Guild Wars 2

I like this list but one thing out of the whole post really got to me that I wanted to point out: “Gold Sinks keep inflation low” is utterly false.

The main cause of inflation in most MMOs with a player driven economy are those who flip items on the “Auction House” or whatever its called. The only thing that can combat that is through either a dynamic gold sink directly attached to the source or by devaluing the items more popularly flipped.

Standard gold sinks actually combat individual player buying power by taking money off the market and thereby reducing the the amount of currency spread throughout the whole population. That doesn’t mean it does not impact inflation, but the impact is extremely small.

I would like to point out that many of the things that are on this list that people are asking for are features from “that other game” but that other game was the original Guild Wars. That is most likely why people are always upset, because they had these features before and had them taken away instead of improved upon.

1. MOUNTS – Did Not Have
2. DUELING – Did Not Have
3. OPEN WORLD PvP / FACTIONS – Had ( kurz / lux, no open world pvp. I’ll count alliance battles though, since gw1 was instanced based to begin with )
4. HOLY TRINITY – Had
5. EXPANSION – Had (EOTN)
6. NEW CLASSES / NEW SKILLS / NEW WEAPONS / NEW RACES (Absolutely Had, minus races)
7. GEAR PROGRESSION / LEVEL CAP RAISE (Had – in a non-traditional sense progression was not gear based and skill based which was the intent of the game, also with regular/elite skill accumulation)
8. DPS METER / INSPECT GEAR – Did Not Have
9. GUILD vs. GUILD (GvG) – Had
10. GUILD HALLS / PLAYER HOUSING (Had; but no housing)
11. RAIDS / GUILD RAIDS (Had, urgoz, deep, tombs, etc)
12. PLAYER TO PLAYER TRADING (Had)
13. (GUILD) CAPES / WINGS / SCHOOL UNIFORMS / SWIMSUITS (Had, minus swimsuits or school uniforms, wings)
14. MARRIAGE (did not have)

So from my count, of the 14 things that were listed, the original game had at least 7 of them fully implemented, and 3 other things that were only partially implemented.

Is it obvious why people have so much unrest and controversy? By moving to GW2, there were not many of the most enjoyed features that people were expecting to make a return.

chaosdeity.6287:

3. OPEN WORLD PvP / FACTIONS – Had ( kurz / lux )

Factions? Yes. Open world pvp? NO. So 3 is half Yes half No.

4. HOLY TRINITY – Had

There was no Holy Trinity in GW1 as there was no hate mechanic and absolutely no tanks. Other than Tera Tanks in UW speedclears, rest of the game, even Hard Mode didn’t require Tanks (players whose only purpose is to get hit and not die) at all. So 4 is a half yes, half no as well.

7. GEAR PROGRESSION / LEVEL CAP RAISE ( did not have however this was skill based and some tiered titles tied effectiveness to skill and gradually became OP, so I would say yes through skills and elite skill accumulation)

There was absolutely no level cap raise in GW1 throughout its history. There was also no gear progression either. The Title tier progression was a highly controversial subject, many GW1 didn’t like it all (grinding for a title to make certain skills more effective). Also, those exact title skills ruined originality and variety, you only needed 3 skills in your skillbar, available for every profession because they were title skills, and then just let your 7 heroes to everything else.

To sum up: GW1 didn’t have gear progression, nor a level cap increase, and the skill progression was a highly controversial subject not liked by lots of players.

11. RAIDS / GUILD RAIDS (had, urgoz, deep, tombs, etc)

Only zones that fits the basic definition was urgoz and deep (hard instanced content that requires more players than the average dungeon).

Lishtenbird.2814:

Revised points 1-5, started adding some extra formatting.

Valandil Dragonhart.2371:

One more to add to the list:

• Precursor Crafting

Long overdue and plenty of debate on it from hoarders, TP ‘gurus’ and people who legitimately want a non-RNG way to obtain the hardest-to-get item(s) in the game.

Could you provide some links to representative threads?

Here are some (found in my upvoted section of profile), but this is just a few from the 2+ years of threads created about this very topic.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Precursor-Rage

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Precursor-Bull-Kitten

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Is-precursor-crafting-going-to-happen-or-not

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Is-this-a-fair-fix-for-precursors

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/crafting/gw2-precursor-recipe-scavanger-hunt-news

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/The-living-story-and-Precursor

Some of these are quite old and have EXCEPTIONALLY good ideas implemented in them.

Revilrad.1962:

Very very very very bad idea.
There is almost NOTHING in this game which is not aquirable by doing mindless CoF Runs and buy it in TP.

What actually need to be done is to make Pre-Cursors accountbound so they are not tradable.
Only that would make a legendary an actuall long term goal and reason to farm.

Fixed the second paragraph for you.

I deliberately did not elaborate on the method of acquisition of precursors and their bound-state because I was waiting for a backlash response like this. Go to ANY one of the threads I’ve just linked and see how many people will actually go and save enough gold to pay for someone else’s good luck. This is not the point, and certainly not the method being discussed. Save gold & buy… chump method. In those threads also you’ll see the cost of precursors as they were back then (about 1/5th the amount), and compare them to the cost they are now. The bottom line here is your first comment isn’t necessary and is subject to a lot of adversity from people championing the scavenger hunt method.

The method is mostly about getting an account-bound precursor from a scavenger hunt implementation of some kind. It’s been suggested for virtually as long as the game has been live. It has no reliance on RNG, it doesn’t reward the lucky with heaps of gold so you can feel ‘legendary’, no; in fact it’s more about acquiring something that you can work on FOR YOURSELF, which I have advocated for as long as I’ve been playing.

In the most respectful way possible, Mad Doctor, I must disagree with you. To be as clear as possible for the ’Had/Did not have" count, I expanded into some detail behind your talking points. The drama around each of these features is not being discussed, but the actual presence of them within the game was what I wanted to specifically name as being included or not.

Open world PVP was not present but as I stated, the entire game was based off instancing anyway and having an open world pvp system wouldn’t even make sense, but I counted alliance battles because they waged war for map control 24/7 with locations guilds could own and resource control, so all the effects of open world PVP with instancing, kind of like wvw, but that’s a digression.

There was a hate mechanic: http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Aggro
“Aggro, short for aggravate, is an internal measurement for how much of a threat the AI considers an individual player to be. The more aggro a player holds, the more highly that player will be prioritized for attacks and skill usage by the AI. Understanding how to gain, hold, and break aggro is called aggro control or aggro management.” Click the link for more, but there was definitely a hate mechanic and holy trinity was definitely there with variations. Not to be offensive but what you may consider certain things is a very stringent definition. The game’s character creation literally has “a warrior, an elementalist (black mage), and a monk”. How much more can a game have a holy trinity? Just because those classes can do other things (primary and secondary) doesn’t take away from the fact that the game had the holy trinity roles in their mechanics, and the build diversity Guild Wars 1 had (one of it’s best features!) allowed multiple classes to fulfill the roles while some were more efficient or geared towards those roles than other classes. The fact that the game had so many variations meant that all classes could expand to cover two or three or more secondary roles effectively as well outside of their basic descriptions.

I am aware there is no level cap, but the game was based on player skill, skins, and skill acquisition. Whether those skills ruined originality or not is a separate debate, the fact was that the game did have a type of progression associated with skills, which would be how many you had unlocked on your account, which meant buying campaigns or expansions to stay competitive. Being highly controversial or not still didn’t mean the game didn’t have it, in a cut and dry fashion. Also the game had many titles to track player superiority. The prestige of a higher level was simply moved from a numerical number to titles that would command the same level or respect among players that saw it only by using those titles as a parameter, and not the level number itself. Some of those had more tangible benefits as well when tied to skills..

And the game had it’s raid, or it’s raid level content, (http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Elite_mission) which were titled the elite missions. Party size was locked normally for balancing, but all the parameters that would make the definition of a ‘raid’ are still present and are essentially the same. Each of them took specific builds, party coordination, prior knowledge to execute in a timely manner which would otherwise be huge time commitments, multiple quests and bosses, reward ‘checkpoints’ along the way, multiple zones to complete, and were instanced. In some way or form each of these elite missions fit some or all of the definitions of a raid with variations, either with completely different instanced zones, higher party limits, etc. Collectively, the following certainly fill the ‘raid’ role of other MMO’s:
- Underworld/Fissure of Woe
- Urgoz/Deep
- Sorrow’s Furnace/Tombs
- Mallyx
- Slaver’s Exile

*edits for clarity, spelling, etc.

chaosdeity.6287:

Open world PVP was not present but as I stated, the entire game was based off instancing anyway and having an open world pvp system wouldn’t even make sense, but I counted alliance battles because they waged war for map control 24/7 with locations guilds could own and resource control, so all the effects of open world PVP with instancing, kind of like wvw, but that’s a digression.

The most important effect of open world pvp is unexpected pvp, since it was instanced, there was no open world pvp. Alliance battles was arena pvp, no reason to count it as open world pvp. And owning those locations in reality meant nothing…

There was a hate mechanic: http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Aggro
“Aggro, short for aggravate, is an internal measurement for how much of a threat the
AI considers an individual player to be. The more aggro a player holds, the more highly that player will be prioritized for attacks and skill usage by the AI. Understanding how to gain, hold, and break aggro is called aggro control or aggro management.” Click the link for more, but there was definitely a holy trinity and definitely variations. Not to be offensive but what you may consider certain things is a very stringent definition. The game’s character creation literally has “a warrior, an elementalist (black mage), and a monk”. How much more can a game have a holy trinity? Just because those classes can do other things (primary and secondary) doesn’t take away from the fact that the game had the holy trinity.

Hate does not equal Aggro. Obviosuly every game with any kind of PVE has aggro, a mechanic for mobs to focus on specific characters, can’t work without it. However there was no direct management option in GW1, no hate mechanic, no way to HOLD this aggro on yourself by using skills that increase your aggro generation. A “Tank” holds aggro, that’s their job, their role. Hence, no Tank in GW1. Have you ever, EVER, seen a “Looking for Tank”, message in GW1? Because after so many years of doing EVERYTHING I never saw even one.

In a sense: More SPECIFIC ROLES, YES, Holy Trinity, Hell NO. And GW2 also has roles (outside of PVP) called Damage/Support/Control. PVE utilizes only Damage and that’s a problem.

I am aware there is no level cap, but the game was based on player skill, skins, and skill acquisition. Whether those skills ruined originality or not is a separate debate, the fact was that the game did have a type of progression associated with skills, which would be how many you had unlocked on your account, which meant buying campaigns or expansions to stay competitive. Being highly controversial or not still didn’t mean the game didn’t have it, in a cut and dry fashion.

Which is also what we already have in GW2, unlocking skills, hunting for skins, emphasis on player skill etc

And the game had it’s raid, or it’s raid level content, (http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Elite_mission) which were titled the elite missions. Party size was locked normally for balancing, but all the parameters that would make the definition of a ‘raid’ are still present and are essentially the same. Each of them took specific builds, party coordination, prior knowledge to execute in a timely manner, multiple quests and bosses, reward ‘checkpoints’ along the way, multiple zones to complete, and were instanced.
- Underworld/Fissure of Woe
- Urgoz/Deep
- Sorrow’s Furnace/Tombs
- Mallyx
- Slaver’s Exile

I don’t know which definition of “Raid” you are using, but here this one is from wikipedia:

A raid is a type of mission in a video game in which a very large number of people (larger than the normal team size set by the game) attempt to defeat a boss monster.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_%28gaming%29

I haven’t played an MMORPG with Raids in which raids had the same group size as normal dungeons… in all of them raids required larger groups.

Certainly there are Tanks in GW1, but there is no aggro meter nor is it possible to increase aggro intentionally. Instead the tank had to use other mechanics to bodyblock or he simply was the only one in the aggro bubble (yeah forgot that, eh?). Here is an interesting article how tanking in GW1 works:

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Tank

But yes, it was also viable to have just a ‘flesh wall’ as minions or pets. Remember the first Urgoz’s Warren team build full of Rangers with their pets and Barrage? Good times (especially when we realized using Splinter Weapon is awesome!)

Gaile,
It looks like this is on it’s way to being a good resource for people. Would it be possible to get this stickied?

ProtoGunner.4953:

Certainly there are Tanks in GW1, but there is no aggro meter nor is it possible to increase aggro intentionally. Instead the tank had to use other mechanics to bodyblock or he simply was the only one in the aggro bubble (yeah forgot that, eh?). Here is an interesting article how tanking in GW1 works:

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Tank

But yes, it was also viable to have just a ‘flesh wall’ as minions or pets. Remember the first Urgoz’s Warren team build full of Rangers with their pets and Barrage? Good times (especially when we realized using Splinter Weapon is awesome!)

Yes but a Tank is not needed. So no Holy Trinity, no “looking for tank” messages etc. So no need for Holy Trinity in GW2 either, doing fine without it.

Torsailr.8456:

Gaile,
It looks like this is on it’s way to being a good resource for people. Would it be possible to get this stickied?

If the OP deletes the parts that are simple opinion and edits the first thread with links to each of the other threads then I’d say it would be a perfect sticky. As it is now, no, it’s way too biased

maddoctor.2738:

Hate does not equal Aggro. Obviosuly every game with any kind of PVE has aggro, a mechanic for mobs to focus on specific characters, can’t work without it. However there was no direct management option in GW1, no hate mechanic, no way to HOLD this aggro on yourself by using skills that increase your aggro generation. A “Tank” holds aggro, that’s their job, their role. Hence, no Tank in GW1. Have you ever, EVER, seen a “Looking for Tank”, message in GW1? Because after so many years of doing EVERYTHING I never saw even one.

There was a time in Prophecies when I saw, “LF Tank!” quite often. The role was usually filled by a Wammo. Also, there were Oby Tanks, Perma-Sins, etc. These builds served specific tanking functions in specific instances. What GW did not have was taunts.

It was possible to manipulate mobs to attack who you wanted them to, via proximity, body blocking, etc. Since mob groups used frontline/backline and sometimes midline, it was also possible in some cases to take aggro from their mid/back lines simply by being frontline yourself and body-blocking the mob front liners. This allowed the player backline to shoot/cast with impunity.

What GW did best, imo, with regard to roles was to present very different challenges in different places. Builds that worked in one place were underwhelming in other places. This also included the tanking function. Though there were no taunts, there definitely was aggro management.

IndigoSundown.5419:

maddoctor.2738:

Hate does not equal Aggro. Obviosuly every game with any kind of PVE has aggro, a mechanic for mobs to focus on specific characters, can’t work without it. However there was no direct management option in GW1, no hate mechanic, no way to HOLD this aggro on yourself by using skills that increase your aggro generation. A “Tank” holds aggro, that’s their job, their role. Hence, no Tank in GW1. Have you ever, EVER, seen a “Looking for Tank”, message in GW1? Because after so many years of doing EVERYTHING I never saw even one.

There was a time in Prophecies when I saw, “LF Tank!” quite often. The role was usually filled by a Wammo. Also, there were Oby Tanks, Perma-Sins, etc. These builds served specific tanking functions in specific instances. What GW did not have was taunts.

I guess I missed the Wammo period (Frenzy+Mending?)
The other “tank builds” were used only in speedclears anyway, there was zero reason to have them in any other mode. At least I never used them, nor I’ve ever been in groups with them in DoA, UW, FoW, Urgoz, Deep or in any form of PVP. Very gimmick builds, hardly “Holy Trinity” worthy.

But anyway if people want to call GW1 a Holy Trinity game go ahead and do it, I won’t.

Thanks guys, I got distracted and couldn’t comment back for awhile but I lost the post and they covered where I was going anyway. LF Tank was a thing, as was LF nuker and LF healer before the introduction of heroes. People would sit in chats and spam LF monks for hours (Thunderhead Keep, I’m looking at you). You may not consider gw1 a holy trinity game, but it was. The same way that you may not consider elite missions raids, but they were. Originally gw1 tried and successfully broke the mold of the generic mmo formula at the time and that is why it was so successful, by redefining certain gameplay aspects.

That is truly where I wanted to put this conversation, that GW2 strayed from the GW1 formula too much and the primary things the community is asking for were already present in the previous game and it’s as if the community is asking for what they already had back. That’s why there is so much controversy and why so many veterans left, because they are ‘missing features’ they already had from the 6(8??) years prior.

I just wanted to compare the lists of what we are asking for against what we did have so that there would be a clear comparison as a humble insight for Gaile if she wanted to pass it on internally. Essentially, focus on features from the first game that had positive reception or ones that we could improve upon now and that will build significant faith back with the playerbase if done well, and will satisfy both new and old players both.

You know, like a Cantha Expansion

Where’s the race change? There are always topics concerning this and something people have been asking for years now.

And +1 to someposts I’ve read, there are arguments coming from nowhere.

Sariel V.7024:

stuff and walls o text that ended up being gibberish

You make a post basically comparing apples and oranges cause of something that has no affect on you what so ever. You then make an argument and say something that can be done, but isn’t even mechanically possible in this game. (No one can bar a player from gather resources…PERIOD. Walk up and hit the letter “F”). The only thing i got from you was you don’t think the Dev’s know how to code, but you have given no evidence and no arguments with any validity.

Your obvious complaint about the maize is noted though, not that you can stop them or that they could stop you.

On the part about trinity – GW has a different type of trinity normally referred to as ‘soft trinity’ due to high flexibility of roles and the associated builds. So yes, while it indeed has a trinity, it is not the typical rigid holy trinity with fixed roles, which is what makes it so great.

Moreover, keeping aggro when you cannot body block the enemy frontline can be really difficult (especially in HM) because the AI is designed to be rather clever in how it would, upon initial aggro, move a short distance beyond the first aggroer and ‘scan’ for potential nearby targets (iirc it would do a check and go for whatever had the lowest hp and armor, which is another reason why meat shields such as spirits and pets were rather effective). And if a mob of lvl 28 axe/hammer dwarven warriors or fire djinns went after your (hero) mid and backline, you normally wiped within seconds.
Like someone above mentioned, in such cases the ‘tank’ had to move away from its group and aggro the group, and only after the mob focused him, could the rest of the players join in.

So yea, (especially HM) pve is pretty hard in GW, and I’m not even talking dungeons or elite missions. Pve skills/consumables and certain broken builds (looking at you, permasin) massively trivialized that content, however, but I suppose they were implemented with GW2 in mind, so it comes as no surprise things went amiss there…

Reviewed points 6-14, added formatting, added THREAD FAQ.

I’m looking into adding links to representative threads so that people can refer to them and draw their own conclusions, but I would prefer that knowledgeable players provide them in this thread.

More topics will get covered when I have time for them. Stacking, dungeon selling, instant lvl80 and race change sound nice; precursor crafting is under question.

I personally think Precursor crafting should be added because of how frequent it comes up as a debate topic. Not saying I have an opinion on it or not, just stating in general that as a controversial topic, it appears enough to get a mention.

anabasis.7346:

Rauderi.8706:

Sindex.9520:

Can I ask why your pro’s are short sighted by a couple of words? All the while your negative are verily detailed on their reasoning. It kind of makes things look more slanted in one direction, because of this format. For instance the line in your pro’s to which you repetitively use “that other game has it,” tells us jack diddly squat on why that argument should even be considered. In the end it just seems negative stance get more argumentative attention, which is a biased angle towards GW2 keeping it’s status-quo. Which in all honestly I beg to differ because the game is far from perfect.

In most of the cases, the pros are actually very simple, for good or for ill. There isn’t much reason to argue for a proposed feature, since they could be good for gameplay or quality of life.
The cons have to be more elaborate to justify why it’s not a good idea to add these features in. I can see why it would seem slanted, especially when the pro side items are “this would be cool” and “other game has it,” but those aren’t inherently bad reasons. :P

In fact it’s just the opposite of what you just said. If you have an idea and would like it to be implemented in the game you have to convince the community, specially the folks at anet, that your idea is good and explain why it should be in game.

The same happens in a trial where the burden of proof lies on the prosecution because is the one taking an active role, trying to convince the jury that what he or she says is the truth of what really happened. Well, in this case you, or whoever has an idea that he would like to be implemented in game, are taking an active role because you want to convince the community that your idea would improve gw2, therefore it’s worth the time and resources that anet has to invest on developing it.
I mean, I could give you thousands of examples where the same rule applies like job interviews where the interviewee has to convince the employer that he’s the best candidate for the job, etc.

However, your pros are just a few luckluster lines that you keep repeting (That other game has it!), while the cons are much more elaborated paragraphs.

I thought this was utterly obvious tbh.

Pretty close.

Basically, what you’re saying is, someone suggests an idea for a particular feature. The ‘arguments for’ section is cutting that off. It’s not delving into what a suggestion is and dismissing the base of what the suggestion is built on. Like suggesting the adoption of a new law, and outlining all the good it could do and the changes that it could facilitate, but none of that is represented here (and it likely couldn’t…), but dismisses said law upon what it would cost and what negative effects those costs have. Yeah, those would be good points to keep in mind when suggesting anything, but what about the good points and change the suggestion would bring about? What does dismissing the law do about the changes and status quo?

The OP cannot include all the ‘arguments for’ because it would be too much work but then it feels like much of the energy expended to compile the thread was half wasted since it’s only explaining the status quo and attempting to crowd all the topics into one for discussion when much of these topics need their own thread. Nothing truly constructive could come of posting my misgivings with some of the mentioned topics. If I posted some idea for mounts that doesn’t file into the OP’s standard categories listed, how will my idea get any attention? It won’t, which feels a waste.

maddoctor.2738:

There was no Holy Trinity in GW1 as there was no hate mechanic and absolutely no tanks. Other than Tera Tanks in UW speedclears, rest of the game, even Hard Mode didn’t require Tanks (players whose only purpose is to get hit and not die) at all. So 4 is a half yes, half no as well.

Ah ha!

So you CAN have variety of build, different roles in an encounter and NOT be a “holy trinity” scenario? And when I say different role, I mean definitive roles that altered your take on that encounter, not conform the team to counter the encounter.

From the few recent threads I read, it’s an impossible goal but then they always boil every suggestion to “holy trinity” and plug their ears. You can’t really improve suggestions and ideas when no one listens to you.

Theftwind.8976:

I will agree with one statement the OP made in his analysis.

“That other game has it; we’ve seen it done there and enjoyed it.”

I have always wondered about why people want to turn a game they are currently playing into one they left behind. If you left a game behind then it obviously lacked something that your new game has and whatever game element you left and now want in the new game was not a strong enough game element to keep you there.

I’d never try to turn this game into the one I left behind, but that’s because GW2 could never hope to compare in terms of customibility, progression, freedom of concept and play and the joy of rolling alts. Not to GW2’s discredit, it’s just this game’s concept doesn’t support it.

And I would be playing that game I left behind if it was still up and running.

Leo G.4501:

The OP cannot include all the ‘arguments for’ because it would be too much work

I’ve already suggested that knowledgeable people add their pros and cons here, but I’ve majorly seen bashing and nothing new really since. That makes me feel that the listed pro arguments are all that exist.

Leo G.4501:

since it’s only explaining the status quo and attempting to crowd all the topics into one for discussion when much of these topics need their own thread.

I’ve already suggested creating/merging megathreads for each of the respective subjects which could work as a non-dev CDI. Since threads of no new considerable value keep appearing (“people are leaving, give expansion because reasons!”), I feel that this thread has its purpose.

Leo G.4501:

If I posted some idea for mounts that doesn’t file into the OP’s standard categories listed, how will my idea get any attention? It won’t, which feels a waste.

We have just had an expansion thread based on the observation of 5 Asura Gates in LA being destroyed. It got attention because at least that part was unique. If you do come up with a unique idea, people will see it and discuss regardless of whether my thread exists or not.

Seriously though, what’s the point of this topic? They do not care about this kind of stuff, they do not care about us and they are not going to change a thing as long as people are still buying gems. Yes we’re all frustrated and bored of this policy and we would like GW2 to be fun again but according to ANets precious metrics, we’re all having super duper fun and enjoying the game alot and so they will not work on anything.
The only thing we can expect are more gem shop additions and rehashed holiday events. It hurts but it’s the way it is. The current team has nothing to do with the people who made the GW2 that was released and even less with the team that made GW1. Deal with it, ded game iz ded.

In my opinion, Precursor Crafting isn’t the same as the “Controversial Topics” in this list. I believe that 99% of player would support a way to obtain a precursor without the means of RNG or paying endlessly inflated price. However, the main ‘controversy’ is we are always in the dark about it. ANet only mentioned it once and never tells us how and when they plan to implement it. Everytime a thread is created, it only serves as a friendly (or passive-aggressive) reminder until everyone of us is tired of telling ourselves it is not gonna happen anytime soon. There is virtually no debate about that.

To OP: I think we have another controversial topic regarding Gemstore Release, on:
i. Whether new armor and weapon skins should be released in game instead of in gemstore or behind the BL key purchase. Or Pay-To-Look-Good.
ii. Gem store becomes the game focus.
iii. Outfit should be made of separate armor pieces.
iv. Selling gambling tickets for gems.
v. Gemstore exclusives influence certain trade markets, weapons, mini, dye, etc.

And maybe some other things that I have missed.

Lishtenbird.2814:

We have just had an expansion thread based on the observation of 5 Asura Gates in LA being destroyed. It got attention because at least that part was unique. If you do come up with a unique idea, people will see it and discuss regardless of whether my thread exists or not.

I think it was suggested by the dev to put these relevant topics in this thread. If so, then unique ideas posted here likely won’t get the discussion it deserves. If not, I’m not implying your thread’s existence will hinder discussion, just that it will be harder to find these ideas if you’re forced to dig through a bunch of posts about other unrelated subject if they were all crammed into a single thread.

Iris Ng.9845:

In my opinion, Precursor Crafting isn’t the same as the “Controversial Topics” in this list. I believe that 99% of player would support a way to obtain a precursor without the means of RNG or paying endlessly inflated price. However, the main ‘controversy’ is we are always in the dark about it. ANet only mentioned it once and never tells us how and when they plan to implement it. Everytime a thread is created, it only serves as a friendly (or passive-aggressive) reminder until everyone of us is tired of telling ourselves it is not gonna happen anytime soon. There is virtually no debate about that.

I think you kind of missed the point in the controversy, ie. debate, dispute, matter of contention or argument, with precursors is the acquisition.

Most of us are in the same boat that there should be a way of getting them via new content, ie. a scavenger hunt, building your own precursor, etc. but there’s always the snarky buggers who seem to think they have more weight to throw around by telling the hopefuls that if they work a bit harder for it and save up that they can buy their precursor from the TP. I call this the ‘chump-method’.

The biggest bone of contention about it all, in my mind at least, is Anet allowing full legendaries and precursors to be sold on the TP at all. This has been debated literally since day 1. People will continue to argue for and against the different methods of acquisition of precursors until all our fingers are bleeding from smashing keys in rage about it, and Anet will continue to sit on their hands on the whole issue, knowing full well it’s been shelved for a long long time.

It should have been sorted last year and made it into the feature patch before end of 2013, but no it didn’t make it; they came out and said to us that it wasn’t going to be in that patch because of the method of acquisition getting a rework with the rewards coming into line with presumably the format we have now.

One of the rare times that a dev has the balls to come in and discuss this highly-disputed part of the game and we get the seagull treatment. Typical.

Valandil Dragonhart.2371:

Iris Ng.9845:

In my opinion, Precursor Crafting isn’t the same as the “Controversial Topics” in this list. I believe that 99% of player would support a way to obtain a precursor without the means of RNG or paying endlessly inflated price. However, the main ‘controversy’ is we are always in the dark about it. ANet only mentioned it once and never tells us how and when they plan to implement it. Everytime a thread is created, it only serves as a friendly (or passive-aggressive) reminder until everyone of us is tired of telling ourselves it is not gonna happen anytime soon. There is virtually no debate about that.

I think you kind of missed the point in the controversy, ie. debate, dispute, matter of contention or argument, with precursors is the acquisition.

Most of us are in the same boat that there should be a way of getting them via new content, ie. a scavenger hunt, building your own precursor, etc. but there’s always the snarky buggers who seem to think they have more weight to throw around by telling the hopefuls that if they work a bit harder for it and save up that they can buy their precursor from the TP. I call this the ‘chump-method’.

The biggest bone of contention about it all, in my mind at least, is Anet allowing full legendaries and precursors to be sold on the TP at all. This has been debated literally since day 1. People will continue to argue for and against the different methods of acquisition of precursors until all our fingers are bleeding from smashing keys in rage about it, and Anet will continue to sit on their hands on the whole issue, knowing full well it’s been shelved for a long long time.

It should have been sorted last year and made it into the feature patch before end of 2013, but no it didn’t make it; they came out and said to us that it wasn’t going to be in that patch because of the method of acquisition getting a rework with the rewards coming into line with presumably the format we have now.

One of the rare times that a dev has the balls to come in and discuss this highly-disputed part of the game and we get the seagull treatment. Typical.

But then, what is there to discuss if there is no actual content to discuss at all? In the end of the day, it is still a massive hate speech against ANet’s design decision (which will not be changed) and little about people’s argument against precursor’s crafting.
That said, I’m not against listing it for people who occasionally come back to check the current states of affair. It’s just not the same nature as the other issues to me.

@OP

Great post! Now it just needs to be made a sticky!

As another suggestion to commonly discussed topics, I would point to the economy being broken and hyper inflated threads that pop up, mostly relating to gold to gem conversion and the price of precursors on the TP. I can’t find a link at the moment, but John Smith has this thread that also covers much of that: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/bltc/I-have-a-question-about-the-economy/page/16#post4573303

Iris Ng.9845:

But then, what is there to discuss if there is no actual content to discuss at all? In the end of the day, it is still a massive hate speech against ANet’s design decision (which will not be changed) and little about people’s argument against precursor’s crafting.
That said, I’m not against listing it for people who occasionally come back to check the current states of affair. It’s just not the same nature as the other issues to me.

Did you even see how many threads I linked in my initial post here about it? That’s but a few on the controversial matter of precursor crafting, Anet’s design decision or not. It’s one of many perennial bugs up Anet’s butt.

• Added 15. BAN FOR DUNGEON SELLING
• Made alterations to 14 based on a recent thread.

This topic is incredibly biased and opinion based, and not suitable as a compendium due to that bias, please stop linking to it everywhere.

“You are wrong because I say so” is not an argument. Disagreed? Knowledgeable in the topic? Provide links, give reasons, contribute to “pros” in a concise manner.

Lishtenbird.2814:

— Too little pros, too many cons. It’s biased.

• Firstly, it’s usually like that IRL. When you say “Let’s get a cat, cats are cool!”, that’s really enough; even dog-type people know what cat-type people like about cats, there’s little point voicing evident things. On the contrary, saying “why not get a cat” requires going into specific details concerning cats and your present and future circumstances: time cost, money cost, hair and dirt, allergy, illnesses, going on trips…
• Secondly, many of the mentioned things did not exist in the game at launch, which means there were specific reasons why the game didn’t have them from head start. These reasons are usually quite extensive and still valid, so they take up a considerable amount of space.

— I do not agree with your overview.

• If you’re knowledgeable in the topic, the best way to prove me wrong would be to provide links to representative threads which contain valuable information. That way, I can not only recheck them, but also include the list of links to respective topics for other players to both have a reference and make their own conclusions.

I’ve actually seen only a couple of people providing valuable feedback here (thanks for that, and I’ll take a look at precursor crafting as soon as I have time), others just post “You are wrong because I don’t agree” and proceed to create yet another thread with the same “because I want” reasons.

tldr of the comments : “As long as it doesn’t share my opinion it is baised.”

• Added 16. PRECURSOR CRAFTING / SCAVENGER HUNT after scanning through the provided threads. It might not be that controversial, but still worth mentioning (I hope I’ll have space for Flipping and Zerk Meta though…). Let me know if you think I missed something.

Hmm.

Personal opinion disguised as consensus.

Nice formatting though Lishtenbird.

Aedelric.1287:

Hmm.

Personal opinion disguised as consensus.

Nice formatting though Lishtenbird.

While he does have his personal opinion on the matters, based on the matters, and the arguments both for and against, one can see that such an opinion IS generally what the community holds as well. While you may or may not agree with them, I feel he did a great job at summing up the various topics that repeatedly pop up, and what is generally said in them, drawing a logical conclusion from there.

pdavis.8031:

Aedelric.1287:

Hmm.

Personal opinion disguised as consensus.

Nice formatting though Lishtenbird.

While he does have his personal opinion on the matters, based on the matters, and the arguments both for and against, one can see that such an opinion IS generally what the community holds as well. While you may or may not agree with them, I feel he did a great job at summing up the various topics that repeatedly pop up, and what is generally said in them, drawing a logical conclusion from there.

It’s certainly much better than it was originally- although I feel that it is still a little biased, it is much less biased.

The problem is that a lot of people were put off by how biased and snarky/sarcastic the original thread was and now have probably dismissed the credibility of it (no matter how much work goes into it to make it more objective).

I still have to commend Listenbird for the amount of time that has gone into this though.

How about the payment model. Same for the grind / RNG also many topics about that. While both are related to each other and both are related to multiple topics you do mention those two themself are not on your list.

Lishtenbird.2814:

….snip….

Even if some people know all the reasons for getting a cat beyond “Cats are Cool!”, not everyone does (especially Dog lovers, that’s why they own dogs). There are many people who have no idea what the pros are for getting a cat, so, if you’re going to convince someone to get a cat, you need to list at least as many, if not more, reasons for why getting a cat is better than not getting a cat.

To add some more, simply listing that “More variety is always good” under new classes/skills/etc., then using the lame excuse that its the catch all reason (your cat example) shows just how one sided your opinion is, and shows why this thread is not actually helpful to anyone but yourself. Therefore, listing catchall reasons is purposeful deceit in listing less pros than cons, and shows that you are not mediating, or holding middle ground. You’re only telling us your own opinion and trying to disguise it as something its not.

The more I think about, the more I’m convinced that you made this thread solely as a vehicle to post your own opinion at the end of every post. You should remove the conclusion paragraph at the end of every post, and only have the pros and cons, so your opinion stays the hell out of it.

You should also go more in depth with the Pros (instead of using the other lame excuse that cons take longer to explain), so, again, your own opinion stays the hell out of this thread…if that’s what you’re trying to do, if you’re just trying to post your opinion and disguise it as a pros/cons list, keep going for it.

For example (expanding one of the pros):::

• More Variety is always good. Different people like different things. New classes can bring back people who tried everything but didn’t find anything they really liked. It can also attract new people to the game that didn’t have a reason to play before. More players equals more revenue. More revenue means more support. More support means a smoother game experience in the future, even with the balancing nightmare more content would inevitably create.

…That wasn’t that hard, and its obvious that you are putting way more effort in the cons than the pros.

+1

The OP is very likely nothing more than a quest for the forum specialist title anyhow (especially in its current – altered and adjusted – manifestation), and we all know Anet dig such ‘highly objective’ threads~

Every single time I see threads/posts as long as this, I have to sit back and wonder where the motivation for them came from.

Every single time i see threads/posts as long as this, i just move on.

I remember a community lashing out at anyone who dared suggest that they would like to see some features that worked in other games or didn’t quite agree with all of the developers’ decisions. Those people not only defended the game from every criticism but openly scorned other products of the same genre. Told others to go back where they came from as the game has no need of ungrateful whingers.

What did their valiant fight amounted to?

Their beloved game had to go through a server merge four months after launch, the world became a ghost town, employees were fired left and right, important figureheads left, development halted down to a snail’s pace and now the whole project is shaping up to be a bigger failure than SWTORtanic.

Calling players emotionally unstable teenagers for their opinion and telling them that for what their word is worth, they might as well pack up and go back to that other game? Not the best idea.

Holy crap I can’t believe I actually read most of that and skimmed only some…. does that make me a bad person? O_o

Good read, to say the least. Maybe one day I wont be so lazy and make my posts like this.

• Further revised topics 1-3:
  • added reference threads,
  • added quotes from CC/Dev’s comments,
  • removed and incorporated “I personally think that…” parts into pros and cons. I won’t be fully removing the “Current state of affairs” as I am inclined to think that it has significant value.
• This will be done with other topics when I have time.
• New topics (zerk meta, AP and so on…) will be added when I have time. If you’re interested, you can start providing bullet points for pro/con arguments, as well as threads for reference.

Crimson Clouds.4853:

I still have to commend Listenbird for the amount of time that has gone into this though.

pdavis.8031:

While he does have his personal opinion on the matters, based on the matters, and the arguments both for and against, one can see that such an opinion IS generally what the community holds as well. While you may or may not agree with them, I feel he did a great job at summing up the various topics that repeatedly pop up, and what is generally said in them, drawing a logical conclusion from there.

Thank you.

Chrispy.5641:

For example (expanding one of the pros):::

• More Variety is always good. Different people like different things. New classes can bring back people who tried everything but didn’t find anything they really liked. It can also attract new people to the game that didn’t have a reason to play before. More players equals more revenue. More revenue means more support. More support means a smoother game experience in the future, even with the balancing nightmare more content would inevitably create.

…That wasn’t that hard, and its obvious that you are putting way more effort in the cons than the pros.

• People need water to live. Water is vital for all known forms of life. People are a life form. Without water, people die. Robots do not need water. Robots are made of metal. People are not robots. People are made of 60% water, so they need water to stay alive…

You’re moving from a catch-all argument to artificially bloating up information with self-evident statements – which is what politicians in their speeches and students in their papers do. The NPE has done a great job in treating players like 5-year-olds, but I’m not going to do it; if a person can’t make an obvious connection that “more variety” = “more interested players” = “more money to make new stuff”, then I’m afraid s/he won’t be able to provide anything valuable anyway.

KarlaGrey.5903:

The OP is very likely nothing more than a quest for the forum specialist title anyhow (especially in its current – altered and adjusted – manifestation), and we all know Anet dig such ‘highly objective’ threads~

Fun facts:

• the thread was created before the announcement of the program;
• OP is not from USA and cannot participate;
• OP has infractions and cannot participate;
• OP is not interested in participating in the program.

Purple Miku.7032:

Every single time I see threads/posts as long as this, I have to sit back and wonder where the motivation for them came from.

“If I spend ten hours myself, I will save hundreds of hours for other people from the community I care about.”

Loiterer.4235:

Their beloved game had to go through a server merge four months after launch, the world became a ghost town, employees were fired left and right, important figureheads left, development halted down to a snail’s pace and now the whole project is shaping up to be a bigger failure than SWTORtanic.

Because obviously, the game died because of absence of local equivalents of mounts, dueling and GvG, and not because of global issues with poor management, buggy coding, stale boring grindy gameplay, outdated graphics and so on…

But as you can see, according to financial reports, GW2 is going quite well for a 2 year old B2P game.

Lishtenbird.2814:

But as you can see, according to financial reports, GW2 is going quite well for a 2 year old B2P game.

I’ve seen no evidence that City of Heroes was not doing quite well for a game of its age, but that unlucky old sun set anyway.

GW2’s most controversial aspect is not any one particular thing, like, for instance, the astonishing lack of bats as ranger pets or as a playable race, but the sum of a lot of particular and peculiar things which indicate quite clearly that the company behind the game, on the whole, no longer cares about maintaining any degree of consistency, and is nigh unto the point of no longer even caring whether anyone notices. People can argue against this all they want, it doesn’t matter. If it wasn’t true, the game would not be in the state it is in today at roughly 2.5 years of age.

That state, controversially enough, is a big smelly mess. The average non-forumite casual gamer who caroms through the content like a billiard ball (and is just as aware of the details of their gaming environment as a billiard ball is of the table across which it caroms) probably won’t notice the smell, and that’s why the game is being NPE’d up one side and down the other: to bring in more of that type of gamer while encouraging the more ‘invested’ types to give up and move along. The more people playing who won’t notice or care about contradictory lore or non-sequential story chapters or bizarre ‘busy work’ alterations to gameplay, the better for a company that can barely muster the will to pretend to care.

And so I offer you Controversial Forum Topic 73: whoever is running the show, hates the show, and would rather be shooting pool.

Lishtenbird.2814:

Because obviously, the game died because of absence of local equivalents of mounts, dueling and GvG, and not because of global issues with poor management, buggy coding, stale boring grindy gameplay, outdated graphics and so on…

But as you can see, according to financial reports, GW2 is going quite well for a 2 year old B2P game.

We have no idea how GW2 is doing. We do know how many accounts there are but it hasn’t been published how many of those are still active. It certainly does better than the game I mentioned but that’s partly due to its payment model. People are willing to be more patient when they’re not forced to pay monthly for what they perceive as a poor product.

Not saying GW2 is a poor product, mind you. I find it better now than how it was when I left, thanks to additions like skin collection, account bound currencies and permanent LS.

But no, that other game hasn’t only died due to poor management, bugs and stale gameplay. We could even say that after two years of no substantial changes, GW2’s gameplay boils down to a stale berserker geared dodge parade. Most MMOs suffer from those issues (lack of innovations seems to have become a staple of the genre, in fact) and yet they chug along well enough, retaining a decent population and making a nice profit for years to come. None ever reaches WoW levels but rarely due they fall from grace as hard as this one did.

I’ve been there from the start. Saw countless potential players getting chased away because not just the rabid defenders but the developers themselves seemed to hold the view “If you don’t like something, maybe you should go back to that other game.” and so people did. It was a ghost town by the third month.

This game has a suprisingly good community. Let’s not ruin that with “if you think this is a good idea, you’re unsuccessful in your life and are trying to compensate for it in the game” kind of nonsense. Take out such personal jabs from your posts and then we’ll have a nice overview, even if it’s a subjective one.

Lishtenbird.2814:

Chrispy.5641:

For example (expanding one of the pros):::

• More Variety is always good. Different people like different things. New classes can bring back people who tried everything but didn’t find anything they really liked. It can also attract new people to the game that didn’t have a reason to play before. More players equals more revenue. More revenue means more support. More support means a smoother game experience in the future, even with the balancing nightmare more content would inevitably create.

…That wasn’t that hard, and its obvious that you are putting way more effort in the cons than the pros.

• People need water to live. Water is vital for all known forms of life. People are a life form. Without water, people die. Robots do not need water. Robots are made of metal. People are not robots. People are made of 60% water, so they need water to stay alive…

You’re moving from a catch-all argument to artificially bloating up information with self-evident statements – which is what politicians in their speeches and students in their papers do. The NPE has done a great job in treating players like 5-year-olds, but I’m not going to do it; if a person can’t make an obvious connection that “more variety” = “more interested players” = “more money to make new stuff”, then I’m afraid s/he won’t be able to provide anything valuable anyway.

And you haven’t artificially bloated your cons with self-evident statements (since that’s what you’re calling it)? Your Iphone statement is not only artificially bloated, but flat wrong (and also not self-evident). Apple regularly updates the Iphone’s operating system with new features, regularly adding more variety to what you can do. If you’re referring to the look of the phone. Almost all people have a case for their phone. The case shows their personality instead of the phone itself. If Variety was so confusing and overwhelming then all phone cases would be the same color and design.

If you’re so afraid that I’m unable to provide anything valuable, then you might want to take a closer look at yourself and your unsurprisingly biased opinions disguised as bipartisan forum arguments.

I really appreciate OP has took my thought and revised the content. It looks great and deserves a sticky!

A very nicely done thread. I can agree to dueling, gvg, and precursor crafting ideas. Housing system could use some improvement too, or at least make it customizable.

Another controversial topic is probably condi cap for pve.

Lishtenbird.2814:

KarlaGrey.5903:

The OP is very likely nothing more than a quest for the forum specialist title anyhow (especially in its current – altered and adjusted – manifestation), and we all know Anet dig such ‘highly objective’ threads~

Fun facts:

• the thread was created before the announcement of the program;
• OP is not from USA and cannot participate;
• OP has infractions and cannot participate;
• OP is not interested in participating in the program.

• And like I said, the thread has altered its original structure, overall tone and scope, which were anything but a ‘neutral list of topics’ (and even in its current manifestation, they are that not much closer to an objective thead the title suggests) – originally it was not a list of topics at all, but rather a summary of the views you came accross in certain topics and decided to repeat some of them here, typically sticking to single-liners for the pro’s and walls of text for the cons, which can barely be attributed to much else than personal bias.
• The forums as well as Gaile appear to be greatly in favour of changing that clause, so they might do away with it altogether.
• Having infractions does not automatically disqualify a player from participating
• Well there went the single plausible reason for building such a monster of a thread. I’m afraid I cannot list the remaining reasons that come to mind, as it will likely get me banned again, but I’m sure you get the idea~

The fundamental problem of this thread, which fancies to be an objective list, has already been debunked by Chrispy and Tachenon, and you ought changing the OP title to make a more truthful and accurate reflection as to its purpose and content .