hassle the gathering tool crap is since beta.

Lots of people are complaining about the price and stating they will not buy this item. The fact that you claim to have done so doesn't mean it is not overpriced. In terms of the in game economy no one can argue this mining pick is cost effective. By the time it pays for itself most nodes will be near worthless. In terms of real world economy that same $10 per toon could buy you another character slot and hundreds of hours of extra game play. Even by the standards of what you can get in the Anet cash shop this is a rip off. The $50 to equip all my toons could buy me another game entirely. If Anet made the price reasonable, they might make more money through increased sales than they do overcharging people.

But if you feel that strongly about Anet's finances perhaps you and the other "Anet supporters" should write them a check for a few thousand dollars. It seems NCSoft needs the money more than you do.

The opportunity cost is indeed unquestionably and without arguement extremely high at 800 gems. However this is a limited time release cosmetic and convenience item. Right now it may seem excessive, but on a long enough time-line, its a worthwhile thing. Let's say that GW2 runs a length of time identical to GW1 between launch and release of a sequel (GW3?). GW1 released in 2005 and GW2 launched in 2012, giving a 7 year focus upon the GW1 franchise. Now imagine you bought something comparably priced, limited release, cosmetic, and convenient (an unlimited salvage kit for example) within the first year of GW1 getting 7 years of usage out of it. Apply that logic to this item. Yes it cost you $10 worth of gems, yes that was a very high impact cost, but as the weeks roll into months, and those roll into years, that sunk cost becomes virtually irrelevant. Perhaps by this time in the next year or two you may very well be kicking yourself for not even buying just one for your main while you had the chance.

I am in no way defending the absurdly high price tag, nor stating it is fairly valued even in relation to other cash shop items. In those regards I largely agree with you. I'm simply introducing an unrecognized element to you of it being a long term investment in terms of prestige (limited time release cosmetics), convenience (inventory space, running out of picks, missing out on an ore vein, etc.), and eventually in-game currency (no waypoint gold sink just for the gold sink of buying picks) making the pick, no matter the gem cost, inevitably worth the purchase on a long enough time line.

In Topic: New Gem Store Items: Flame & Frost Dye Packs and Molten Alliance Mining Pick

17 April 2013 - 10:06 PM

The only drawback is the soulbinding @ a $10 (800 gem) price point. A 800 gem item should be account bound, and a soulbound version should be around 400 gems. Either way I think this is a worthwhile item to have if you intend to play the game for years to come as eventually (and I do mean extremely eventually) it will pay for itself. Besides the particle effects animation are stupid cool. Now if only they'd stop forcing RNG on the stuff I want to buy from the cash shop (fused weapon skins for example) and continue to put out these types of exclusive items as direct purchases I'd probably throw much more money at the cash shop than I do.

In Topic: sPvP: 8-Team Tournaments Disabled

29 March 2013 - 01:47 AM

Yawn...sPvP is still an epic waste of time with an uninspiring and frivolous reward system. Wanna increase interest in the standard 8 team 3 round tourny? Make the game team death match with an observer mode, the winner of which gains guild commendations if more than 50% of the team is from a single guild. I'd bet you ANet's quarterly earnings there'd never be an f'n wait time in sPvP 8 team ever again...but I suppose you need to turn off a ruptured sewer line spewing feces all over the street before you can put a team to work on fixing it.