Guild Wars 2

Xenon.4537:

Erasculio.2914:

I think everyone who has read your posts realizes you have a very strong agenda of trying to make up as many excuses to defend ArenaNet as possible (with the little token criticism here and there to save face). That’s probably why so many ignore the way you try to defend the Manifesto – your arguments are biased due to your own agenda.

How is his argument biased or based on an agenda? He’s stating his opinions same as you. It’s unfortunate that people feel the need to gang up on him due to his frequent posting. I’ve read nothing but calm, collected, thoughtful posts from him, and all I see him get is bile in return. Turning the discussion from it’s topic to an attack on his credibility is a sign of a weak argument.

I think this thread should be closed because it doesn’t seem to be about discussing how to interpret the manifesto anymore, so much as attacking people who don’t share a preconceived interpretation.

I suggest you read his post history a bit better. Far too many gems of

I know more than you
I’m better educated than you
I comprehend more than you
I understand more than you
I know what the devs meant, more than you
I have a better understanding of MMOs than you

On and on. He claims to take that tone because of frustration about being “attacked” but, doing what he does just generates more aggro. He is indeed taking heat, like a tank doing taunts.

Its pretty much I’m right, you are wrong, and here is why [ insert commentary on education, comprehension, knowledge, etc]

And its funny you mentioned credibility attacks.. its a staple in his posts. You don’t make friends by basically saying “I’m right, because you are too dumb to be right”

I’d like to like him. Honestly. When he isn’t defending GW2 he makes some nice points on other topics.

I never report him either. However, I’m feeling that tingle of incoming infractions.

Teofa Tsavo.9863:

I’d like to like him. Honestly. When he isnt defending GW he makes some nice points on other topics.

I know what you are saying and i agree.

Vayne.8563:

I don’t edit posts, sorry, and anyone who points out unedited posts is being silly. This isn’t a college thesis, I’m making a simple point. Pointing out my quote not being exact is completely irrelevant to the point I was making and the inaccuracy in no way affects that point. It’s just a red herring.

You feel the need to tell people you’re an educator. I am not asking you to edit. I am just pointing out that you damaged your own credibility by bringing it up in the first place and then making such a mistake.

Vayne.8563:

It’s a fact that most people don’t know that wherefore means why and most people misinterpret that bit of literature.

Only present things as facts if you have empirical data. Without that it’s an assumption, no matter how likely it seems.

Vayne.8563:

It’s also a fact that when something is defined in a document, the further uses of that word, particularly immediately after, retain that definition. There’s no reason in the world to suppose that in the beginning of the paragraph Colin meant one thing by grind and by the end of the paragraph he’d suddenly changed his definition of grind. That so many people mistook it is not an issue. Lots of people mistake lots of things…it doesn’t make them right.

As I said before, there was a context that not everybody is aware of. For years, during GW1, they talked to us. And interestingly enough Anet did a complete turn-around just after that manifesto has come out. Not many people of the original GW team are left now. To me that’s no coincidence. But yeah, out of context the manifesto is just a piece of marketing open for interpretation, specifically as the definition of grind is rather dependent on the person. But marketing uses tactics to make people believe it means something, by implying things without actually saying it. That creates deniability for them. But it’s not very honest. It’s very common, but not very honest in my opinion.

Vayne.8563:

And no, I won’t start editing posts. Once you edit for a living for a few years, you’ll learn to care a whole lot less about how well edited your IMs or forum posts are.

Again, I never asked you to edit your post. An assumption on your part. And really who cares what you’ve done for a living? You can make up your career as you please on a forum. It adds no credibility, it only detracts from your main point and if your point is so important, why don’t you focus on that?

You think it’s annoying that I focused on something that wasn’t your main point? Well, guess what? Here’s a mirror, you just did the same.

How about we discuss the topic, instead of talking about how 50% of the posts in forums are prime examples of Ad Hominem?

mesme.5028:

They took everything we liked about gw1 and put it in gw2, /looks for her rit and monk.

Rit: see Engineer
Monk: see guardian

mesme.5028:

Teofa Tsavo.9863:

Xenon.4537:

Erasculio.2914:

I think everyone who has read your posts realizes you have a very strong agenda of trying to make up as many excuses to defend ArenaNet as possible (with the little token criticism here and there to save face). That’s probably why so many ignore the way you try to defend the Manifesto – your arguments are biased due to your own agenda.

How is his argument biased or based on an agenda? He’s stating his opinions same as you. It’s unfortunate that people feel the need to gang up on him due to his frequent posting. I’ve read nothing but calm, collected, thoughtful posts from him, and all I see him get is bile in return. Turning the discussion from it’s topic to an attack on his credibility is a sign of a weak argument.

I think this thread should be closed because it doesn’t seem to be about discussing how to interpret the manifesto anymore, so much as attacking people who don’t share a preconceived interpretation.

I suggest you read his post history a bit better. Far too many gems of

I know more than you
I’m better educated than you
I comprehend more than you
I understand more than you
I know what the devs meant, more than you
I have a better understanding of MMOs than you

On and on. He claims to take that tone because of frustration about being “attacked” but, doing what he does just generates more aggro. He is indeed taking heat, like a tank doing taunts.

Its pretty much I’m right, you are wrong, and here is why [ insert commentary on education, comprehension, knowledge, etc]

And its funny you mentioned credibility attacks.. its a staple in his posts.

I actually feel sorry for him, i don’t think anyone likes him and that’s a shame, i know he brings a lot on himself, but maybe it’s a defense thing or something, nobody is perfect:).

I like him. Again with the whole interpretation thing, I don’t read the adversarial tone in his posts that everyone else seems to read. I think the reason he gets a lot of flack is because he posts so much. His posts are like so many data points on a graph unto which a certain threshold has been reached where he got himself too much attention from the wrong people. And now its a bandwagon thing to jump down his throat or treat him like a token fanboy.

Nurvus.2891:

Point One. (Guild Wars 1 had the better skill system, less randomness, and no trash loot.)

Okay, Guild Wars 1 definitely had a superior skill system, especially in terms of customization, but you make two wild (and incorrect) claims in here.

“There was very little randomness in combat.”

My kitten . Try critical hits (which were available to everyone at a lower activation percentage, and relied upon by Thieves for both damage and energy management), blind (90% miss chance), all skills that have a 50% failure rate when below a certain attribute level, and pretty much every block-based skill in the game. Shield of Deflection, Aegis, Guardian, Pensive Guardian, and Shield Guardian are prime examples (Aegis and Guardian being two of the most important skills in the game – a HUGE factor in winning based on random occurance), and that’s JUST naming the random Monk abilities. Sure, Guild Wars 2 has significantly more emphasis on random numbers (often to unacceptable degrees – ie: Engineer elixirs), but to claim that Guild Wars 1 had “very little randomness” is just plain silly.

Also, there was plenty of trash loot in Guild Wars 1. There were mob trophies (even if there were collectors for these) that generally ended up as merch fodder. There were vendor/salvage trash whites, blues, etc. There were plenty of bad rare items – especially in Prophecies and Factions where there was no ability to change the stats of a rare with different upgrade parts.

Point 2 (We don’t want players to grind.)

This is subjective. No, you don’t have to grind for anything, unless you honestly count having to choose between dailies/monthlies, WvW, FotM, or Guild Missions to get ascended gear as a grind. You don’t need that legendary skin or that mystic forge skin – you just don’t want it, and you can eventually get it without grinding CoF p1 until all the other grinders know you by name.

“Fun” is entirely subjective. I have tons of fun in the open world (and the game in general) by simply playing the game how it was meant to be played (which is to say, however the player wants to play). My income might not be top-notch, but I never feel like my experience has betrayed the manifesto in any way, shape, or form.

Point 3. (We want you to feel like a hero).

Arguably, this part is true. I’ll give you that. The personal story died with your mentor and became Trahearne’s personal story +1 sidekick. In fact, I’m not really going to bother arguing the point except to say that I do not feel that the repeating nature of Dynamic Events betrays the idea behind this part of the manifesto – and they already stated that they intend to add more Dynamic Events over time, while slowing down the cycles on other Dynamic Events in the area.
—-

I think the game has a great potential and I hope ANet keeps up at full steam.

My thoughts in bold. I had to summarize your sections to keep within the message body length.

Nurvus.2891:

How about we discuss the topic, instead of talking about how 50% of the posts in forums are prime examples of Ad Hominem?

Fair comment. At least this post of yours was on topic again…oh wait it wasn’t.

Practice what you preach I’d say.

What I don’t get is why this topic is still coming up though….this philosophy was abandoned around the same time this manifesto came out. The game is what it is now, why bring this back out I wonder? And mind you I am one of those people who feels Anet lied to us, but there’s no point in bringing it up again.

As far as I’m concerned this thread never was a serious discussion because of the topic.

I feel like Anet lied to us the same way McDonalds lies to us.

Duke Blackrose, the kind of random that was present in GW1 was actually quite decent.

I’ll even add to your argument that there were procs on weapons with a small (10-20%) chance to halve the recharge or cast time of skills of a certain type.

However, almost all chance based mechanics in GW1 were always at least one of the following:
- meaningful
- not overpowered
- add depth and fun to gameplay

Examples:
Halved recharge means you can use it sooner, changing up your rotation
Crit chance was easily brought to above 50% on builds, there were several attacks that were guaranteed crit, and crit was usually 1.5x the max damage of the weapon.

In Guild Wars 2, however, you have things such as 2-6% procs, you can have 20% chance to crit for 250% damage, and all other kinds of situations that make it so that whether or not you win a fight has little or nothing to do with your skill, but with how lucky you got.

mesme.5028:

Teofa Tsavo.9863:

Xenon.4537:

Erasculio.2914:

I think everyone who has read your posts realizes you have a very strong agenda of trying to make up as many excuses to defend ArenaNet as possible (with the little token criticism here and there to save face). That’s probably why so many ignore the way you try to defend the Manifesto – your arguments are biased due to your own agenda.

How is his argument biased or based on an agenda? He’s stating his opinions same as you. It’s unfortunate that people feel the need to gang up on him due to his frequent posting. I’ve read nothing but calm, collected, thoughtful posts from him, and all I see him get is bile in return. Turning the discussion from it’s topic to an attack on his credibility is a sign of a weak argument.

I think this thread should be closed because it doesn’t seem to be about discussing how to interpret the manifesto anymore, so much as attacking people who don’t share a preconceived interpretation.

I suggest you read his post history a bit better. Far too many gems of

I know more than you
I’m better educated than you
I comprehend more than you
I understand more than you
I know what the devs meant, more than you
I have a better understanding of MMOs than you

On and on. He claims to take that tone because of frustration about being “attacked” but, doing what he does just generates more aggro. He is indeed taking heat, like a tank doing taunts.

Its pretty much I’m right, you are wrong, and here is why [ insert commentary on education, comprehension, knowledge, etc]

And its funny you mentioned credibility attacks.. its a staple in his posts.

I actually feel sorry for him, i don’t think anyone likes him and that’s a shame, i know he brings a lot on himself, but maybe it’s a defense thing or something, nobody is perfect:).

I wouldn’t misconstrue irritation with not liking someone. I think a lot of folks on here like him, but get driven to irritation by his style of writing and those mentioned “gems” strewn throughout the posts. I’m one of those people who feels that if someone is well educated and intelligent, it should be self-evident in their posts and not require condescension in the way they talk, or constant references to those “facts” in their statements, to drive the point home. I find references to such things, or being condescending in general, to instantly put most people on the defensive. This can lead to even having people who agree with you being less than accepting of the things you say.

In general, I think he brings a lot to the forums merely by the large amount of posts he produces and how deeply thought out those posts are… even if some of the things he says (regardless of me agreeing with him on most topics) makes me want to tell him to “gtfo” out of annoyance.

That said- simply stating you are a college professor is not necessarily condescension or a way of saying “Hey, look how educated I am!”. Sometimes, stating your profession serves a purpose to the topic at hand. For instance- often on forums, the topic of software design and architecture tends to come up. In those situations, someone pointing out that they are a professional programmer (especially in a large application environment) would be helpful for understanding that they aren’t some 15 year old who watched too much “Chuck” when they make a guess about how the architecture of the game is laid out.

It doesn’t mean they are saying “I am absolutely right because I’m smarter”, but rather “If you aren’t also a programmer, then I probably have a little bit of a better idea about this particular topic than you do”… and for good reason.

Nurvus.2891:

In Guild Wars 2, however, you have things such as 2-6% procs, you can have 20% chance to crit for 250% damage, and all other kinds of situations that make it so that whether or not you win a fight has little or nothing to do with your skill, but with how lucky you got.

I think that’s a slight bit of hyperbole. Though luck to not be the only one facing four enemies in a PvP or WvW setting, all at the same time and flat-footed, certainly would count on whether you win or take a waypoint trip.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Nurvus.2891:

In Guild Wars 2, however, you have things such as 2-6% procs, you can have 20% chance to crit for 250% damage, and all other kinds of situations that make it so that whether or not you win a fight has little or nothing to do with your skill, but with how lucky you got.

I think that’s a slight bit of hyperbole. Though luck to not be the only one facing four enemies in a PvP or WvW setting, all at the same time and flat-footed, certainly would count on whether you win or take a waypoint trip.

Yeah, this is really all the luck factor I’ve experienced. The “2-6% proc” I’m assuming he’s referring to certain runesets that offer 5% chance to apply protection or the engineer trait 8% chance to convert incoming conditions. Its important to keep in mine that those effects have a tiny % chance because they receive a huge volume of “dice rolls” in combat. My guardian has 6/6 Rune of the Pack and I often find it proccing on cooldown (5% chance, 10s icd) in WvW because of the sheer number of attacks being applied to me. I’m not an expert on probability, but 5% chance for something to happen, applied 20 times over 10 seconds, starts to become highly improbable for it not to proc.

Yes, but the thing is that the procs available in GW1 were not like the ones in GW2.

In GW1, the procs were more interesting, and the game mechanics naturally restrained how powerful they could be.
The procs actually directly affected how you use your character.
Half recharge or cast time affects your rotation, but doesn’t mean you’re much stronger, since you are constrained by your Energy – even if you can use skills faster, you simply run out of Energy faster.
Furthermore, apart from stances, shouts and a few skills, you can’t really use multiple skills at the same time.

In GW2 they reduced the number of resources per skill from 2 (energy & recharge) to 1 (energy OR recharge).

Furthermore, the various procs you have access to in GW2 are:
- powerful
- are completely free – there is no drawback or compromise, you simply get a bonus that adds to whatever you’re doing
- do not make gameplay any more interesting, as nothing in the way you use skills changes because the proc activated

So I might be saying it wrong when I say GW1 had less randomness.
GW1 had better randomness.

Do we have a recharge or cast time reduction proc in GW2? I am not entirely sure I saw any which weren’t traits . . . or Quickness.

The extra effects on most of the upgrades are not the same in either game, so I find it hard to compare straight across whether one is ‘better design’ than the other. They both fill different gaps. I will say I find many more of the Sigils and Runes less useful to me and don’t sweat which ones I use.

As opposed to GW1 where I went out of my way for that +30 Fortitude bow grip, that Zealous dagger haft, or that Inscription of “Hail to the King” . . . the Minion Master Insignia for my necro heroes . . .

GW2? “Meh, Superior Sigil of Life? Sure, it’ll do.”

Edit: Wow, you edited your post as I replied. Striking the old quote. New stuff below.

= = = = =

GW1 didn’t have “better” randomness, it was tighter in range so it feels due to numbers being smaller (the benefit of being constrained to a range like 15-28 on a weapon and no higher). Its random loot generation was as bad as what we have going on now, especially in the field of Ecto, Obsidian, and Gemstones. The “random match” mechanic was often a joke and could be gamed to a point, and WAS often “sync’d” to stack friends onto a randomly selected team.

Random was an aggravation and a problem before, and it still is.

Teofa Tsavo.9863:

I’d like to like him. Honestly. When he isn’t defending GW2 he makes some nice points on other topics.

I agree.

The same applies to Guild Wars 2. There are haters who want the game to fail and come to the forum just to try to circlejerk the game as much as possible; but those are rare now (we had a lot a couple months after release, though). I think most of those making criticism about the game in this topic actually want the game to succeed, and so are trying to provide constructive feedback.

I’m very critic about GW2 – in my review, I think I have found flaws in almost every single aspect of the game. This doesn’t mean that the ideas behind those aspects were not great. The concept behind GW2’s combat system is brilliant; the concept behind Dynamic Events is incredible, when you think about it. And the ideas stated in the Manifesto are great, too. It’s a matter of execution, but there is a lot to like behind GW2.

Same with Vayne’s posts. It’s annoying when he refuses to even consider constructive criticism, sure. But he also helps to deal with the occasional player of classic MMOs who comes here asking for ArenaNet to overhaul their systems and replace them with standard MMORPG stuff (quests, the Holy Trinity, raids, mounts, etc).

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Show Spoiler

hide spoiler

Do we have a recharge or cast time reduction proc in GW2? I am not entirely sure I saw any which weren’t traits . . . or Quickness.

The extra effects on most of the upgrades are not the same in either game, so I find it hard to compare straight across whether one is ‘better design’ than the other. They both fill different gaps. I will say I find many more of the Sigils and Runes less useful to me and don’t sweat which ones I use.

As opposed to GW1 where I went out of my way for that +30 Fortitude bow grip, that Zealous dagger haft, or that Inscription of “Hail to the King” . . . the Minion Master Insignia for my necro heroes . . .

GW2? “Meh, Superior Sigil of Life? Sure, it’ll do.”

Edit: Wow, you edited your post as I replied. Striking the old quote. New stuff below.

= = = = =

GW1 didn’t have “better” randomness, it was tighter in range so it feels due to numbers being smaller (the benefit of being constrained to a range like 15-28 on a weapon and no higher). Its random loot generation was as bad as what we have going on now, especially in the field of Ecto, Obsidian, and Gemstones. The “random match” mechanic was often a joke and could be gamed to a point, and WAS often “sync’d” to stack friends onto a randomly selected team.

Random was an aggravation and a problem before, and it still is.

They are perfectly comparible, in that they have a completely different mentality behind them.

GW2 procs focus on numerical superiority – pure damage, healing, stat increases, etc.
GW1 procs focused mostly on gameplay opportunities – stuff that makes you use your character differently.

GW2 pretty much simplified everything interesting from GW1 into numbers.

Nurvus.2891:

They are perfectly comparible, in that they have a completely different mentality behind them.

GW2 procs focus on numerical superiority – pure damage, healing, stat increases, etc.
GW1 procs focused mostly on gameplay opportunities – stuff that makes you use your character differently.

GW2 pretty much simplified everything interesting from GW1 into numbers.

. . . you sure about that?

Most Insignia were about numbers. Especially for situation-based defense such as “+Armor vs Fire/Slashing/etc”. Most weapon grips/hilts were about numbers, while the blades/strings were about elemental type damage (or increase of condition time). Most Inscriptions were not terribly reliable due to the random chance.

Also, I dunno about you, but I found more often people wanted “spike” builds (fast massive damage) over condition builds when going into PvP. So using things which had a random chance of going off over a guaranteed bonus wasn’t often asked for.

. . . oh, and there was almost never a point I found in the game where any of those bonuses were actually integral to me staying alive versus failing

Well, my final thoughts. I want this game to Succeed. My positive experiences with ANET far outweigh any negative. I post because I believe that they do read, they do listen, and things do happen, maybe not my preferred direction, but, they do read. When periscopes where pwning noob players left and right, several of us posted that, a number of times. Those of us that did got the usual.. go back to wow, working as intended, stop whining, just deal with it, etc. And ANET just quietly fixed the scopes, having seen the issue themselves.. or by reading player input. That is the crux for me, not what other players think on topics.. but what ANET thinks. What they do will probably not reflect the positions of the complainers… or that of the white knights, but instead something thought out from both aspects. When I judged horse shows, certain events were judged by 5 of us.. and the low and high scores tossed out, leaving the middle 3. I am pretty sure that ANET does the same. I doubt the “rubber stamp everything” crowd is listened to any more than the “I hate everything” crowd.

Its actually a pretty enviable position.. the majority of people that post are not asking for more WoW, more Rift, more EQ or whatever in this.. they ask for more from another ANET game. All of us doing the GW1 vs GW2 are arguing ANET vs ANET, not a competitor.

Games evolve, companies evolve, changes come, it isn’t the exact same ANET that made GW1, but, I continue to hope that they will drag a bit of it here Much of GW1 won’t ever fit in GW2, but I think eventually we will see a bit more. Who knows.

Its a pendulum trying to find balance. Even GW1, Proph was one game, Factions was another, and tried to change aspects of Proph, leveling speed, 2nd profession and max armor available earlier, cash gain, etc. Probably went too far, and NF throttled some of that back and left some alone. People who didn’t like proph had factions.. or NF.. 3 different standalone campaigns.. and then EoTN.

There are a lot who will say, Oh, I loved GW1. But NF/Factions, oh, it was terrible.. GW2 doesn’t have that luxury yet.. it is all one style of content. In time, I think it will add more of some of the things GW1 fans are missing, changed.. but more of the style of it.

As much as I complain, I still have faith. Far from giving up on this game, (although I think forum goers would have a little party if I did)

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Nurvus.2891:

They are perfectly comparible, in that they have a completely different mentality behind them.

GW2 procs focus on numerical superiority – pure damage, healing, stat increases, etc.
GW1 procs focused mostly on gameplay opportunities – stuff that makes you use your character differently.

GW2 pretty much simplified everything interesting from GW1 into numbers.

. . . you sure about that?

Most Insignia were about numbers. Especially for situation-based defense such as “+Armor vs Fire/Slashing/etc”. Most weapon grips/hilts were about numbers, while the blades/strings were about elemental type damage (or increase of condition time). Most Inscriptions were not terribly reliable due to the random chance.

Also, I dunno about you, but I found more often people wanted “spike” builds (fast massive damage) over condition builds when going into PvP. So using things which had a random chance of going off over a guaranteed bonus wasn’t often asked for.

. . . oh, and there was almost never a point I found in the game where any of those bonuses were actually integral to me staying alive versus failing

Insignia is the equivalent to Prefixes in GW2, like “Knight” and “Berserker”, so I’m not sure why you brought them up, as I was talking about procs.
Procs you found mostly in weapons.

But even if we talk about Insignia, in GW1 you had a few interesting ones such as “+armor while attacking” or “+armor if you have X spirits/minions active” – that affects gameplay.

GW2 has a few such effects, such as damage +X% against burning targets, but they are mostly found in Runes and are few and far apart.

Let’s see a small synopsis of interesting effects:
- bonus while attacking -> this requires certain skills to be categorized as attacks, as there is no “auto-attack”.
- bonus for X seconds after using a specific type of skill (like Signet)
- bonus while above X% health
- bonus while below X% health
- bonus against targets under a/per condition
- bonus while under a/per condition
- bonus while under a/per boon
- chance to halve recharge time/initiative cost for type of skill
- chance to halve cast time (double speed) for certain type of skill

Certain chance-based mechanics could easily be handled with stacks instead or as well.
“instead” would mean certain actions stack, and certain number of stacks grants next skill an effect.
“as well” would mean everytime the effect does not proc, chance increases, until it procs and resets chances.

Let me put this in a different way.
In GW1, do you remember weapon prefixes/suffixes that simply said “+X% damage”?
There weren’t any.
You know why?
Because ANet wanted all bonuses to be somewhat interesting and/or counterable.

Flat damage isn’t really very counterable, so all bonuses to damage were: while under a certain effect, whle target is under a certain effect, if you are above/below a certain health, etc.

Armor, on the other hand, is counterable, as there were plenty of ways to ignore armor, such as with hexes.
There was also elemental bonuses to armor, so you had to choose like between:
50 armor
40 armor and +20 armor vs elemental
40 armor and +20 armor vs physical

In short, you had plenty of interesting choices in GW1.
There are barely any choices in GW2, since your choice of Traits automatically affects your choice of Gear and Runes – and there is little freedom in that.

I agree with everything OP says.

I have to add something, regarding the heated discussion about what ANet really meant when they said “Grind” in the manifesto.

Throughout the whole Manifesto, ANet talks about mechanics you see in popular games.
I’ll cut to the chase and say they talk about WoW – not just WoW, but specially WoW, as it is/was the most popular MMO, and as such arguably the biggest source of potential players.
Afterall they want to offer something players aren’t used to.
What are the things players are used to? Those available in the most popular games – like WoW.
From the non-dynamic world, to the repetitive tasks, to the way you obtain gear.

But WoW isn’t a grind while leveling.
There are plenty of quests, and PLENTY of interesting quests – over 50% – and those that aren’t interesting are just as good as Renown Hearts – wich by the way are conventional quests in disguise.

WoW also has alot more Dungeons while leveling than GW2.
PvP is also available and encouraged in a more seamless way than in GW2.

So it makes absolutely NO sense that ANet would be referring to the process of leveling when they said “boring grind to get to the fun stuff”.

If I have to think about “boring grind to get to the fun stuff”, dungeons come to mind, and their “boring trash to get to the fun stuff” – bosses.

I could also mention all the meaningless monsters scattered about the world that just stand there, positioned just close enough to aggro you wherever you go – except there’s nothing interesting beyond the danger.
The amount of pointless grind and killing you go through in GW2, as well as the complete meaninglessness of your character – wich was supposed to be a hero – is clear as shallow water.

The last 30 levels in GW2 feel like a huge grind EVEN if – or maybe precicely because – you are constantly alternating between RH, DE, Dungeons – this constant rotation itself feels like a grind.

The only thing that doesn’t feel like a grind in GW2 – imo – are the jumping puzzles. Exploration, essentially.
Even gathering and crafting feels like a grind.

And when you add Magic Find and experience/mf boosts to the equation, it doesn’t take a genious to understand that ANet is FOCUSED/DEPEDING on grind.

Pretty much every single mechanic they added in the game, that is in any way associated with loot, promotes heavy grinding.
Think about it a little.

The last 30 levels of the game are also when Lion’s Arch gets invaded and you fight undead every time, all the time. Trahearne also basically becomes the hero, although I didn’t notice or care the first time through.. after running that part of the story a few times, though, I definitely got bored with Hearny Hearn Hearn.

Personally, I’ve killed endless hordes of mindless ‘WANT BRAINS’ undead in so many games that the concept has lost all interest for me. Also, GW2’s Orrian undead are almost all of the ‘fleshy’ variety.. but really, overall, undead, they’re dumb, they’re dead but not really, blah blah blah

It was weird too to go from the highly detailed, colorful zones throughout most of the game to the drab underwater-ish Orr zones. And somehow, the combat with the Orrians has never felt fun to me, whereas it does with some other monster types.. I’m not sure why.. it could be the ’I’ve killed 80000000000 undead in 8000000 other games already’ thing again. Or maybe they’re just really annoying, from their zombie vocals to their endless pull/cripple combat style (see also krait).

I dare say any game will feel grindy if you play it enough, though, unless the developers are somehow fast enough to make content as quickly as you run through it. Real life often has this issue as well

Smith.1826:

Vayne.8563:

Okay…I agree…and I disagree.

The problem with permanent content from other games I’ve played is how much they divide the player base. Just about every other game has instances that never or almost never get played. They sit there.

Some new guy comes in, he wants to do the instance and he can’t. Why? Because no one wants to do it.

This would depend on the content. If you’re talking about raids and instances made ‘moot’ through an MMO’s expansions, that’s just the developers flat-out neglecting them to encourage players to buy the ‘newest and coolest’ content. This is a poor way to go about it.

A great way to go about it? Sorrow’s Furnace from GW1. That content is still there, still relevant, and still fun. They could also apply the scaling you see from events apply to the content they could create, if player numbers should become an issue.

And it’s not about just making the temporary content permanent, it’s about making permanent content: focusing more on stable pieces of game, less on quality>quantity content.

Guild Wars 1 had heroes. Guild Wars 2 does not and that changes the equation complete. I could solo Sorrow’s Furnace. I couldn’t solo MF. More to the point, I couldn’t solo Sanctum Sprint or Crab Toss either…and that’s all content that people want left in the game too.

How many mini games can a game support?

Teofa Tsavo.9863:

Xenon.4537:

Erasculio.2914:

I think everyone who has read your posts realizes you have a very strong agenda of trying to make up as many excuses to defend ArenaNet as possible (with the little token criticism here and there to save face). That’s probably why so many ignore the way you try to defend the Manifesto – your arguments are biased due to your own agenda.

How is his argument biased or based on an agenda? He’s stating his opinions same as you. It’s unfortunate that people feel the need to gang up on him due to his frequent posting. I’ve read nothing but calm, collected, thoughtful posts from him, and all I see him get is bile in return. Turning the discussion from it’s topic to an attack on his credibility is a sign of a weak argument.

I think this thread should be closed because it doesn’t seem to be about discussing how to interpret the manifesto anymore, so much as attacking people who don’t share a preconceived interpretation.

I suggest you read his post history a bit better. Far too many gems of

I know more than you
I’m better educated than you
I comprehend more than you
I understand more than you
I know what the devs meant, more than you
I have a better understanding of MMOs than you

On and on. He claims to take that tone because of frustration about being “attacked” but, doing what he does just generates more aggro. He is indeed taking heat, like a tank doing taunts.

Its pretty much I’m right, you are wrong, and here is why [ insert commentary on education, comprehension, knowledge, etc]

And its funny you mentioned credibility attacks.. its a staple in his posts. You don’t make friends by basically saying “I’m right, because you are too dumb to be right”

Maybe you should read the post history of those who attack me,. before you jump to conclusions. I’ve been attacked far more directly than I’ve ever attacked anyone. People use terms like fan boi and white knight to discredit me, and that’s perfectly okay. When you get marginalized for a while, you learn to defend yourself, and that’s all I’m doing.

Someone says I can’t possibly be right because I’m a fan boi and I’m blind. So I say well yeah, but I’m educated too. Not necessarily more educated than that person but my editing experience makes me qualified to interpret English and the English is this case really can’t be questions…unless you’re being completely disingenuous.

You simply don’t agree with me, so you want to pick on my behavior…but you’re not taking into account the behavior against me that makes it necessary. This shows your bias.

If I intepret something the only way in can be interpreted in English (and I’ve gone back to several editors on this now to double check the meaning), and someone else says, no that’s not what it means…I’ll stick the the editor’s view of the definition.

People have an agenda. They want to discredit the manifesto. Part of it is because I defend it. Standing on it’s own the manifesto has some confusing areas which Anet did clarify (and I wish to hell they’re repost that clarification) and a couple of lines, taken out of context where people decided to super-impose their own definition of what Colin is saying. There is zero information in that paragraph to lead to anyone interpreting the word grind as gear grind or farming. Not one thing except the word grind itself. The beginning and end of the paragraph belie what people are saying. They simply don’t care.

If you cared about the truth, you’d stop with the personal attacks, and you’d discuss the text. But people are so interested in baiting me, they’ve even called in Vain baiting on the forums, in threads which have gotten deleted. There are several of them.

Maybe you don’t know as much about the history of these forums as you think you do,. and maybe you should stop judging people without knowing the full story.

Gehenna.3625:

Vayne.8563:

I don’t edit posts, sorry, and anyone who points out unedited posts is being silly. This isn’t a college thesis, I’m making a simple point. Pointing out my quote not being exact is completely irrelevant to the point I was making and the inaccuracy in no way affects that point. It’s just a red herring.

You feel the need to tell people you’re an educator. I am not asking you to edit. I am just pointing out that you damaged your own credibility by bringing it up in the first place and then making such a mistake.

Vayne.8563:

It’s a fact that most people don’t know that wherefore means why and most people misinterpret that bit of literature.

Only present things as facts if you have empirical data. Without that it’s an assumption, no matter how likely it seems.

Vayne.8563:

It’s also a fact that when something is defined in a document, the further uses of that word, particularly immediately after, retain that definition. There’s no reason in the world to suppose that in the beginning of the paragraph Colin meant one thing by grind and by the end of the paragraph he’d suddenly changed his definition of grind. That so many people mistook it is not an issue. Lots of people mistake lots of things…it doesn’t make them right.

As I said before, there was a context that not everybody is aware of. For years, during GW1, they talked to us. And interestingly enough Anet did a complete turn-around just after that manifesto has come out. Not many people of the original GW team are left now. To me that’s no coincidence. But yeah, out of context the manifesto is just a piece of marketing open for interpretation, specifically as the definition of grind is rather dependent on the person. But marketing uses tactics to make people believe it means something, by implying things without actually saying it. That creates deniability for them. But it’s not very honest. It’s very common, but not very honest in my opinion.

Vayne.8563:

And no, I won’t start editing posts. Once you edit for a living for a few years, you’ll learn to care a whole lot less about how well edited your IMs or forum posts are.

Again, I never asked you to edit your post. An assumption on your part. And really who cares what you’ve done for a living? You can make up your career as you please on a forum. It adds no credibility, it only detracts from your main point and if your point is so important, why don’t you focus on that?

You think it’s annoying that I focused on something that wasn’t your main point? Well, guess what? Here’s a mirror, you just did the same.

What I do for a living is directly relevant to me speaking English. People try to discredit me with being a “mindless” fan boi, or saying I’m completely blind. My defense is that I have complained about things in this game, and I’ve supported others who did when I agree. Since that defense hasn’t held traction, I speak that I have specific experience in this area. You don’t have to believe that I have that experience and frankly I could care less. It’s true. You can call me a liar if you want, and that would be fine…because it’s no more true than calling me blind or mindless.

So if my profession supports my expertise in an area (and no one who reads this without having deeply held feelings about what grind means in the first place) could possibly say it means anything other than what I’m saying or at the very last, can’t possibly justify it talking about gear grind. That’s just ludicrous. Nothing in the entire paragraph supports that. It’s just people who want to take a line out of context, use their previously existing definition of grind (in spite of the fact that we have one already provided) and then try to make it sound like it means something other than it means.

Maybe if people would stop using words like blind and mindless, or even fan boi or white knight to try to discredit me, then I wouldn’t have to return the favor.

Teofa Tsavo.9863:

I’d like to like him. Honestly. When he isn’t defending GW2 he makes some nice points on other topics.

I never report him either. However, I’m feeling that tingle of incoming infractions.

You’d be surprised at how many people on this forum like me and send me PMs in support. I receive 5-10 PMs a month from people who agree with/support me, many of whom are lurkers and don’t post. I also have a group of about ten friends on the forum who support me and roughly an equal number of detractors.

I don’t just blindly defend Anet. Would you like me to point out threads where I’ve complained? I disagree with the intepretation of the manifesto from a purely English basis. This bringing up a two year old video (when there’s been a ton of new info since then) is simply rubbish. It doesn’t help the game at all. It’s not constructive…and it’s not correct.

People can bring it up till the cows come home and I’ll say my piece about it, because I believe they’re wrong. If you think me defending Anet on this issue makes me a fan boi or a white knight, you’d be wrong. This issue is the kind of issue I’ll argue about on ANY forum on ANY topic. It’s about people who want to say something means something without any real evidence of it.

Erasculio.2914:

Teofa Tsavo.9863:

I’d like to like him. Honestly. When he isn’t defending GW2 he makes some nice points on other topics.

I agree.

The same applies to Guild Wars 2. There are haters who want the game to fail and come to the forum just to try to circlejerk the game as much as possible; but those are rare now (we had a lot a couple months after release, though). I think most of those making criticism about the game in this topic actually want the game to succeed, and so are trying to provide constructive feedback.

I’m very critic about GW2 – in my review, I think I have found flaws in almost every single aspect of the game. This doesn’t mean that the ideas behind those aspects were not great. The concept behind GW2’s combat system is brilliant; the concept behind Dynamic Events is incredible, when you think about it. And the ideas stated in the Manifesto are great, too. It’s a matter of execution, but there is a lot to like behind GW2.

Same with Vayne’s posts. It’s annoying when he refuses to even consider constructive criticism, sure. But he also helps to deal with the occasional player of classic MMOs who comes here asking for ArenaNet to overhaul their systems and replace them with standard MMORPG stuff (quests, the Holy Trinity, raids, mounts, etc).

So how do you account for the fact that I’ve come out strongly against RNG cash boxes, I’ve said that telling the story of destiny’s Edge through dungeons was bad design and doesn’t work, that I’ve complained about having a personal storyline you could solo and suddenly switching it to a five man dungeon at the very last step of the storyline, that I’ve complained about having to go into WvW for world completion (particularly for people on really bad WvW servers), I’ve complained about the way minigames are designed to allow people to cheat, I’ve complained about RNG for precusors (even though I got one myself), I’ve complained about certain dungeon mechanics….why do all those not count, I wonder?

I agree especially with the part about being a “hero”. The events happen so often, and are so farmed, that accomplishing one really has no rewarding feel. The same goes with fighting veterans or champions. My brother and I can 2 man a champion….and we get almost nothing for the effort, the most rewarding part is simply that we were able to do it.

unseenone.1463:

I agree especially with the part about being a “hero”. The events happen so often, and are so farmed, that accomplishing one really has no rewarding feel. The same goes with fighting veterans or champions. My brother and I can 2 man a champion….and we get almost nothing for the effort, the most rewarding part is simply that we were able to do it.

The rewards in the game require a serious rework and have for some time. Anet is aware of this and they’re going to rework those rewards.

But there’s also a danger here. Much like the meta event rewards, which guaranteed a gold….once those rewards came online, meta events were more or less destroyed. Getting a bigger reward for them didn’t make me feel more heroic. All it did was trivialize most metas.

I’m not sure I have a solution to the problem but just upping the rewards so everyone does champs suddenly isn’t going to accomplish that kind of feeling.

Vayne.8563:

If I intepret something the only way in can be interpreted in English (and I’ve gone back to several editors on this now to double check the meaning), and someone else says, no that’s not what it means…I’ll stick the the editor’s view of the definition.

There’s an assumption in that logic. That is, that the speaker, since this quote was from a video transcript, was using correct English. If you listen to any of the ANet video interviews, it quickly becomes apparent that ANet staff are not professional communicators. Maybe the grind references are as you say, or maybe the speaker was not being perfectly clear. Only one person knows the intent, and that person isn’t telling.

IndigoSundown.5419:

Vayne.8563:

If I intepret something the only way in can be interpreted in English (and I’ve gone back to several editors on this now to double check the meaning), and someone else says, no that’s not what it means…I’ll stick the the editor’s view of the definition.

There’s an assumption in that logic. That is, that the speaker, since this quote was from a video transcript, was using correct English. If you listen to any of the ANet video interviews, it quickly becomes apparent that ANet staff are not professional communicators. Maybe the grind references are as you say, or maybe the speaker was not being perfectly clear. Only one person knows the intent, and that person isn’t telling.

It’s true that standing alone, this would mean what it mean, but it was discussed several times by devs after the manifesto shipped. Colin used the Shadow Behemoth as a direct example of what he was talking about. So he did say. I’m simply saying he said.

Edit: I’m also saying the entire topic is completely irrelevant if people can’t agree on the definitions of what was meant. Apparently the English isn’t good enough, so we have to theorize, except so much of this stuff was discussed at the time…when the manifesto was new. It wasn’t just discussed a little, it was discussed to death. And everyone sort of knew what was meant then.

Now, in retrospect, people bring it up and try to say that Anet has changed direction…and whether that’s true or not, nothing in the manifesto is proof of that. If you want to say the game started off one way and changed, you don’t need to quote and misinterpret the manifesto.

WoW and the clones spawned in it’s image has conditioned the average MMO player to do two things. Rush to max level and repeat mindless raids where they are merely a cog in a battle plan just so they have a chance to get a piece of their penultimate item set. At least until the next expansion when the first critter you slain gives you an item that outclasses that item you raided 100 hours for.

That’s the nature of MMOs now a days. “What’s the best class/build to max out the fastest?” “Where do I go to get the best armor and weapons?” “I’m max level, where’s the end content?”

Vayne.8563:

Guild Wars 1 had heroes. Guild Wars 2 does not and that changes the equation complete. I could solo Sorrow’s Furnace. I couldn’t solo MF.

That’s why I mentioned scaling, not in relation to scaling the players’ level, but the size and difficulty of events based on the amount of players. It’s very feasible to see this apply to dungeons as well.

The one thing that could be tricky would be allocating rewards based on that playersize, but I’m sure something could be arranged. Personally, I don’t care what would drop as like as it’s fun and challenging to play.

Vayne.8563:

More to the point, I couldn’t solo Sanctum Sprint or Crab Toss either…and that’s all content that people want left in the game too.

How many mini games can a game support?

Like I said, it’s not about just making all the temporary content we’ve had suddenly become permanent – maybe I was vague, but I don’t recall specifically supporting that – it’s about encouraging emphasis on developing content that can remain permanent.

Smith.1826:

Vayne.8563:

Guild Wars 1 had heroes. Guild Wars 2 does not and that changes the equation complete. I could solo Sorrow’s Furnace. I couldn’t solo MF.

That’s why I mentioned scaling, not in relation to scaling the players’ level, but the size and difficulty of events based on the amount of players. It’s very feasible to see this apply to dungeons as well.

The one thing that could be tricky would be allocating rewards based on that playersize, but I’m sure something could be arranged. Personally, I don’t care what would drop as like as it’s fun and challenging to play.

Vayne.8563:

More to the point, I couldn’t solo Sanctum Sprint or Crab Toss either…and that’s all content that people want left in the game too.

How many mini games can a game support?

Like I said, it’s not about just making all the temporary content we’ve had suddenly become permanent – maybe I was vague, but I don’t recall specifically supporting that – it’s about encouraging emphasis on developing content that can remain permanent.

Which Colin said they’d be doing more and more of in the future. I still think leaving too much permanent content behind that’s not soloable will be a problem.

Vayne.8563:

Which Colin said they’d be doing more and more of in the future. I still think leaving too much permanent content behind that’s not soloable will be a problem.

Yeup, I noted that in my second post here, I was happy to hear it. In regards to the second sentence, we already have systems in place that can make content soloable. Again: Scaling.

Nurvus.2891:

In short, you had plenty of interesting choices in GW1.
There are barely any choices in GW2, since your choice of Traits automatically affects your choice of Gear and Runes – and there is little freedom in that.

I still think there weren’t that many interesting choices in GW1 for gear upgrades, and don’t thing “your choice of Traits automatically affects gear and Runes”.

The big customization in GW1 had to do with Attributes and Skills, which we don’t have now. Because as much as I liked being able to make some amazing builds with 50+ skills at my fingertips and the sub-classes you could arrange to have broadening it . . . the complexity was really overwhelming and in some cases didn’t offer much. At least, to me; I know some people spent a lot of time developing certain build types which could roll everything in the game and never break a sweat. For me, I was highly limited by being R/X.

Customization in GW2 isn’t in your skill bar, it’s in your Traits and gear Prefix/Rune choices. Some of which are not useful in the least, much like in GW1. (You will have to convince me Frenzy in GW1 wasn’t a trap to put on the bar after you got something else for IAS, or that a lot of the Elite Skills didn’t measure up.)

I don’t know how else to put this but . . . I don’t think complexity is automatically a sign a game is better. I don’t think a simplified set of Runes shows a game is worse. I think a lack of reason not to go full Berserker gear is far worse . . . but that’s just me.

Obsidian.1328:

snip..

It is not really that simple because things are always relative.

take high skill customization of player characters as an example. Thats just an implementation of a game concept which is flexible characters. Gw2 doesnt have high skill customization sure but has flexible characters none the less, its just the design to achieve that which is different. In gw1 the flexibility was achieved by having a ton of specialized skills you could choose from. In gw2 its achieved by giving players generic skills that can be used to mimic what gw1 specific skills could do. Let me explain
Take mark of blood on the necro staff for example. If we break it down to its unique components that one skills does DOT on mobs and regen on you / allies. That one skills can mimic the effects of the following gw1 necro skills: Barbed Signet, Rip Enchantement, Signet of Suffering, Ulcerous lungs, Blood bond, Blood drinker, Blood renewal, Blood of the agressor, blood of the master, Consume Corpse, Feast of the Dead, Feast of corruption, Foul feast, Grenth’s balance, Hexen’s vigor, Insidious Parasite, Life siphone, Life transfer, Lifebane strike, Mark of subversion, Order of the vampire, Parasitic bond, Revenous gaze… possibly others..

Now not get me wrong these skills dont map exactly 1 is to 1. not saying they do just that at the core they have the same effect. For example. life siphone transfers health from mob to you. Mark of blood doesnt really transfer any health but inflicts bleeding on a mob and regen on you if used right. Same effect using different mechanic.

So does that mean gw2 satisfies gw1 customization? that depends on what people loved exactly in gw1. For some like myself it was the flexibility. That I could spec my necro in anyway I felt like, support, dps, tank whatever I wished. Gw2 gives me not just that freedom but I dont have to make the compromises I had to do in Gw1, I am not limited to 8 highly specialized skills, now one skill given as example above gives me the flexiblity to perform what in gw1 required 10s of skills to equal. So for me gw2 is actually an improvement in that regard. For others though what they loved out of that is building their deck, finding a combination of skills that were more then the sum of their parts. Gw2 doesnt have that complexity, not even close and for those people this aspect was definitely not taken into gw2. So really you can argue either way!

Most other stuff you list are entirely subjective..

• well-implemented, reasonably balanced, and competitive PvP component
• engaging and well-written lore and personal story
• visually well-designed world
• strong guild(and alliance) component
• friendly and strong community
• friendly and strong player-developer relationship
• little to no leveling grind
• cash shop was reasonable and cosmetic
• boxprice was affordable, no monthly fee
• farming was fairly profitable

Personal story, I think I like gw1 better personally true but side quests… gw2’s dynamic events win hands down both in terms of quality but also in terms of story writing.

Well designed world? think so yes..

strong guild / alliance? nope this most definitely needs more work

strong community? yep definitely better then gw1

level grind? on par with gw1 i would say. they both are negligable compared to the alternatives.

cash shop? fine with me, I dont like rng boxes but since they allow you to earn the same rewards by just playing the game I am totally fine with that.

farming profitable? well you earn more then you spend so its most definitely profitable now in line with what is meant here is how much profitable does it have to be before it satisfies this? Thats subjective. I dont spend much in the game so for me personally its fine.

Smith.1826:

Vayne.8563:

Yep that line is the only line in the manifesto I’d question…everything you love about Guild Wars 1. Everything WHO loves? It’s obviously marketing. But of course, some people took it as gospel…in spite of the fact they knew not only that the skill system was different but how it was different.

And though Guild Wars 2 lacks some of Guild Wars 1’s freedom, Guild Wars 1 lacks some of Guild Wars 2’s freedom. Which freedom you crave depends on what’s important to you.

I absolutely hated the pathing in Guild Wars 1. How you couldn’t really wander off road. How my ranger couldn’t jump over a log. Guild Wars 1 is a pretty linear experience, compared to Guild Wars 2 at any rate.

I just don’t really see how temporary content can be supported. Are there players out there who genuinely enjoy the availability? More importantly, why? And is their ‘enjoyment’ from that more important than that of new and returning players?

This artificial sense of urgency is very shaky. Maybe there’s hope with their talk of wanting to add more permanent content, but until we get more details and see what other content that make concrete, right now is a very concerning route.

it depends on the player really. The positive thing about temporary content is it provides story flow. Take the bazaar for example. That it came and then its gone it gives a sense that these are really traveling nomads, its reinforces their lore. They’re forced to occasionally come to land and trade to meet necessities they cant sustain alone. If they come and never leave, that type or realism is totally lost. Same with flame and frost. If the Motlen Alliance remained around you’d loose that sense of we won. What kind of a victory would it feel if they’re just still there.

As for a sense of urgency or what returning players get… The sense of urgency is a personal thing. If I cant play this update what will I miss exactly? I loose my chance at the helm and back piece + 2 minis and I’ll miss the start of how evon or kiel will evolve once one of them is elected. Its a loss sure but is it a big deal? I can catch up to see what led to kiel or evon being on the council and see what started whatever ramifications we might get down the line because of this. Though I will not be able to get those rewards there will be new ones I can work towards. And this is if you cant play at all during this month. for most people missing out would be I only had enough time to get 1 mini not both etc… Not ideal but why is it the end of the world? Its people who are creating these pressures not the game. Its this feeling I have to get all the rewards.

Thing is the game is stuck between fire and ice. This pressure issue isnt coming from temporary content, if content were permanent I think it would actually be worst I will discuss this later. The problem is coming from us being given too much content and too much rewards and a human desire to have it all. If things where permanent and person X didnt have time to complete everything in 2 weeks will not magically start being able to do everything in 2 weeks just cause everything is left permanently in game. So if say mr X needs 3 weeks to get all the rewards. by the 2nd update he would have 1 week left to get all that the 2nd update provides having spend the 1st week finishing of the first update. That means mr X will now need all the time allocated for the 3rd update to finish off the 2nd update with no time left to even touch the 3rd update at all. That means by the time the 24th update release (that would be a year worth of living story) Mr x would still be working on the 8th update. Wouldnt that be a lot more pressure then what Mr x has now? isnt it better to play and enjoy the update and miss out on a few rewards then suddenly finding yourself with 16 updates you need to catch up to after just 1 year?

I think if the next update has less instanced minigames and less achievements related to them, it’ll turn out better. Also, look forward to the rotation of them starting later IF I can still get achievements for it.

Galen Grey.4709:

it depends on the player really. The positive thing about temporary content is it provides story flow. Take the bazaar for example. That it came and then its gone it gives a sense that these are really traveling nomads, its reinforces their lore. They’re forced to occasionally come to land and trade to meet necessities they cant sustain alone. If they come and never leave, that type or realism is totally lost. Same with flame and frost. If the Motlen Alliance remained around you’d loose that sense of we won. What kind of a victory would it feel if they’re just still there.

Firstly, have you read my latest posts? Some of what you’re saying seems like you feel as if I want to make all the temporary content we’ve had remain permanent, and my newer posts have been reaffirming that that isn’t the case.

Regarding the delivery of a ‘living world’, I understand what they’re trying to do with it, and I think it’s great that you enjoy it. But would you be willing to suspend your disbelief (perhaps even further, given the rest of the game) if it meant more content for more playstyles?

Galen Grey.4709:

As for a sense of urgency or what returning players get… The sense of urgency is a personal thing…

I wouldn’t say so, given that temporary content literally ceases to exist after a few weeks. I can’t blame people for wanting to experience the content as soon and as much as possible, because they won’t get another chance.

Galen Grey.4709:

Wouldnt that be a lot more pressure then what Mr x has now? isnt it better to play and enjoy the update and miss out on a few rewards then suddenly finding yourself with 16 updates you need to catch up to after just 1 year?

If we’re talking about a player who is only concerned with rewards, then yeah, that would suck, and he’d have a huge road ahead of him. At least he’d still be able to progress towards them all.

But I’ve not been talking about the kind of player who worries only about loot, I’ve been talking about players who just want to enjoy the game (and plus, what fun are rewards if the game isn’t fun?).

The ‘lesser’ issue I have with the temp. content is that it only applies to active players, not to players ‘seeing what’s new’ after they’ve been gone quite awhile – and certainly not to players who are just now picking up the game. Imagine how much bang they’d get for their buck if ANet instead put an emphasis on permanent gameplay.

The bigger issue I have with temp. content goes back to when I first posted in this thread: The player has a lot less freedom in when and how they want to play. Similar to how far you could fall behind in sub-based game if you weren’t active, you’ll simply miss-out on content in GW2 if you aren’t active.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Customization in GW2 isn’t in your skill bar, it’s in your Traits and gear Prefix/Rune choices. Some of which are not useful in the least, much like in GW1. (You will have to convince me Frenzy in GW1 wasn’t a trap to put on the bar after you got something else for IAS, or that a lot of the Elite Skills didn’t measure up.)

I don’t know how else to put this but . . . I don’t think complexity is automatically a sign a game is better. I don’t think a simplified set of Runes shows a game is worse. I think a lack of reason not to go full Berserker gear is far worse . . . but that’s just me.

I think you are putting too much into one bag.

In GW2, the way in wich Weapon Skills, Traits and Gear combine, make it so that for every weapon, there are a few – few – meaningful builds.
So, instead of weapons broadening your choices, they actually narrow them down.

Furthermore, GW1 didn’t really have much complexity.
To me, it had depth.

It wasn’t the builds that could kill everything that made the game fun for me.
It wasn’t the “OP” stuff.

It was everything else.
So many ways to combine skills in a way that actually works and is effective – such doesn’t really happen in GW2, since you grab that “20% reduced cooldown on shouts” and suddenly you are encouraged to use shouts above other types of skills.
Most bonuses in GW2 seem to pigeonhole you into specific builds.

So they really changed their philosophy – what they understand by customizability, fun, challenge, and specially what they understand by progression.

All this talk about “Even though the devs said this one thing in the manifesto, they actually meant this other thing! So ignore what they said and what it sounds like they meant- just believe what I’m telling you it meant!” reminded me of a rather popular story about the author Isaac Asimov.

Isaac Asimov was at NYU visiting a friend one day when he chanced upon a
lecture hall in which a graduate student was offering a master’s
discussion of Foundation.

Isaac slipped into the back of the hall and listened. At the end of the
lecture he moved to the front of the hall and told the young man, “I
believe you have a couple of things wrong.”

The kid looks at Isaac and asks, “And you are?”

“I’m Isaac Asimov,” the author of the piece under discussion replied.

The kid turns away saying, “You’re the last person qualified to give
commentary upon your work, Mr. Asimov. Good day.”

ArenaNet Idea:
the world appears to be living because there is changing content within the confines of the world.

Limitation
the areas affected are rather limited and the change to the area itself is limited. There is no change such as the passing of seasons that could be done by creating multiple versions of permanent fixtures. There is little change by adding permanent fixtures or changing them.

Player perception:
the world is not “alive”, players feel rather boxed in and monthly updates do not expand the world fast enough. The fact of content phasing in and out increases the ‘problem’.

Fundamental Issue
ArenaNet idolizes the idea of the world “living”. It is heavily leveraged by marketing at every turn. One gets the impression that there is a core belief that any other problem the game might have will be gone in a seconds, if only the world starts to be perceived as being alive by the audience. We all know games where graphics gloss over other shortcomings. Living world/story is Arenanet’s version of that. Probably it focus tested well and I don’t want to call it being something fundamentally bad. I look at it as being neutral. But it cannot gloss over everything. Especially not the wish for a growing world. Because that is what other MMOs trained you to like about them: a world getting larger.

Tolmos.8395:

All this talk about “Even though the devs said this one thing in the manifesto, they actually meant this other thing! So ignore what they said and what it sounds like they meant- just believe what I’m telling you it meant!” reminded me of a rather popular story about the author Isaac Asimov.

Isaac Asimov was at NYU visiting a friend one day when he chanced upon a
lecture hall in which a graduate student was offering a master’s
discussion of Foundation.

Isaac slipped into the back of the hall and listened. At the end of the
lecture he moved to the front of the hall and told the young man, “I
believe you have a couple of things wrong.”

The kid looks at Isaac and asks, “And you are?”

“I’m Isaac Asimov,” the author of the piece under discussion replied.

The kid turns away saying, “You’re the last person qualified to give
commentary upon your work, Mr. Asimov. Good day.”

Actually the devs said literally what they meant in the manifesto. Word for word, it was literally true…the question that comes up is what is meant by “grind”. The word is used by Anet to mean something. Some people want to super-impose their own definition on it…but that definition isnt’ supported by anything else said in the manifesto.

People want to believe what they want to believe but the actual language is quite clear.

and i believe that student saying that to isaac asimov was not smart but arrogant

Amadan.9451:

and i believe that student saying that to isaac asimov was not smart but arrogant

I’m not sure any writer is really qualified to analyze his/her own writing. I know I can’t analyze my own writing…not with the same clarity that others can. I’m willing to wager that same is true of most authors.

but still i think he knows better what he wanted to say…
maybe he can’t analyze with clarity how he says it!

Amadan.9451:

but still i think he knows better what he wanted to say…
maybe he can’t analyze with clarity how he says it!

The problem is, that’s not necessarily the case. Depending on your writing style, you can be saying a whole host of things you had no intention of saying and wouldn’t even know was there until someone else pointed it out.

Those who make outlines before hand and stick to them, like Piers Anthony probably don’t fall into this trap as much but those who write by the seat of their pants, like Stephen King, probably aren’t always aware of what’s behind what they write.

I’m not sure if Asimov used outlines or not.