Guild Wars 2

For years (since before the release of gw2), players have wanted things like mounts, open world dueling, dx 11 (and now dx 12) compatibility, trading, and so on. The amount of threads created in regards to these wanted features are plentiful, and still to this day, more are created. Everyone’s sick of seeing the same demands in new threads, and the more we ask, it seems, the less impact our cries for change have. This shouldn’t be the case. Usually, when something is so high in demand, and persists in consumer wishes, change is expected.

Dev’s like Digital Extremes (creators of Warframe) have spoiled me, I’ll admit. They’re so quick and eager to add or at least mention that they’ve heard our demands and are constantly evolving the game to fit the expectations of it’s loyal player base. When Warframe first released, talk of PvP was taboo. PvP was never envisioned in the grand scheme of Warframe. Months later, the devs implement a totally optional PvP arena mode. This is 1 example of at least the hundreds of changes and additions we’ve seen in Warframe, most of which were suggested by the actual players. The connection DE has made with their community is a beautiful thing, as it truly feels like we’re one large community, brainstorming to make the game better in every way. With Anet, i feel there’s a huge disconnect between them and the players. Sure, they have a clear goal, they have their plans for what they feel is best for the game. I respect that, and we’ve seen great things. However, there’s something to be said for engaging with your players’ and discussing ideas.

My question isn’t if we’ll ever see these features in gw2, but why don’t the devs at least explain their reasoning for not implementing these features, knowing how much their players want them? The game is evolving, and the same justifications 3 years ago can’t possibly be their only cop-out. If the demand is still very much present in current day GW2, then why isn’t it being looked into? Sure, you’ve got your focuses. HoT is a big deal. But HoT, being an expansion, would be the perfect time for big additions. Additions that players have wanted since the vanilla release.

Duelling and mounts are just as equally not wanted. It isn’t as simple an issue as players wanting it and it should be in. There are very big arguments against those features which have been had over and over again on these forums.

Everything you asked for has had reasons WHY they wont be in the game. Asking for the nth^nth time for them isnt going to work. Anet isnt your parents.

Mounts as a game mechanic are totally unnecessary with the wp system. Cosmetic mounts already exist to some degree (carpet, broom) and will likely continue as toys.

Open world 1v1 dueling would only increase community toxicity. There are many threads on the topic, hence why people are tired of hearing about it.

Randulf.7614:

Duelling and mounts are just as equally not wanted. It isn’t as simple an issue as players wanting it and it should be in. There are very big arguments against those features which have been had over and over again on these forums.

Regardless, having something over not having it is always a positive. If it’s not your thing, don’t do it. If it’s your thing, well, its there, have fun.

“I don’t like lemon skittles. lemon skittles should not exist.”

Except, no, that’s not how the world works. If you don’t like something, don’t do it. But some people enjoy things you don’t always agree with.

Noktus.8506:

Regardless, having something over not having it is always a positive.

lolno.

Blair.3796:

Mounts as a game mechanic are totally unnecessary with the wp system. Cosmetic mounts already exist to some degree (carpet, broom) and will likely continue as toys.

Open world 1v1 dueling would only increase community toxicity. There are many threads on the topic, hence why people are tired of hearing about it.

Community toxicity does not directly correlate to competitive play. There will always be conflict in competitive play, but no more than there already is with features such as WvW and sPvP. That argument is invalid, It’s a bias. I, for one, have a biased impression that PvP in fact helps generate a healthier community. Who’s to say I’m wrong?

If there are equal or more valid reasons not to add them deal with it,anyway it’s minor compared to bugs,hackers,balance etc. Also those wanting duels call duel specs cheese…while I would like open PK with no sieges etc GW2 is too casual for that.

RoseofGilead.8907:

Noktus.8506:

Regardless, having something over not having it is always a positive.

lolno.

That was a pretty eloquent argument. All the same, I’d prefer if you elaborated your strong stance on the matter.

The analogy is flawed. By developing something that is by equal measure not wanted, resources are wasted on something that is for the benefit of the game. Duelling I can ignore, mounts I can ignore, but the development of both will block features more important to the game. Mounts will also increase server load and lag and thus effect myself and others.

Lemon skittles would not have this effect

Although now I want Skittles….

Sagat.3285:

If there are equal or more valid reasons not to add them deal with it,anyway it’s minor compared to bugs,hackers,balance etc. Also those wanting duels call duel specs cheese…while I would like open PK with no sieges etc GW2 is too casual for that.

That’s the beauty of evolution. If there’s something that can be improved, why ignore it?

Noktus.8506:

RoseofGilead.8907:

Noktus.8506:

Regardless, having something over not having it is always a positive.

lolno.

That was a pretty eloquent argument. All the same, I’d prefer if you elaborated your strong stance on the matter.

I simply fail to see how having something, just because one person (or one small group of people) want it, means it’s automatically a positive thing and better for everyone. I mean, my seven year-old wants a pet crocodile. A real one. Having one would not be a positive for any parties involved (unless you look at it from my seven year-old’s point of view).

Randulf.7614:

The analogy is flawed. By developing something that is by equal measure not wanted, resources are wasted on something that is for the benefit of the game. Duelling I can ignore, mounts I can ignore, but the development of both will block features more important to the game. Mounts will also increase server load and lag and thus effect myself and others.

Lemon skittles would not have this effect

Although now I want Skittles….

That lemon skittle is a cluster of precious sucrose resource that could’ve been a strawberry skittle. But it was still made for the individuals who love them. I dont see how the implementation of mounts, trading, dueling, would block more “important” features to the game. It adds a new layer of content catering to a albeit smaller portion of their community. I still don’t see how crippling the development process would be that it’d have to halt all other processes of development

RoseofGilead.8907:

Noktus.8506:

RoseofGilead.8907:

Noktus.8506:

Regardless, having something over not having it is always a positive.

lolno.

That was a pretty eloquent argument. All the same, I’d prefer if you elaborated your strong stance on the matter.

I simply fail to see how having something, just because one person (or one small group of people) want it, means it’s automatically a positive thing and better for everyone. I mean, my seven year-old wants a pet crocodile. A real one. Having one would not be a positive for any parties involved (unless you look at it from my seven year-old’s point of view).

So, in contrast, we are the 7 year olds demanding pet crocodiles? I’m sure your 7 year old doesn’t understand the dangers of having a pet crocodile, to both himself and everyone near it. But, then, would that mean that we, the 7 year olds, don’t understand the damages our pet crocodiles (open world dueling, mounts) would have on the community? If this is what I’m to understand by your logic, then I disagree with it. The pet crocodile is not beneficial to anyone. Open world pvp, mounts, and trading, is. My quote may have been vague, but there was context behind it, so your analogy doesn’t really apply.

One could probably find a sizable group of people under the legal drinking age, that would support having the drinking age limit lowered. I’m not sure that would be a positive.

One could probably (surely) find a sizable group of people that would support raising taxes to enable more community services. I’m positive others would find this a negative.

One could probably find a group of people that would support adding a subscription to this game. Again, I am pretty sure others would clamor that that action would not be positive.

Thus, a group of people/players asking for something does not guarantee it will be seen as, or in fact be, a ‘positive’.

Adding something isn’t always a net positive.

For example, an official P2P trading would see the use of the TP drop for things like Legendary weapons and the more expensive items (which is currently a massive gold sink). In order to facilitate this they’d also either a) have to implement a system where players can see what players have for sale (so something like the TP but not the TP) or b) remove the chat restriction timer resulting in a lot of spamming in chat.

Noktus.8506:

Sagat.3285:

If there are equal or more valid reasons not to add them deal with it,anyway it’s minor compared to bugs,hackers,balance etc. Also those wanting duels call duel specs cheese…while I would like open PK with no sieges etc GW2 is too casual for that.

That’s the beauty of evolution. If there’s something that can be improved, why ignore it?

Priorities>preferences,quality>quantity,efficiency>expansion.

Stuff like wanting dueling with hate on duel specs are laughable especially with unsupported balance,mounts are cosmetic accessories they don’t add to lore,experience etc. and we got WP’s,those are wants that should always come after needs. We are not completely revoking your propositions we are saying there are more important needs on the table so wait your turn to be considered. There is no way around it no ones wants to add extra rooms and lamps when the house’s foundation is slowly collapsing.

It might improve the game for you, but it could ruin the game for someone else. It’s not as simple as “just ignore it”.

Noktus.8506:

Regardless, having something over not having it is always a positive. If it’s not your thing, don’t do it. If it’s your thing, well, its there, have fun.

Tell that to the champion farmers from Queensdale.

Some people didn’t like the zerg train, but they wanted to fight the champions. They killed champions out of order and were harassed beyond belief. Same thing happens in ALL other farm spots.

So no, just having something is not always a positive. It can be, but not always.

In in the case of mounts and dueling, etc. etc. it all depends on how it is implemented. If it is implemented in a good way then even those who are constantly arguing against it won’t mind – in some cases – but if it is implemented poorly then there will be negatives.

The fact of the matter is that the purpose of mounts is null and void unless ArenaNet goes and removes half of the waypoints in the game. Mounts tend to exist in games in which travel to and fro is not instantaneous (even if it’s at a cost) but that isn’t the case for GW2.

As for dueling – personally, I so long as it requires both players to accept then I can see it being neat to have, however it is neither necessary (you can easily create custom arena maps for just two folks – in fact, people do this) and it can lead to trolling and harassment, directly or indirectly.

Everything has both its pros and its cons, so don’t make it out that the things you’re wanting is only pros.

To close: I would find it surprising if ArenaNet has not considered adding mounts or open world dueling. The fact that it isn’t in the game is proof that ArenaNet has decided it isn’t worth adding, whatever the reason may be (resource distribution, playerbase desire for/against, fitting/not fitting their idea of the game, etc.).

Noktus.8506:

Randulf.7614:

The analogy is flawed. By developing something that is by equal measure not wanted, resources are wasted on something that is for the benefit of the game. Duelling I can ignore, mounts I can ignore, but the development of both will block features more important to the game. Mounts will also increase server load and lag and thus effect myself and others.

Lemon skittles would not have this effect

Although now I want Skittles….

That lemon skittle is a cluster of precious sucrose resource that could’ve been a strawberry skittle. But it was still made for the individuals who love them. I dont see how the implementation of mounts, trading, dueling, would block more “important” features to the game. It adds a new layer of content catering to a albeit smaller portion of their community. I still don’t see how crippling the development process would be that it’d have to halt all other processes of development

You have mounts. They’re called Toys. You have dueling. It’s called custom arenas. Lot of the other kitten you want require far more resources than they’re actually worth. Not a lot of people would even WANT them in the first place.

Oh yea, Trading? IT EXISTS. Use the flipping trade post for crying out loud. You are NOT going to get player to player trading. Anet’s stated that repeatedly. It’s not happening. Successfully dividing by zero has a bigger chance of success. The trade post is your player to player trading. Stop asking for ways to avoid the fees. Just pay up.

Phy.2913:

It might improve the game for you, but it could ruin the game for someone else. It’s not as simple as “just ignore it”.

I fail to see how the addition of being able to go horse back, being able to ask someone to a duel, or being able to trade, would ruin the game for someone who doesn’t care for mounts, doesn’t pvp, or thinks a trading system is unnecessary. Please explain how any of these features can totally, indefinitely, ruin the game for someone who simply does not have to use/partake in these additional features. A dungeon runner does not enjoy WvW. Is the existence of WvW ruining the game for him?

Noktus.8506:

Regardless, having something over not having it is always a positive. If it’s not your thing, don’t do it. If it’s your thing, well, its there, have fun.

“I don’t like lemon skittles. lemon skittles should not exist.”

Except, no, that’s not how the world works. If you don’t like something, don’t do it. But some people enjoy things you don’t always agree with.

For lemon skittles to degrade someone’s game’s performance, they’d have to drop the skittles on their CPU or into a Ram slot. Chance of this occurring: pretty small. For mounts to degrade some peoples’ game’s performance, they would only have to be on screen. Chances of that occurring: virtually every play session.

I’m not saying I’m opposed to all of the items on your list, but having some of them is not going to be a win/no effect scenario, but a win/lose. Responsible devs take the issues of both sides into consideration.

The one I have strong feelings about is P2P trading. That’s a no from me — because it would affect me due to: greater inflation as more people choose to bypass the only major gold sink in the game; and WTS spam in chat. I should not have to disable chat channels so players can bypass the TP.

Aidan Savage.2078:

You have mounts. They’re called Toys. You have dueling. It’s called custom arenas. Lot of the other kitten you want require far more resources than they’re actually worth. Not a lot of people would even WANT them in the first place.

Oh yea, Trading? IT EXISTS. Use the flipping trade post for crying out loud. You are NOT going to get player to player trading. Anet’s stated that repeatedly. It’s not happening. Successfully dividing by zero has a bigger chance of success. The trade post is your player to player trading. Stop asking for ways to avoid the fees. Just pay up.

._.

Wow, the forum veterans were right, there really IS a mounts thread every week!

IndigoSundown.5419:

For lemon skittles to degrade someone’s game’s performance, they’d have to drop the skittles on their CPU or into a Ram slot. Chance of this occurring: pretty small. For mounts to degrade some peoples’ game’s performance, they would only have to be on screen. Chances of that occurring: virtually every play session.

I’m not saying I’m opposed to all of the items on your list, but having some of them is not going to be a win/no effect scenario, but a win/lose. Responsible devs take the issues of both sides into consideration.

The one I have strong feelings about is P2P trading. That’s a no from me — because it would affect me due to: greater inflation as more people choose to bypass the only major gold sink in the game; and WTS spam in chat. I should not have to disable chat channels so players can bypass the TP.

In regards to the performance loss of mounts, perhaps it’s time for the addition of a new API. Dx 11 would require quite an overhaul, but if something is so obviously beneficial to the game, why refrain from taking the next step?

Endless Soul.5178:

Wow, the forum veterans were right, there really IS a mounts thread every week!

Stay tuned next week for a very special flying mounts edition.

Honestly though, I did not intend to make this thread one to aggravate the masses of you forum dwellers.

Noktus.8506:

IndigoSundown.5419:

For lemon skittles to degrade someone’s game’s performance, they’d have to drop the skittles on their CPU or into a Ram slot. Chance of this occurring: pretty small. For mounts to degrade some peoples’ game’s performance, they would only have to be on screen. Chances of that occurring: virtually every play session.

I’m not saying I’m opposed to all of the items on your list, but having some of them is not going to be a win/no effect scenario, but a win/lose. Responsible devs take the issues of both sides into consideration.

The one I have strong feelings about is P2P trading. That’s a no from me — because it would affect me due to: greater inflation as more people choose to bypass the only major gold sink in the game; and WTS spam in chat. I should not have to disable chat channels so players can bypass the TP.

In regards to the performance loss of mounts, perhaps it’s time for the addition of a new API. Dx 11 would require quite an overhaul, but if something is so obviously beneficial to the game, why refrain from taking the next step?

You’re using it as an excuse for mounts O.o there are bigger priorities that could be achieved in less time/investment.

Noktus.8506:

Phy.2913:

It might improve the game for you, but it could ruin the game for someone else. It’s not as simple as “just ignore it”.

I fail to see how the addition of being able to go horse back, being able to ask someone to a duel, or being able to trade, would ruin the game for someone who doesn’t care for mounts, doesn’t pvp, or thinks a trading system is unnecessary. Please explain how any of these features can totally, indefinitely, ruin the game for someone who simply does not have to use/partake in these additional features. A dungeon runner does not enjoy WvW. Is the existence of WvW ruining the game for him?

I recommend glasses. A pure PVE player sees pvp content as a waste of resources and slows down new PVE content. Balance changes that stem from PVP can negatively affect his PVE content. Just because you can’t see the negatives, doesn’t mean they aren’t there.

Speaking for myself, I simply don’t want the toxicity of PvP flowing over into the PvE environment. For the same reason I enjoy WvW, but have only entered PvP a few times. Even the lobby is a cesspool of this vitriol and I, and I am sure many others, play games to have fun, not to listen to this garbage.

If Anet were to implement an out of the way arena that could be used with all current PvE foods and such then I would support it, but honestly I firmly believe that those that want it aren’t being altruistic in their motives. BTW finding a very out of the way area in WvW would accomplish the same ends as places like the skritt and centaurs are generally empty even on T1.

As for mounts they are simply not needed with wayoints being quite prevalent.

One reason is because the demand doesn’t merit the investment necessary.

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

One could probably find a sizable group of people under the legal drinking age, that would support having the drinking age limit lowered. I’m not sure that would be a positive.

One could probably (surely) find a sizable group of people that would support raising taxes to enable more community services. I’m positive others would find this a negative.

One could probably find a group of people that would support adding a subscription to this game. Again, I am pretty sure others would clamor that that action would not be positive.

Thus, a group of people/players asking for something does not guarantee it will be seen as, or in fact be, a ‘positive’.

An addition that does not effect everyone else. You blew my quote way out of context. A subscription fee will cause many players to quit. Seeing a player mount run by wont. Raising taxes will upset many, a mutually agreed upon duel won’t upset anyone. Lowering the drinking age? well, that just doesn’t fit anywhere.

I will say that the trading system would affect thge economy negatively, and I had not thought of that. So I retract my argument from that feature.

Noktus.8506:

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

One could probably find a sizable group of people under the legal drinking age, that would support having the drinking age limit lowered. I’m not sure that would be a positive.

One could probably (surely) find a sizable group of people that would support raising taxes to enable more community services. I’m positive others would find this a negative.

One could probably find a group of people that would support adding a subscription to this game. Again, I am pretty sure others would clamor that that action would not be positive.

Thus, a group of people/players asking for something does not guarantee it will be seen as, or in fact be, a ‘positive’.

An addition that does not effect everyone else. You blew my quote way out of context. A subscription fee will cause many players to quit. Seeing a player mount run by wont. Raising taxes will upset many, a mutually agreed upon duel won’t upset anyone. Lowering the drinking age? well, that just doesn’t fit anywhere.

I will say that the trading system would affect thge economy negatively, and I had not thought of that. So I retract my argument from that feature.

There is enough flashy excrement in this game as it is. Your stupid flashy oversized speed mount would make me pretty upset.

Sagat.3285:

You’re using it as an excuse for mounts O.o there are bigger priorities that could be achieved in less time/investment.

The point being that upgrading to dx 11 would solve performance issues.

Noktus.8506:

Sagat.3285:

You’re using it as an excuse for mounts O.o there are bigger priorities that could be achieved in less time/investment.

The point being that upgrading to dx 11 would solve performance issues.

My point is it worth the primary spot?

Noktus.8506:

Sagat.3285:

You’re using it as an excuse for mounts O.o there are bigger priorities that could be achieved in less time/investment.

The point being that upgrading to dx 11 would solve performance issues.

Performance issues become tech issues.

Noktus.8506:

Dev’s like Digital Extremes (creators of Warframe) have spoiled me, I’ll admit. They’re so quick and eager to add or at least mention that they’ve heard our demands and are constantly evolving the game to fit the expectations of it’s loyal player base. When Warframe first released, talk of PvP was taboo. PvP was never envisioned in the grand scheme of Warframe. Months later, the devs implement a totally optional PvP arena mode. This is 1 example of at least the hundreds of changes and additions we’ve seen in Warframe, most of which were suggested by the actual players. The connection DE has made with their community is a beautiful thing, as it truly feels like we’re one large community, brainstorming to make the game better in every way. With Anet, i feel there’s a huge disconnect between them and the players. Sure, they have a clear goal, they have their plans for what they feel is best for the game. I respect that, and we’ve seen great things. However, there’s something to be said for engaging with your players’ and discussing ideas.

It should also be noted that digital extremes implementing pvp into their game because of community cries also ruined it to a degree. It took about a year for the dueling to get implemented not a few months. And it led to a large increase of toxic players.

The community does not always know what is right for a game. Yes some may want to see mounts and open world dueling but their are reasons why they were not implemented at the beginning of the game.

I just hope to god Anet doesnt make the same mistake as DE and start doing everything the community cries for.

The game was advertised and sold as having a strict separation of PvP and PvE. That’s what PvE people wanted and got when they selected this game. Designing PvP into their maps not only takes resources away from their PvE, but it adds PvP toxicity to chat and adds new and currently unknown ways to grief our noncompetitive PvE areas. None of these things are positive to a PvE person so why should they support or ask for it?

As for mounts, there are already mounts in the gem store. You can post suggestions for similar gem store mounts if you wish in the thread Suggestions- Gem store items.

States.6387:

It should also be noted that digital extremes implementing pvp into their game because of community cries also ruined it to a degree. It took about a year for the dueling to get implemented not a few months. And it led to a large increase of toxic players.

The community does not always know what is right for a game. Yes some may want to see mounts and open world dueling but their are reasons why they were not implemented at the beginning of the game.

I just hope to god Anet doesnt make the same mistake as DE and start doing everything the community cries for.

It wasn’t marketed as a PvP game when Conclaves released. Thus there was no influx of a “toxic” community, thus the “toxic” players were players who were part of the community prior to the implementation of Conclaves.

Noktus.8506:

Sagat.3285:

You’re using it as an excuse for mounts O.o there are bigger priorities that could be achieved in less time/investment.

The point being that upgrading to dx 11 would solve performance issues.

Again, another assumption that performance issues are significant enough to address. I don’t think that assumption holds much truth.

Toxicity is a pretty popular word among you all. Why is there such a negative outlook on pvp, and why is that bias any more valid than one that would suggest that pvp promotes a healthy community? Open world dueling does not mean I can stab you in the back while you’re zerging in Queensdale. What it does mean, however, is that I have the ability to challenge you, and should you accept the challenge, we can spar. No ranks, no downsides. Hell, we can even make it so that we’d have a duel hp gauge, an hp overlay atop our PvE HP pool, so as to not actually cause any real damage that might make you susceptible to fatal damage from a PvE enemy post-duel.

Noktus.8506:

States.6387:

It should also be noted that digital extremes implementing pvp into their game because of community cries also ruined it to a degree. It took about a year for the dueling to get implemented not a few months. And it led to a large increase of toxic players.

The community does not always know what is right for a game. Yes some may want to see mounts and open world dueling but their are reasons why they were not implemented at the beginning of the game.

I just hope to god Anet doesnt make the same mistake as DE and start doing everything the community cries for.

It wasn’t marketed as a PvP game when Conclaves released. Thus there was no influx of a “toxic” community, thus the “toxic” players were players who were part of the community prior to the implementation of Conclaves.

I’ve been with that game for multiple years since the begginning of its closed beta when there was only 1 map tileset. I’ve watched the community and was an active forum user. There was never a toxic community UNTIL pvp was first implemented. Yes it did draw in a lot of toxic players, warframe used to be one of the friendliest games available and is now making its way to one of the worst.

Currently the community is split in half between pvp supporters and pvp haters. There is a large amount of toxic players in both sides and they have been dragging the game down for a while now.

Noktus.8506:

Toxicity is a pretty popular word among you all. Why is there such a negative outlook on pvp, and why is that bias any more valid than one that would suggest that pvp promotes a healthy community? Open world dueling does not mean I can stab you in the back while you’re zerging in Queensdale. What it does mean, however, is that I have the ability to challenge you, and should you accept the challenge, we can spar. No ranks, no downsides. Hell, we can even make it so that we’d have a duel hp gauge, an hp overlay atop our PvE HP pool, so as to not actually cause any real damage that might make you susceptible to fatal damage from a PvE enemy post-duel.

So how will your dueling effect dynamic events? I want dueling but there are problems beyond your “I want it so it’s kewl” arguments.

States.6387:

Noktus.8506:

States.6387:

It should also be noted that digital extremes implementing pvp into their game because of community cries also ruined it to a degree. It took about a year for the dueling to get implemented not a few months. And it led to a large increase of toxic players.

The community does not always know what is right for a game. Yes some may want to see mounts and open world dueling but their are reasons why they were not implemented at the beginning of the game.

I just hope to god Anet doesnt make the same mistake as DE and start doing everything the community cries for.

It wasn’t marketed as a PvP game when Conclaves released. Thus there was no influx of a “toxic” community, thus the “toxic” players were players who were part of the community prior to the implementation of Conclaves.

I’ve been with that game for multiple years since the begginning of its closed beta when there was only 1 map tileset. I’ve watched the community and was an active forum user. There was never a toxic community UNTIL pvp was first implemented. Yes it did draw in a lot of toxic players, warframe used to be one of the friendliest games available and is now making its way to one of the worst.

Currently the community is split in half between pvp supporters and pvp haters. There is a large amount of toxic players in both sides and they have been dragging the game down for a while now.

I believe that influx of toxic players came with the release of Warframe on Steam. Conclaves died before they even released. The community didnt go to s**t with its release. It was the coming of Steam users that changed the community.

There are threads in the PvP forum saying that this games PvP community is one of the most toxic they know of. If true, it doesn’t need to spill into PvE. Let that stay in PvP.

Noktus.8506:

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

One could probably find a sizable group of people under the legal drinking age, that would support having the drinking age limit lowered. I’m not sure that would be a positive.

One could probably (surely) find a sizable group of people that would support raising taxes to enable more community services. I’m positive others would find this a negative.

One could probably find a group of people that would support adding a subscription to this game. Again, I am pretty sure others would clamor that that action would not be positive.

Thus, a group of people/players asking for something does not guarantee it will be seen as, or in fact be, a ‘positive’.

An addition that does not effect everyone else. You blew my quote way out of context. A subscription fee will cause many players to quit. Seeing a player mount run by wont. Raising taxes will upset many, a mutually agreed upon duel won’t upset anyone. Lowering the drinking age? well, that just doesn’t fit anywhere.

I will say that the trading system would affect thge economy negatively, and I had not thought of that. So I retract my argument from that feature.

I’m not sure you can state with any guarantee that ‘seeing mounts’ won’t cause players to quit. It may, or may not. I am sure that seeing duels in PvE will upset some players.

As for other examples, just because a group of people calls for something, doesn’t make it a positive. There are always votes for different measures, laws, etc. Some feel they would be a positive, others don’t agree. Just asking for it, again, doesn’t make it positive.

Regardless, good luck on your suggestions. Maybe this time you will get what you want. Or, if not, you always have your ‘other’ game. =)

bloodletting wolf.2837:

So how will your dueling effect dynamic events? I want dueling but there are problems beyond your “I want it so it’s kewl” arguments.

Oh of course, the dynamic events.

..What?

I don’t see how it would effect dynamic events. What relevance does it have on dynamic events?

Noktus.8506:

bloodletting wolf.2837:

So how will your dueling effect dynamic events? I want dueling but there are problems beyond your “I want it so it’s kewl” arguments.

Oh of course, the dynamic events.

..What?

I don’t see how it would effect dynamic events. What relevance does it have on dynamic events?

There is the flaw in your thinking only about what you want. Scaling up dynamic events when you will not be participating in said event. That is what I was talking about. As I said I want open world dueling but there are plenty of reasons why it is not in this game.

Noktus.8506:

States.6387:

Noktus.8506:

States.6387:

It should also be noted that digital extremes implementing pvp into their game because of community cries also ruined it to a degree. It took about a year for the dueling to get implemented not a few months. And it led to a large increase of toxic players.

The community does not always know what is right for a game. Yes some may want to see mounts and open world dueling but their are reasons why they were not implemented at the beginning of the game.

I just hope to god Anet doesnt make the same mistake as DE and start doing everything the community cries for.

It wasn’t marketed as a PvP game when Conclaves released. Thus there was no influx of a “toxic” community, thus the “toxic” players were players who were part of the community prior to the implementation of Conclaves.

I’ve been with that game for multiple years since the begginning of its closed beta when there was only 1 map tileset. I’ve watched the community and was an active forum user. There was never a toxic community UNTIL pvp was first implemented. Yes it did draw in a lot of toxic players, warframe used to be one of the friendliest games available and is now making its way to one of the worst.

Currently the community is split in half between pvp supporters and pvp haters. There is a large amount of toxic players in both sides and they have been dragging the game down for a while now.

I believe that influx of toxic players came with the release of Warframe on Steam. Conclaves died before they even released. The community didnt go to kitten with its release. It was the coming of Steam users that changed the community.

Uh no. Conclaves has always been used since its first release. There has always been that pvp part of the community complaining about conclave being unbalanced and pushing for it to get worked on ahead of the pve content. Yet the pve player base fought against it because they believed pve should be first priority. From here the community split and everyone that joined the game after this chose a side basically. Steam just enhanced the feud between players by adding more players to each side.

How about a thread where I suggest dynamics events and PvE content in sPvP? Why should I be locked out of PvP from lack of PvE content in there. Why can’t they put nodes in the map for me to harvest while remaining green to all others. Maybe they could add repeatable hearts on the PvP maps. It’s only fair, if PvP gets put into PvE.

If they did that, there would be a lot of PvE people going on to those maps.

bloodletting wolf.2837:

Noktus.8506:

bloodletting wolf.2837:

So how will your dueling effect dynamic events? I want dueling but there are problems beyond your “I want it so it’s kewl” arguments.

Oh of course, the dynamic events.

..What?

I don’t see how it would effect dynamic events. What relevance does it have on dynamic events?

There is the flaw in your thinking only about what you want. Scaling up dynamic events when you will not be participating in said event. That is what I was talking about. As I said I want open world dueling but there are plenty of reasons why it is not in this game.

I’m sorry, really, I don’t understand what you mean by “Scaling up dynamic events when you will not be participating in said event”. The open world dueling does not effect anything or anyone other than the 2 who have agreed to engage in combat. The sun will still shine another day, dynamic events will be as dynamic as ever, and no one gets hurt.