Guild Wars 2

Lance Coolee.9480:

deriver.5381:

Altho the I never minded walking a bit just to reduce my waypoint fees… Guess that’s exactly what people should do and it really doesn’t hurt.

Are you going to start walking the moment gas prices get too high to drive? Likely not – people will beat down the walls until those prices become reasonable. I see no difference on this topic.

You see no difference getting up at 3AM so you can walk 4 hours one way to work and spending 5 mins on your rear virtually walking down the road?

Porky.5021:

Lance Coolee.9480:

deriver.5381:

Altho the I never minded walking a bit just to reduce my waypoint fees… Guess that’s exactly what people should do and it really doesn’t hurt.

Are you going to start walking the moment gas prices get too high to drive? Likely not – people will beat down the walls until those prices become reasonable. I see no difference on this topic.

You see no difference getting up at 3AM so you can walk 4 hours one way to work and spending 5 mins on your rear virtually walking down the road?

C’mon, obviously they are two completely different scenarios; the analogy still stands.

If you have an issue, you find solutions to the issue and not work arounds. Walking from one end of a map to the other (and I’m not complaining about walking within the same zone here) is not a long-term viable solution to traveling in game. People will clearly get bored of it and fast.

I still think that GW2 has some really good potential, but seriously, for a game that claims to be all about the “fun” factor, there are more than a handful of attributes that contradict.

I’d be fine if the prices of the waypoints varied on usage.

Usage increases, the price increases. Usage decreases, the price decreases.

Let the populations willingness to use and pay determine the price.

Lance Coolee.9480:

deriver.5381:

Well, I’ll try to show you the “you guys” later when I feel inclined to search through all the complain posts you and others like so much to participate.

Anyways, there is no logic at all on what you said. There is no comparison. In RL prices are calculated based on many facts like prime materials costs, profit margins, hour/work costs and many other details that will never take place on a virtual world game economy… Here prices just exist for no reason at all.

Could you bring me the formula behind waypoint costs, please… The cost of the technology envolved, the energy used to make the time/space portals work etc? I know I will enjoy every second of my time needed to read it if you manage to.

Sorry to say, but you’re far from complete there. Go take an economics class.

The prime driver in pricing in RL is market value, not raw material / production costs.

Regarding waypoint costs you are also incorrect, they have a very specific “reason”, but the challenge is that there are more creative ways to accomplish that same goal without it having a restricting affect on gameplay.

Sorry but you are wrong…

Production costs are always passed to the consumer or anyone else for the matter. In RL besides the consumers, we would have shareholders and labor costs… One of which would pay for the production costs.

Supply/demand balance and market price would never change this fact.. Someone will always pay for production costs.

Now find an analogy for that on Guild Wars and I’ll give you the point in this discussion.

Also I would like to ask you about what would be a good, innovative way to bring the same gold sink we have now with waypoints and repair costs.

Porky.5021:

I’d be fine if the prices of the waypoints varied on usage.

Usage increases, the price increases. Usage decreases, the price decreases.

Let the populations willingness to use and pay determine the price.

See, there ya go, that’s creative.

I actually rather like that. It make sense, and it adapts to the player’s style. Almost feels sort of mini-game ish. Player Vs Waypoint Cost.

Lance Coolee.9480:

Porky.5021:

I’d be fine if the prices of the waypoints varied on usage.

Usage increases, the price increases. Usage decreases, the price decreases.

Let the populations willingness to use and pay determine the price.

See, there ya go, that’s creative.

I actually rather like that. It make sense, and it adapts to the player’s style. Almost feels sort of mini-game ish. Player Vs Waypoint Cost.

And we would still have people complaining that prices are still high because people are usually lazy and will always port around instead of walking.

deriver.5381:

Sorry but you are wrong…

Production costs are always passed to the consumer or anyone else for the matter. In RL besides the consumers, we would have shareholders and labor costs… One of which would pay for the production costs.

Supply/demand balance and market price would never change this fact.. Someone will always pay for production costs.

Now find an analogy for that on Guild Wars and I’ll give you the point in this discussion.

Are you really taking that analogy this far out of context? It wasn’t intended to demonstrate apples to apples how travel costs are supposed to be formulated in a game world; rather how we go about solving issues. I could’ve used any analogy.

If the cost of shoes decides to go through the roof, are we going to shrug it off and start walking barefoot?

Lance Coolee.9480:

Porky.5021:

I’d be fine if the prices of the waypoints varied on usage.

Usage increases, the price increases. Usage decreases, the price decreases.

Let the populations willingness to use and pay determine the price.

See, there ya go, that’s creative.

I actually rather like that. It make sense, and it adapts to the player’s style. Almost feels sort of mini-game ish. Player Vs Waypoint Cost.

Well, trying to resume to thinking here…

Yes, it is a new and creative way, but we already know (just read the topics around) that people never like the idea of not being in control. If their costs on something as artificially created as waypoints are directly tied to the community as a whole, they will find reasons to complain.

That being said (and going back on topic) my whole point is that people are arguing over nothing more than semantics.

You can understand what the devs said on the Manifesto as “we will never have grind on GW2 because we don’t ever want our players to do it”, but you could also understand it as “we will never force you to grind just to compete, if you want to grind, it will be your choice alone”.

Like you said, devs will never be able to keep players from grind if they want. Just keep fighting the same mob, on the same spot and voilá, you are grinding.

Grinding will ALWAYS be part of the mmo genre. Keep that in mind when watching the Manifesto again and you won’t feel lied to.

(Although, as I posted before, they could have put some more thought on what they said)

It’s more than feeling lied to. I feel like the product is incomplete (for whatever reason), and concepts / ideas were shoehorned in at the last second to make it to production.

Never once had I said that I’m not having fun. I play with friends and my two sisters; however, aside from sPvP, I don’t really feel that there are any real challenges in the game.

And to say that looking for ways to improve the PvE experience are semantics does nothing to help improve the game. If you have a logical counter to the argument of whether or not to keep waypoint and armor costs the same, then make it.

Just don’t sit there and hinder progress w/ the same canned response of “if you don’t like it, don’t do it”.

Lance Coolee.9480:

Terrant.2903:

I’d not be opposed to LA as a free waypoint, nor a reduction of WP costs. Although Again I wonder why they’re a problem. 30 minutes in a zone and I’ve more than made up the cost of any jump. The only way I can see this being a problem is if you are constantly jumping from zone to zone (possibly to farm high-pri events like Shatterer or Claw). Even then the rewards from one of these events tend to be more than the cost of a single jump from anywhere.

I do think there needs to be some further analysis on what the deep rooted problems are. I hear quite a bit from both sides that waypoints are either an issue or not.

However, to think about it logically and without acting use cases, the mere existence of waypoint and armor costs kind of contradicts their mantra of “play the game your way”. The ability to continue playing “your way” is entirely dependent on either:

1. Playing efficiently (fewer deaths, smarter waypoint travel)

Or

2. Gold farming to counterbalance your inefficient playstyle.

Now, considering the game claims to appeal to all audiences (especially those new to MMOs), you can easily start to see where problems begin to arise.

OK, let’s be honest here. While you have a point that that would mean i coldn’t “play my way”… everyone can’t “play their way”. Let’s say “my way” is to hack people’s accounts, steal their gold, and scream racial epithets all day? Yes I know there are people doing those things, but they get banned. Therefore Anet is not allowing them to play their way. A line has to be drawn somewhere for the sake of decency and fair play.

Gold sinks exist for a reason. That reason is inflation in the free market. If there was nothing to manage how much gold people could earn, there would be people farming 24 hrs a day, making hundreds of gold a day, and those people would dominate the player market. No one that couldn’t afford to put that much time in could buy even the simplest item, because costs would become too prohibitive. Talk about pay to win!

Now, can the argument be made that the sinks are TOO good at what they do, or loot balance is not enough? Absolutely. And to some extent that is happening. So many people complaiing about having money tells me there is an issue somewhere. Whether it’s that the checks and balances hurt the poor too much, or some players are just (sorry to say this but I have to) just morons, is debatable.

Now the original topic at hand was whether Anet lied to us in the Manifesto. The answer is, and always will be, no. Why? A manifesto is not a strict legal document. It is not a binding promise. It is simply a statement of intent. Anet tells us what they WANT for the game to be. That the INTEND to make it such by the best of their ability.

In order to create a fair environment for everyone, some of the items in that Maneifesto may never be realized to the extent Anet wanted. We will NEVER have permanent changes in a persistent 24/7 environment played by thousands. If one guy saves a town and it stays saved forever, there’s no point in anyone else playing anywhere near that town. There’s nothing to do.

In any game where there is progression, there is repetition. This is unavoidable. You will always have to kill one more monster, gain x more points. This becomes much more prevalent in a finite environment, no matter how large. Eventually you will run out of new things to do. And developing new content and releasing it faster than the kind of people that play a game 16+ hrs a day devour it is simply unfeasible. It takes hours to make a 5 minute event. Days to make an hour long chain. And then further days and weeks of testing. For something the player can do almost instnatly.

And as long as there is repetition, there will be the accusation of grind. The only way to alleviate this is to disguide the grind…make it fun enough, varied enough, that you don’t feel like it’s there. In this, I feel GW2 succeeds better than any other MMO I have ever played. However, the grind is still there.

And my points about personal story still stand. It’s unreasonable to create 100,000 different story scenarios just so every player can have things 100% unique. And even then, it’s impossible to progress the lore and story of your own world and reconcile it with all those changes. I DO feel Anet narrowed the field too much at the end with Trahearne, but I am not sure there was a better way to do it that wouldn’t harm the progressing story of the world at large.

EDIT: Lance, I will agrree with your last comment that you feel less lied to, and more that the manifesto is incomplete. That’s acceptable. This is a persistant, growing, online world right? That means it can and will (hopefully) be improved. I personally feel some parts of the manifesto are impossible in an MMO environment, but that doesn’t mean we and Anet can’t strive to get them as close as we can.

I think everyone have the same opinion that when you hit the lvl.80, you just have 3 options:

1) grind to have a “cool” skin items
2) come back to low lvl. areas to complete tasks that do not reward you with items equivalent of your lvl.
3) PvP

Suggestions:

1) Dungeons items with +5 or 10 in the stats, believe me… this made a BIG difference in the players(ego).
2) One week = one part of dungeon set. This is what the casual players need moderate rewards.
3)Tokens just be used to buy “cool” looking sets.

Instant rewards: Crafted items.
Moderate rewards: 1 part of sets for week.
Long time rewards: “cool” skins items.

I never once said PvE is perfect and, because of it, impossible to be improved. There will always be ways to improve something.

But that is not the point of this thread and I don’t want to get another infraction for going off topic =)

About the first line of your post, I’d like to ask you about how many mmos have you played since day 1 before? After answering that, please, let me know how many of them were released as a “complete product”. I know what would be the best scenario, but its just not realistic at all. MMOs are so complex that, it’s almost impossible for them to be completely “done”, ever. Not at release day, not a year later…

Also saying that concepts / ideas were shoehorned in the last second is bit over exaggeration, don’t you think? How many great and well implemented ideas do we have here? How many bug free mechanics we also have? Just saying you are having fun with your friends and sisters tell me enough about it.

I really don’t think using hyperboles do any good to discussions like this. Every single idea used in this game was well thought, which by no means makes them all well implemented. Developers are also human beings and also capable of making mistakes.

Question is: do you like their product? If you do, then have faith, keep posting suggestions and reporting bugs, but also have an open mind about the fact that not every single suggestion you make will be a good thing, in the end. We can’t take our personal opinions out of the equation this easly. In any case. hyperboles about your problems with the game won’t help anything at all.

@Terrant:

I couldn’t have said it any better than you did. Great post. Hope people understand it and feel less inclined to give semantics so much of a proportion.

deriver.5381:

Question is: do you like their product? If you do, then have faith, keep posting suggestions and reporting bugs, but also have an open mind about the fact that not every single suggestion you make will be a good thing, in the end. We can’t take our personal opinions out of the equation this easly. In any case. hyperboles about your problems with the game won’t help anything at all.

If you read the posts, you’d likely find that I’ve done EXACTLY that, only to be countered with rebuttal that holds no value and doesn’t add to the overall progress of the game.

Regarding waypoint costs. OK, 5s from one side of the map to the other sucks. Want some advice? Stop doing that.

And we would still have people complaining that prices are still high because people are usually lazy and will always port around instead of walking.

So which is it then? Post suggestions and get flamewared against by those blindly supporting the game? Or am I only allowed to post suggestions that everyone agrees on?

If it’s anyone that has to bring a logical argument to the table, I would think it’s you. I have yet to read one that counters anything anyone has said aside from “well it still won’t make ppl happy, so why bother doing it?”

Lance Coolee.9480:

I was so disappointed w/ this too. I was really hoping there would have been better support for managing “loadouts” (sets of skills / gear) out of combat so that I could quickly adapt to the situation in front of me.

Turns out that none of the situations really required the level of depth though, so I for the most part just stick to my basic setup and rarely change it after.

I agree in the world it self this is mainly the case. There have been rare circumstances where I’ve switched my non-dungeon skill sets/traits, mostly because I’m trying to solo a dynamic event meant for more people and more durability is key. In dungeons it is a different story. Here I find myself switching things up based on the dungeon and encounter. For example, more condition removal skills/traits in Twilight’s Arbor.

Lance Coolee.9480:

deriver.5381:

Question is: do you like their product? If you do, then have faith, keep posting suggestions and reporting bugs, but also have an open mind about the fact that not every single suggestion you make will be a good thing, in the end. We can’t take our personal opinions out of the equation this easly. In any case. hyperboles about your problems with the game won’t help anything at all.

If you read the posts, you’d likely find that I’ve done EXACTLY that, only to be countered with rebuttal that holds no value and doesn’t add to the overall progress of the game.

Regarding waypoint costs. OK, 5s from one side of the map to the other sucks. Want some advice? Stop doing that.

And we would still have people complaining that prices are still high because people are usually lazy and will always port around instead of walking.

So which is it then? Post suggestions and get flamewared against by those blindly supporting the game? Or am I only allowed to post suggestions that everyone agrees on?

If it’s anyone that has to bring a logical argument to the table, I would think it’s you. I have yet to read one that counters anything anyone has said aside from “well it still won’t make ppl happy, so why bother doing it?”

Well because it holds some truth, don’t you think? If people complain for the sake of complaining, why bother doing what they want? They will just complain again as soon as something change.

Why did I use this argument on our discussion about waypoint costs? Simply because there is no formula available to tell us what should be the ideal price for them. Noone can safely say that they know, for a fact, what would be “the best” for the game. They only say for their personal interests and opinions.

So, it boils down to people saying that they are having to pay a lot of their savings just to move around the map and it is a bad thing to the game without any metrics to back up their claims.

Well, using WoW as an example, every single time I locked my account for a couple months over there, when I came back, I saw prices at least twice of what they were when I left. WoW had a enormous inflation in place but there, teleportation (flight paths) fees and repairing fees were cheap.

This game is somewhat different. They have made decisions here, to make it way more difficult for people to amass big amounts of coins and it’s still too soon for us to see if that was, indeed a good move and a better solution to a more stable economy. At least give the game some time se we can know, for sure if it holds any goodness for the game itself.

Now that was taking the cash shop completetly out of the discussion because, personally I hate cash shops that give ingame currency for real money. I’ll just hope only a small part of the comunity will ever use it. It may be a fools hope tho, time will tell.

Terrant.2903:

OK, let’s be honest here. While you have a point that that would mean i coldn’t “play my way”… everyone can’t “play their way”. Let’s say “my way” is to hack people’s accounts, steal their gold, and scream racial epithets all day? Yes I know there are people doing those things, but they get banned. Therefore Anet is not allowing them to play their way. A line has to be drawn somewhere for the sake of decency and fair play.

How is exploiting the system even remotely comparable to asking the devs for less restriction on gameplay? You’re on two completely radical ends of the debate, and this cannot be an argument in favor of keeping waypoints and armor costs the way they are.

Terrant.2903:

Now the original topic at hand was whether Anet lied to us in the Manifesto. The answer is, and always will be, no. Why? A manifesto is not a strict legal document. It is not a binding promise. It is simply a statement of intent. Anet tells us what they WANT for the game to be. That the INTEND to make it such by the best of their ability.

Following that logic, if the President of the US doesn’t follow though on his (non contractually binding) promises, then we have no right to demand better either, right?

deriver.5381:

Why did I use this argument on our discussion about waypoint costs? Simply because there is no formula available to tell us what should be the ideal price for them. Noone can safely say that they know, for a fact, what would be “the best” for the game. They only say for their personal interests and opinions.

It would do you some good to take some User Experience and Design courses. That alone would answer this question.

Simply put, the ideal cost is ZERO. Waypoint costs and Armor costs are a penalty, they offer no added value to the experience (the argument really can’t be made that they’re a strategic factor that forces players to think about “not dying”, because dying alone is penalty enough). They’re there solely as a counterbalance to some other mechanic in the system. All I am saying is that there are far more creative ways to impose the same counterbalance without detracting from the overall experience.

Lance Coolee.9480:

deriver.5381:

Why did I use this argument on our discussion about waypoint costs? Simply because there is no formula available to tell us what should be the ideal price for them. Noone can safely say that they know, for a fact, what would be “the best” for the game. They only say for their personal interests and opinions.

It would do you some good to take some User Experience and Design courses. That alone would answer this question.

Simply put, the ideal cost is ZERO. Waypoint costs and Armor costs are a penalty, they offer no added value to the experience (the argument really can’t be made that they’re a strategic factor that forces players to think about “not dying”, because dying alone is penalty enough). They’re there solely as a counterbalance to some other mechanic in the system. All I am saying is that there are far more creative ways to impose the same counterbalance without detracting from the overall experience.

Again asking me to educate myself, eh? Should we keep on this like on my last economics class? Hopefully not…

They are just money sinks, and as such, completely necessary. Removing the money sinks from one aspect of the game just to put them somewhere else, won’t help you and your pockets at nothing at all, so why are you asking for their removal again?

deriver.5381:

Lance Coolee.9480:

deriver.5381:

Why did I use this argument on our discussion about waypoint costs? Simply because there is no formula available to tell us what should be the ideal price for them. Noone can safely say that they know, for a fact, what would be “the best” for the game. They only say for their personal interests and opinions.

It would do you some good to take some User Experience and Design courses. That alone would answer this question.

Simply put, the ideal cost is ZERO. Waypoint costs and Armor costs are a penalty, they offer no added value to the experience (the argument really can’t be made that they’re a strategic factor that forces players to think about “not dying”, because dying alone is penalty enough). They’re there solely as a counterbalance to some other mechanic in the system. All I am saying is that there are far more creative ways to impose the same counterbalance without detracting from the overall experience.

Again asking me to educate myself, eh? Should we keep on this like on my last economics class? Hopefully not…

They are just money sinks, and as such, completely necessary. Removing the money sinks from one aspect of the game just to put them somewhere else, won’t help you and your pockets at nothing at all, so why are you asking for their removal again?

Show me where I said I’m advocating the removal of money sinks?

Why couldn’t waypoint travel (and armor repair) scale (with a cap) based on the amount of money the player has available? Why couldn’t waypoint travel (and armor repair) scale based on usage? Why couldn’t we just find alternative money sinks like replacing all dungeon tokens with gold cost?

There are a significant number of alternatives to balance the economy than waypoint and armor costs (which deter players from playing more, instead of promoting players to play more).

Lance Coolee.9480:

deriver.5381:

Lance Coolee.9480:

deriver.5381:

Why did I use this argument on our discussion about waypoint costs? Simply because there is no formula available to tell us what should be the ideal price for them. Noone can safely say that they know, for a fact, what would be “the best” for the game. They only say for their personal interests and opinions.

It would do you some good to take some User Experience and Design courses. That alone would answer this question.

Simply put, the ideal cost is ZERO. Waypoint costs and Armor costs are a penalty, they offer no added value to the experience (the argument really can’t be made that they’re a strategic factor that forces players to think about “not dying”, because dying alone is penalty enough). They’re there solely as a counterbalance to some other mechanic in the system. All I am saying is that there are far more creative ways to impose the same counterbalance without detracting from the overall experience.

Again asking me to educate myself, eh? Should we keep on this like on my last economics class? Hopefully not…

They are just money sinks, and as such, completely necessary. Removing the money sinks from one aspect of the game just to put them somewhere else, won’t help you and your pockets at nothing at all, so why are you asking for their removal again?

Show me where I said I’m advocating the removal of money sinks?

Why couldn’t waypoint travel (and armor repair) scale (with a cap) based on the amount of money the player has available? Why couldn’t waypoint travel (and armor repair) scale based on usage? Why couldn’t we just find alternative money sinks like replacing all dungeon tokens with gold cost?

There are a significant number of alternatives to balance the economy than waypoint and armor costs (which deter players from playing more, instead of promoting players to play more).

You are indeed advocating the removal of these two money sinks. If it’s not the case you are either having dificulties to communicate properly or just plain contradicting yourself.

There is no particular reason why any of your ideas above couldn’t be implemented. They could all be, for all I care. But again what would change in the end? Changing everything to be exactly the same, just with a different face is really that much of a big deal for you?

Because if you are not advocating any reduction on money sinks and yet complain about the restrictively nature of them, I’m failing hard to understand your point.

deriver.5381:

You are indeed advocating the removal of these two money sinks.

Correct, I am.

I never said I’m advocating the removal of ALL money sinks.

But again what would change in the end?

The overall gameplay experience. People will play more simply because there are fewer barriers for them to do so (User Experience Design 101).

Lance Coolee.9480:

deriver.5381:

You are indeed advocating the removal of these two money sinks.

Correct, I am.

I never said I’m advocating the removal of ALL money sinks.

But again what would change in the end?

The overall gameplay experience. People will play more simply because there are fewer barriers for them to do so (User Experience Design 101).

If that’s the only logic behind it, let’s just remove them all. You may think those two are the worst ones, others may bring different experiences. So, to make everyone happy and not being biased to anyone’s opinion, let’s remove them all.

Heck if thats the only logic behind player experience you learned from that class, lets just make a whole virtual world where anyone has GM powers so they can do whatever they want in there and have the most fun they ever had on any virtual enviroment, no barriers or limitations at all… Oh wait, that’s Second Life… You sure you ’d rather have a MMO instead of that?

Unfortunately (for you, probably) there are a lot more behind money sinks than just what you described. Reducing money sinks randomly could unbalance the economy and players could play less because economy is a mess now. Or maybe, following your examples, removing the money sinks from those two aspects and bring them somewhere else, and now suddently people who enjoyed something that was great for them before, now find it broken because the devs changed that part of the game to accomodate the changes made to the ones you seem to enjoy most, therefore making some players play less because of it.

deriver.5381:

Heck if thats the only logic behind player experience you learned from that class, lets just make a whole virtual world where anyone has GM powers so they can do whatever they want in there and have the most fun they ever had on any virtual enviroment, no barriers or limitations at all…

Show me how waypoint and armor costs ADD value to the player’s gaming experience, and then I’ll start to listen to your arguments.

deriver.5381:

Unfortunately (for you, probably) there are a lot more behind money sinks than just what you described. Reducing money sinks randomly could unbalance the economy and players could play less because economy is a mess now.

Again, Scientific Method. Nobody advocated anything be done randomly at all. I’m merely 1. Identifying the problem and 2. Proposing theories to solve the problems.

Next step would be implementing the solutions and testing the results, wouldn’t you say?

The real issue is there are quite a handful of players arguing against the “problem”, but aren’t offering valid reasons why it’s not a problem. The largest consenting reply I’ve read was “if you don’t like it, don’t do it”.

Lance Coolee.9480:

Next step would be implementing the solutions and testing the results, wouldn’t you say?

You are assuming others agree with the proposed solutions and the initial identified items are actually problems…

Craven.5468:

Lance Coolee.9480:

Next step would be implementing the solutions and testing the results, wouldn’t you say?

You are assuming others agree with the proposed solutions and the initial identified items are actually problems…

Sorry, yes you are correct. I did simplify the process for the purpose of illustration.

Lance Coolee.9480:

The real issue is there are quite a handful of players arguing against the “problem”, but aren’t offering valid reasons why it’s not a problem. The largest consenting reply I’ve read was “if you don’t like it, don’t do it”.

Because what you call “problem” is not a fact based on unbiased research, but just your own opinion about something instead. You are so self-centered on your coments that you fail to understand this simple fact.

Post something like “I would like to say that these mechanics hinder my gameplay and I’d very much like them to be changed because of reason x, y and z. Bear in mind those are my opinions and I do not speak for anyone else” and I won’t ever comment anything against it because there would just not be a reason to. If they change, good for you, simple as that.

Craven.5468:

Lance Coolee.9480:

Next step would be implementing the solutions and testing the results, wouldn’t you say?

You are assuming others agree with the proposed solutions and the initial identified items are actually problems…

What sucks is I can’t even find one argument that offers valid reason why what some are proposing as problems, aren’t.

The only argument rebutting the “proposed” issues are “if you don’t like it, don’t do it” and “this isn’t wow, if you wanted wow, go buy pandaland”.

Lance Coolee.9480:

Craven.5468:

Lance Coolee.9480:

Next step would be implementing the solutions and testing the results, wouldn’t you say?

You are assuming others agree with the proposed solutions and the initial identified items are actually problems…

What sucks is I can’t even find one argument that offers valid reason why what some are proposing as problems, aren’t.

The only argument rebutting the “proposed” issues are “if you don’t like it, don’t do it” and “this isn’t wow, if you wanted wow, go buy pandaland”.

Your opinion is showing again. You are simply ignoring anyone’s response that doesn’t agree with you. I think at this point, many are simply no longer interested in conversing in one direction.

Lance Coolee.9480:

The only argument rebutting the “proposed” issues are “if you don’t like it, don’t do it” and “this isn’t wow, if you wanted wow, go buy pandaland”.

And I bought pandaland, despite not having planned to do so before hand. I can already predict the response from some of these people though, it’s “good riddance!” or “don’t let the door hit you on the way out” etc. I’m not sure why mmo communities have devolved to actually wanting other people to quit and play something else, even though the whole point is to have more people and play with people. The more people “your game” has, the more money the developer gets, the more content and overall game will be better. Keep shooing people out though, I’m sure it’ll end well.

deriver.5381:

Because what you call “problem” is not a fact based on unbiased research, but just your own opinion about something instead. You are so self-centered on your coments that you fail to understand this simple fact.

Show me one post where I spoke for anyone but myself and didn’t express simple observation.

The beauty behind “simple facts” is that they are indeed, simple and proven. It is proven that when you apply any resistance between Point A and Point B, the result is less than optimal.

Consider the player “Point A” and consider gameplay “Point B”; waypoint and armor costs are the resistance. Pretty simple wouldn’t you agree?

Agrias.2391:

Lance Coolee.9480:

The only argument rebutting the “proposed” issues are “if you don’t like it, don’t do it” and “this isn’t wow, if you wanted wow, go buy pandaland”.

And I bought pandaland, despite not having planned to do so before hand. I can already predict the response from some of these people though, it’s “good riddance!” or “don’t let the door hit you on the way out” etc. I’m not sure why mmo communities have devolved to actually wanting other people to quit and play something else, even though the whole point is to have more people and play with people. The more people “your game” has, the more money the developer gets, the more content and overall game will be better. Keep shooing people out though, I’m sure it’ll end well.

I think everyone should buy every game and try them all; and even gasp enjoy them all! I see no reason to expect that everyone who plays one particular game should stay forever. There are many digital worlds to explore; no reason to limit anyone to one.

Enjoy.

Craven.5468:

Agrias.2391:

Lance Coolee.9480:

The only argument rebutting the “proposed” issues are “if you don’t like it, don’t do it” and “this isn’t wow, if you wanted wow, go buy pandaland”.

And I bought pandaland, despite not having planned to do so before hand. I can already predict the response from some of these people though, it’s “good riddance!” or “don’t let the door hit you on the way out” etc. I’m not sure why mmo communities have devolved to actually wanting other people to quit and play something else, even though the whole point is to have more people and play with people. The more people “your game” has, the more money the developer gets, the more content and overall game will be better. Keep shooing people out though, I’m sure it’ll end well.

I think everyone should buy every game and try them all; and even gasp enjoy them all! I see no reason to expect that everyone who plays one particular game should stay forever. There are many digital worlds to explore; no reason to limit anyone to one.

Enjoy.

That would be true with console games and single player games where you’re expected to buy the game as is, and expect no future update to that game, or further fund it through microtransactions.

Lance Coolee.9480:

deriver.5381:

Because what you call “problem” is not a fact based on unbiased research, but just your own opinion about something instead. You are so self-centered on your coments that you fail to understand this simple fact.

Show me one post where I spoke for anyone but myself and didn’t express simple observation.

The beauty behind “simple facts” is that they are indeed, simple and proven. It is proven that when you apply any resistance between Point A and Point B, the result is less than optimal.

Consider the player “Point A” and consider gameplay “Point B”; waypoint and armor costs are the resistance. Pretty simple wouldn’t you agree?

I consider enhanced travel of any form realistic not resistance. Same is true for armor damage repair costs.

These things make me care about dying, care about travel and help to immerse me into the world and have a stake in my progress. Much like in EVE, there are consequences to losing a fight in a ship worth 2 billion. In GW2, at least there is a repair cost involved.

The fact that you view these costs as insurmountable and unacceptable is a matter of opinion and perspective; both you are welcome to have and neither are facts.

Lance Coolee.9480:

deriver.5381:

Because what you call “problem” is not a fact based on unbiased research, but just your own opinion about something instead. You are so self-centered on your coments that you fail to understand this simple fact.

Show me one post where I spoke for anyone but myself and didn’t express simple observation.

The beauty behind “simple facts” is that they are indeed, simple and proven. It is proven that when you apply any resistance between Point A and Point B, the result is less than optimal.

Consider the player “Point A” and consider gameplay “Point B”; waypoint and armor costs are the resistance. Pretty simple wouldn’t you agree?

Taking in consideration the part of my post you quoted I’ll make some changes to what you said:

I consider you as “Point A” and your gameplay as “Point B” and waypoint and armor costs being the resistance. Yes, it was pretty simple.

Now consider this:

“Point A” being me and “Point B” being my gameplay. I can tell you, I see no resistance whatsoever on my path between A and B.

So what about you be more open minded and realize that we are arguing about opinions, nothing more. Unless the huge majority of the players decide to agree with you or me, it won’t ever be anything more than just a battle of opinions.

Pawlegance.7012:

There is a huge number of things they’ve said and changed during development. A lot of these things draw me to the game, a lot of things are still there, a lot of things are gone and affecting GW2 in a negative way. Just take a look at their “When it’s ready.” philosophy. GW2 isn’t ready yet. There is an immense number of bugs and exploits, hacks etc making the game not that much fun as it should.

In their defense, “when it’s ready” does not equate to “when it’s finished.” This was a clever way of covering themselves and another deceptive component of the manifesto.

Craven.5468:

Agrias.2391:

Lance Coolee.9480:

The only argument rebutting the “proposed” issues are “if you don’t like it, don’t do it” and “this isn’t wow, if you wanted wow, go buy pandaland”.

And I bought pandaland, despite not having planned to do so before hand. I can already predict the response from some of these people though, it’s “good riddance!” or “don’t let the door hit you on the way out” etc. I’m not sure why mmo communities have devolved to actually wanting other people to quit and play something else, even though the whole point is to have more people and play with people. The more people “your game” has, the more money the developer gets, the more content and overall game will be better. Keep shooing people out though, I’m sure it’ll end well.

I think everyone should buy every game and try them all; and even gasp enjoy them all! I see no reason to expect that everyone who plays one particular game should stay forever. There are many digital worlds to explore; no reason to limit anyone to one.

Enjoy.

I work with another software engineer that does JUST that. The last game I remember him talking to me about was the 50 Cent game. Totally ridiculous game.

Craven.5468:

I consider enhanced travel of any form realistic not resistance. Same is true for armor damage repair costs.

These things make me care about dying, care about travel and help to immerse me into the world and have a stake in my progress. Much like in EVE, there are consequences to losing a fight in a ship worth 2 billion. In GW2, at least there is a repair cost involved.

The fact that you view these costs as insurmountable and unacceptable is a matter of opinion and perspective; both you are welcome to have and neither are facts.

Logical arguments.

I don’t believe I’ve stated that the costs are unacceptable, rather I argued that their existence doesn’t fit the intended goal.

It’s one thing to say they exist in game as a way provoke immersion (which I do agree with), than to say that they exist to keep the economy in check (which I don’t agree with).

I’d like to say that if we do keep waypoint and armor costs in the game, it’s not at the expense of the players ability to actually play. I’ve personally felt the pain of that when I’ve had to completely walk away from a dungeon (with a handful of pugs) simply because I couldn’t afford to do it anymore (we’ve wiped like 20 times, but the enthusiasm to complete it remained, so I stayed for as long as I could).

Lance Coolee.9480:

Craven.5468:

I consider enhanced travel of any form realistic not resistance. Same is true for armor damage repair costs.

These things make me care about dying, care about travel and help to immerse me into the world and have a stake in my progress. Much like in EVE, there are consequences to losing a fight in a ship worth 2 billion. In GW2, at least there is a repair cost involved.

The fact that you view these costs as insurmountable and unacceptable is a matter of opinion and perspective; both you are welcome to have and neither are facts.

Logical arguments.

I don’t believe I’ve stated that the costs are unacceptable, rather I argued that their existence doesn’t fit the intended goal.

It’s one thing to say they exist in game as a way provoke immersion (which I do agree with), than to say that they exist to keep the economy in check (which I don’t agree with).

I’d like to say that if we do keep waypoint and armor costs in the game, it’s not at the expense of the players ability to actually play. I’ve personally felt the pain of that when I’ve had to completely walk away from a dungeon (with a handful of pugs) simply because I couldn’t afford to do it anymore (we’ve wiped like 20 times, but the enthusiasm to complete it remained, so I stayed for as long as I could).

There was a fantastic discussion a while back about some tweaks that could be made to the travel system that would make grouping with lower level friends a lot better, among other things. I cannot find the thread but I think it was moved to suggestions. It has a heck of a great discussion though.

I think if a few tweaks were put in place, fast travel could be regulated and prohibitive enough to avoid zone floods and other issues without making it as illogical as it is now. Many suggested tying the costs to the zone level (not the player level), as well as making your jump to a major city cheaper or free, and more. Still searching for it…

deriver.5381:

Now consider this:

“Point A” being me and “Point B” being my gameplay. I can tell you, I see no resistance whatsoever on my path between A and B.

So what about you be more open minded and realize that we are arguing about opinions, nothing more. Unless the huge majority of the players decide to agree with you or me, it won’t ever be anything more than just a battle of opinions.

You’re using the term “resistance” as a relative term based on the context you apply it to. I did not, I used “resistance” as a mathematical value with intent to show possible pitfalls.

You see no resistance because the gameplay path YOU have chosen allows you to do so.

That is not the case with players that follow a different path, and it is very easy to see why that design fails.

(Queue the knee-jerk response: “well then you’re playing the game wrong”).

^ I’ll refute that before you get a chance to even think it. Show me where the game outlines the “right” and the “wrong” way to play, and I’ll give up my argument.

Craven.5468:

Lance Coolee.9480:

Craven.5468:

I consider enhanced travel of any form realistic not resistance. Same is true for armor damage repair costs.

These things make me care about dying, care about travel and help to immerse me into the world and have a stake in my progress. Much like in EVE, there are consequences to losing a fight in a ship worth 2 billion. In GW2, at least there is a repair cost involved.

The fact that you view these costs as insurmountable and unacceptable is a matter of opinion and perspective; both you are welcome to have and neither are facts.

Logical arguments.

I don’t believe I’ve stated that the costs are unacceptable, rather I argued that their existence doesn’t fit the intended goal.

It’s one thing to say they exist in game as a way provoke immersion (which I do agree with), than to say that they exist to keep the economy in check (which I don’t agree with).

I’d like to say that if we do keep waypoint and armor costs in the game, it’s not at the expense of the players ability to actually play. I’ve personally felt the pain of that when I’ve had to completely walk away from a dungeon (with a handful of pugs) simply because I couldn’t afford to do it anymore (we’ve wiped like 20 times, but the enthusiasm to complete it remained, so I stayed for as long as I could).

There was a fantastic discussion a while back about some tweaks that could be made to the travel system that would make grouping with lower level friends a lot better, among other things. I cannot find the thread but I think it was moved to suggestions. It has a heck of a great discussion though.

I think if a few tweaks were put in place, fast travel could be regulated and prohibitive enough to avoid zone floods and other issues without making it as illogical as it is now. Many suggested tying the costs to the zone level (not the player level), as well as making your jump to a major city cheaper or free, and more. Still searching for it…

I’ve given the suggestion about tying the costs to the average level of the zone in a couple posts so far. This way the costs would be somewhat related to what you may get as rewards from playing on that zone, but still a money sink for those who are just teleporting around carelessly, just not as big as it is now, if aimed towards low level zones.

Also, the idea of making LA free is also great. Both a great ideas of lessening the burden in an intelligent way without having to resort to removing it entirely.

Craven.5468:

There was a fantastic discussion a while back about some tweaks that could be made to the travel system that would make grouping with lower level friends a lot better, among other things. I cannot find the thread but I think it was moved to suggestions. It has a heck of a great discussion though.

I think if a few tweaks were put in place, fast travel could be regulated and prohibitive enough to avoid zone floods and other issues without making it as illogical as it is now. Many suggested tying the costs to the zone level (not the player level), as well as making your jump to a major city cheaper or free, and more. Still searching for it…

Someone in this thread gave a great suggestion on the topic as well: to have waypoint and armor costs scale with usage. So initially, they’d start off relatively low, and as the player uses them more, the costs would also increase.

Personally, I would like to see a system that implements some element of scaling based on how much money the player has (up to a cap). So effectively, if the player is broke, waypoints and armor repairs cost nothing. If the player is banking 80g, then waypoint and armor costs are maxed out.

Craven.5468:

There was a fantastic discussion a while back about some tweaks that could be made to the travel system that would make grouping with lower level friends a lot better, among other things.

Maybe this one:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/suggestions/Ok-seriously-Waypoint-costs/first

I wrote this there:

SirMoogie.9263:

Let’s assume the economy is set up in a way that they like it and that the gold sinks are in the proper proportions and affecting people in an equitable way, meaning the gold sinks aren’t hitting the crafters too hard, those that use the trading post, or even those who haven’t learned to dodge roll yet (i.e., those who have to repair their gear more frequently). Equity is kind of a nice feature for gold sinks in the economy because it doesn’t make it prohibitive to participate in certain activities. One of the benefits of having waypoints have a gold sink is it hits everyone, as it’s an activity that we all have to do. Well, you don’t have to, but I suspect the community that never uses waypoints is virtually non-existent.

So, suppose waypoint costs are removed or lowered. Where should we add these costs to keep inflation in control while retaining the equity of those costs? We don’t have to keep the equity mind you, but without it it kind of makes it seem like you’re trying to pass the costs onto another segment of the population so you don’t have those costs. For example, you could say make crafting goods higher, because you don’t craft. Or make armor repairs higher, since you’re a pro and don’t die. Add a fee to dungeon entry, as you don’t do those. Add postage to mail, as you don’t use mail. You get the point.

So, what is your suggestion on passing the costs? Who should have these costs placed on them if it isn’t those who use waypoints?

I think it applies here. I’d only add that I can see the travel costs being prohibitive if done frequently, and the zone scaling solution sounds like a good one.

Thank you Moogie

Now I know that english is not my main language and a lot could be lost in translation but isn’t “we don’t want” player to grind"=/=“there is no grind in this game?” devs from another mmo don’t want players to consume content too fast does that mean that this never happens?

About the karma costs and the EM gear are those the only way to get geared like in other games? Is getting the highest gear possible needed to clear the hardest fights? I played other games as a very hardcore player and I can say that not having to run Arah SM 10 times to get geared enough for the EM is refreshing.

Now for the permanent changes, as long as players keep the avatars off the gods temple those stay permanently friendly to players, if no player helps the builders repair a bridge that bridge will be permanently destroyed etc.

And about the players starting chained events I have seen chains starting after I talked to an npc who asked me to go and protect her/him while they go somewhere, once there surprise They ask me to gather things, once this is done a boss arrives I go and protect them even more, this sometimes leads to either the capture of a camp or another npc coming in either next to the place where we killed the boss or back at the village and they ask us to do something else.

Unless once again I m losing things in translation those are examples to player induced chain-events as they promised us.

Lance Coolee.9480:

You’re using the term “resistance” as a relative term based on the context you apply it to. I did not, I used “resistance” as a mathematical value with intent to show possible pitfalls.

You see no resistance because the gameplay path YOU have chosen allows you to do so.

That is not the case with players that follow a different path, and it is very easy to see why that design fails.

You are right about your first statement, yet wrong about the second. The resistance this game puts between our paths is the same for everyone. There is just one playstyle that seems to negate it: botting;

Resistance is all around and your gameplay is limited in every sense by it, all the time. Its a constant, not a selective mechanic.

The only way your comment about my chosen gameplay being responsible for me not being affected by resistance could hold any truth is if I was a botter, working around the system to get unfair amount of coins noone else could by normal means. And it is not the case.

I’m not rich in game, not even if I get all the money from all my alts and sum them up, so I take I am as much of a “victim” of the system as you are.

Porky.5021:

I’d be fine if the prices of the waypoints varied on usage.

Usage increases, the price increases. Usage decreases, the price decreases.

Let the populations willingness to use and pay determine the price.

Then kitten would get a bunch of money and hop between points and jack the price up.