Guild Wars 2

Swish.2463:

stuff

So how come people can suggest changing huge parts of the game that I love and/or overhauling it completely and I shouldn’t feel offended at all since it’s their right to ask for whatever they want but when I tell them it’s not a good idea and maybe they should consider that instead of changing 80% of what this game is maybe it’d be easier to leave the game as it is for those of us who enjoy it and seek out a different game that already caters to their wishes they’re allowed to be super offended because apparently I shouldn’t have any say on whether the game is or not for them.

Well I’m not the one saying it. They’re saying it themselves – by asking for it to be so radically changed it’d practically be another game.

Do I like GW2? Sure.
Do I want changes ? Of course.
Are some of these unpopular? You betcha.

If I had it my way GW2 would have one playable race : humans.
I’d also do away with most ( about 70%) of the nonsense SF asura stuff and simply wipe the charr out of Ascalon for good.

I’d also split balance between PVE and sPVP. I’d also do a number of thigs. But I don’t go around suggesting these every few days because I know they’re not going to happen and the game would change too drastically.

If I wanted these changes so bad – I’d probably go back to GW1. So how is it ok to tell myself this and stop myself from posting absurd things but it’s not ok to tell it to others?!

Harper.4173:

Devata.6589:

Azure The Heartless.3261:

I think that its trollish and demeaning for a player to join an up-and-running game, play it, and then berate it for why it isnt like [insert x game here], like the developers have made this game as a commission for said player and have done a poor job capturing the player’s dream.

:“This isn’t the game for you” is a wake-up call that lets players know that while suggestions for enhancement are fine, berating a game for not bending to their whims is silly.

there are people that use that reasoning to berate and shut down suggestions though. Even if they’re frequently made suggestions, if they are done politely you shouldn’t be suggesting the person pretty much leave, though.

Sadly many people who like to defend any element of the game seem to mainly have some hatred to those other games.. or well.. WoW and seem to see every change as a move in the direction of WoW (see the many mount discussion, many nonsense reasons are made up why not to add them but in the end it turns out they simply don’t like it because WoW) so any change that would mean something would be added that is similar as in WoW is being attacked by “Maybe GW2 is not your game.”

Asking for something that might also be in another MMO does not mean asking to change the game into that game.

GW2 was designed and advertised before launch particularly at segments of the MMO player base that disliked wow. Disliked the trinity, grind, and other associated elements.

There are enough valid reasons why mounts are a bad idea ( lag, we already have a means of fast travel, don’t fit in thematically etc).

Advertised as no trinity, yes, advertised as no grind yes (sadly that worked out different) advertised with events yes.

But the fact that there where no mounts was never so much advertised with or was never a selling point.

And this is again a good example of what I was talking about. People who don’t want mounts because WoW (what you reveal in your first part) then use the “it does not fit in GW core” as excuse (and so basically trying to change what GW is about. Considering it very much does fit) and then coming with some additional excuses because they known “because WoW” is not going to cut it.

Lag..? mounts would not create more lag and the additional models should also not be a problem as it’s been done in many mmo’s.

The current form of fast travel does not fit in the world where ‘portals’ are the big thing. And at best way-points mean mounts are not needed but that does not mean there is no reason for putting them in.

And thematically..? Really? There are already mounts in it. NPC’s that have traveled with horse carriages to places, vehicles parked in Black Citadel and you can even see the dredge using vehicles. Not having mounts while they are very visible in the world… that does not fit thematically.

You might not like mounts because WoW and thats fine. But don’t try to redefine what GW is by saying mounts don’t not fit in there while they do or even worse (subject of the title) then blame other people of doing exactly that.

Belzebu.3912:

I think most the times people use the “this is not the game for you” is when someone come and say things like “In WoW we have this and that”, “In TERA there was such thing”, or ideas like “add mounts”, “gives us hardcore content”, “make PK servers” and so on.

Those things are features that the ANet is trying to avoid and the game was not designed for that, so in those cases, this is not the game for you.

EDIT:

mage.3570:

But we get the same reactions when we request features in GW1 that are absolutely missing or lacking in GW2, such as more skills, templates, elite dungeons (8+ team), etc

I usually don’t see this reaction for those suggestions.

“Those things are features that the ANet is trying to avoid and the game was not designed for that, so in those cases, this is not the game for you.”

Again somebody who does it. The thread is really a magnet to the people it’s talking about isn’kitten

No this game was not designed to not have mounts. Not having mounts has never been a selling point and people with those complains you see in almost any forum of any other MMO (probably except for Wildstar) where any suggestion that they see as coming from WoW results in people having to go to another game instead of turning ‘this’ game into another ‘WoW clone’. (see Addition)

Colin talked about how mounts could be implemented, so thats how much Anet is trying to avoid them. But I guess the group of WoW haters might have a some success. If they make enough noice maybe Anet will get afraid of putting in things like mounts.

Also just because Tera or WoW or any other MMO has a good feature does not mean it should not be in GW2. No GW2 should also learn from other games (just as they do from GW2) and might very well take some of those elements maybe with some changes to better fit GW2.

Also your ‘hardcore content’. Anet even did see they wanted to put such content in and referred to things like the liadri fight. So saying Anet tries to avoid that makes no sense what so ever. It’s not like it does not fit in GW or it does not Fit Anet.. It does not fit you!

Addition… Just for fun I googled for literally “turning this game into another WoW clone” and got two hits. One from the ESO forums and one from “Phantasy Star Universe”. That what I am talking about. Those thinks are no so much ‘it does not fit GW2’ it’s much more ‘it does not fit WoW haters’ and so you will see them in almost any other MMO forum.

Nor were mounts advertised or a selling point. You can’t say that the fact that they didn’t specifically say " no mounts" means the game should have mounts.

Did you research GW lore before you bought? Did you see if they fit in or if they were used before? Because if you had done so ( or others) you’d see that in a universe where people can just waypoint around the map ( aka teleport) there’s no real reason for anything mount-related.

Mounts serve a functional purpose in other MMOs – they move you around – which is not needed here since the GW universe has other means of doing that.

You’re saying that we’re using “it doesn’t fit in” as an excuse but look at it logically :

Why would I ride a horse/cat/camel/whatever if I could simply teleport.

It goes against practical reasons as well – since with megaservers the game is already a zergy laggy mess – how about everyone having 1 more model on the screen to add to that why don’t we?

You say " they would not create lag" but I doubt you have any technical experience on the matter.

Now I’m not some savvy programmer or whatnot but I’ll tell you one thing – if it’s on the screen it’s using resources.
I have a very high-end PC. I sometimes lag in huge zergs – now imagine how that would work if everyone in the huge zerg had another model with them that the game had to render animations for. Yeah.

Actually I dislike mounts because I find the idea redundant and believe it’ll only bring about more technical lag issues.

If you don’t need them for moving – then there’s no point.

We could also have personal clones, floating pandas, undead servants and anything else following us around but just because we can doesn’t mean we should.

I’ve also never played wow and don’t care for it. So your point is flawed.

Not to mention more data because of files, assets in addition to making them all work with game physics, jumping, clipping, animations, racial animations, idle animations (which also have to be done for character models in addition to mount models), and then there’s other issues such as size. A Norn would not be able to ride something that a Human, Sylvari, or Asura would be able to ride because of weights. A Charr would not be able to ride most things because of their body shapes.

Harper.4173:

Nor were mounts advertised or a selling point. You can’t say that the fact that they didn’t specifically say " no mounts" means the game should have mounts.

I’m not saying that.
Quote me where I say that please.

Harper.4173:

Did you research GW lore before you bought? Did you see if they fit in or if they were used before? Because if you had done so ( or others) you’d see that in a universe where people can just waypoint around the map ( aka teleport) there’s no real reason for anything mount-related.

Yes I did and if you did as well you would have know way-points don’t fit in the lore.. the lore where portals are so a big deal.
And the citizens of Tyria seem to disagree that there is no reason for mounts as they seem to be using them all the time. Only players aren’t using them. Besides again, it does not matter if it’s needed. A good looking skin is not needed, should we then also not have different skins? It’s a completely invalid point

Harper.4173:

Mounts serve a functional purpose in other MMOs – they move you around – which is not needed here since the GW universe has other means of doing that.

They move you around, they are a cosmetic, they are a collectibles, there are a game-play element (hunting them down in the world) and they help you to travel faster in a more immersive way then simply teleporting all over the game. In all honestly. Waypoints are an inferior way of travel looking from an MMO perspective because it makes the world feel smaller and takes away from immersion.

But again, it does not matter if you ‘need’ it or not. Besides why could it not be the other way around.. maybe we do not not have mounts because we have waypoints but we have waypoints because we do not have mounts (yet) because Anet was not able to get that in for release / get it to work. That would in fact make much more sense and explain why they put in place such a system that does not really fit the game and the lore and makes there world feel so small.

What I personally think is that they had trouble creating a true open world (there are some early tailors and other stuff that suggest thats what they where building) and where forced to go to instanced maps and then using mounts to get from place A to B 3 maps away would mean loading screen after loading screen. And so then they came up with waypoints. Meaning waypoints where more of a thing they did fall back on, not the first choice. Not sure but thats what I think.

Harper.4173:

Why would I ride a horse/cat/camel/whatever if I could simply teleport.

IDK, ask the citicen of Tyria. But thats what I am saying.. You say mounts don’t fit, I say waypoints don’t fit. No real lore about them.

So let me ask you that question.
Why are portals such a big deal if we can teleportal all over the place? And why did the research that investigated what was going on in Kessex Hills traveled there with a horse carriage while they could just teleport? And why do I never see a NPC use the waypoints, I sometimes even have to guard them while they walk from one waypoint to the other? http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/File:Thunder_Ridge_Camp_2.jpg

Harper.4173:

You say " they would not create lag" but I doubt you have any technical experience on the matter.

I do. The extra model could mean it gets harder for PC’s to load it (decrease of FPS) but the additional information needing to be send would be similar to that of a mini (maybe a little more) and so would not easily increase lag. Would you really be afraid of that additional model (that is not lag!) (what Anet was with mini’s) then simply disable mini’s when riding mounts.

But really if it would be a problem the core problem is somewhere else in the core, not with the mounts them-self as that has been done in many games. Also don’t forget we already have the riding broom.

Harper.4173:

We could also have personal clones, floating pandas, undead servants and anything else following us around but just because we can doesn’t mean we should.

mesmers have clones, we don’t have floating panda’s but we do have balloons, necromancers have undead ‘helpers’ and we can all have many other things (mini’s) following us around.

Esplen.3940:

Not to mention more data because of files, assets in addition to making them all work with game physics, jumping, clipping, animations, racial animations, idle animations (which also have to be done for character models in addition to mount models), and then there’s other issues such as size. A Norn would not be able to ride something that a Human, Sylvari, or Asura would be able to ride because of weights. A Charr would not be able to ride most things because of their body shapes.

Thats all not lag. Lag is what you get if to much data needs to be send to you or from you and because of to many data it does not get to the clients fast enough. So that the position of the mount, the direction, maybe the animation and if you can color him the colors. That should not have to be much more as a few bytes.

Additional data needs to be stored yes.. you would need to download additional data once and those animations need to be created once. After that your PC needs to render it. That is what might be a problem but should really not be a problem. It would be similar to having a mini as additional model. So if Anet can get that to work then simply remove mini’s when riding mounts and the problem should be solved.

Some of the other problems have already been solved (see the riding broom).

But now it’s becoming to much of a mount discussion and why those excuses are not valid.

The mounts where just an example here and the subject was people basically saying “go play another game” simply because somebody suggested something they personally don’t like. Making then up that that addition would not fit in the core of the game.

If you want to play a game that has mounts, then GW2 is not the game for you because it does not have mounts.

You are free to suggest that they add mounts, but until they do you are better off enjoying one of the hundreds of other games that do have mounts, and people are not out of line to suggest this to you.

See how that works?

Why did this derail into a mount thread?

bloodletting wolf.2837:

Why did this derail into a mount thread?

Don’t they all?

mtpelion.4562:

bloodletting wolf.2837:

Why did this derail into a mount thread?

Don’t they all?

One might say there is mounting evidence many people want mounts.

In regard to the something not being for someone – having been a musician for lo, these past 38 years, I have seen time and time again musicians who want to play, say, jazz, joining, for example, punk bands and then trying to convert them to jazz. It seldom works. Or even worse, some guitarist buying a nice relatively unmarred 60s (or 70s!) Stratocaster and then deciding to put a Floyd Rose Locking Tremolo on it. /e shudder.

As for something like GW2 and what works or doesn’t work – if, back when GW2 launched, someone here on the forums had said ‘Oh, hai, ya know his game needs a crazy 80s style arcade game in it!’ what would a lot of people have thought of that idea? What would a lot of people have said to the person who suggested such a thing?

And then along came SAB. I didn’t care for it all that much, but a lot of folks did, and that was okay with me.

So who knows? Something like mounts (or musical episodes of living story) might prove to be a popular addition to GW2. Or bats. As ranger pets, or even better, as a playable race. Bats would save this game. Bats.

It is an acceptable answer to people that are asking for things that, if they came to fruition, would change the game such that people who enjoy what it is now would no longer enjoy it.

Trinity, corpse runs, gear grind, raids, instanced hard-core content rewarded disproportionately to other game play, 17,000 skills and abilities, 14 hot bars so you 4 RazorNagaGabbaGabbaHey devices to play, only works with 6 monitors, no solo content, no story, no quests, no hearts, no casuals, no wallys.

Other folks make those games.

Which, makes us wonder why some folks don’t go play those.

Which makes us scratch our heads and say, “Maybe GW2 is not the game for you?”

bloodletting wolf.2837:

Why did this derail into a mount thread?

Picture that being said…..but by Ron Burgandy.

Maybe complaining about complaining is not for you…

It is important to note that GW2 itself has lots of features from other games, but sometimes with certain twists to make them feel unique.

If someone makes a request for something solely because it exists in another game, and that request would change the core experience of the game, like adding Trinity or Gear Treadmill or whatever, it should get the simple answer: “Maybe GW2 is not the game for you”. Same goes for requested features that come directly from GW1 that some people request just to request them (like for example GvG).

However, and this is important, requesting such a feature is one thing, but proposing how that said feature could be adapted so it can FIT the current game mechanic core, without altering it too much, that’s a completely different story.

Adding GvG in the GW1 form doesn’t make much sense in GW2 terms, same goes for some weird “requests” to bring back FoW or UW or other elite zone from GW1, do you really think it would make sense to bring them here? That said, it could be adapted to fit GW2, and this is what we should focus on. Adaptation.

Even things like Mounts or Open World PVP could be adapted to work in GW2, just don’t “request” to move them directly from other games, just because they have them, that will always get the “Maybe GW2 is not the game for you” answer and for good reason.

fireflyry.7023:

bloodletting wolf.2837:

Why did this derail into a mount thread?

Picture that being said…..but by Ron Burgandy.

“Don’t act like you’re not impressed.”

Azure The Heartless.3261:

Yargesh.4965:

What is wrong with figuring out that what you want is not in this game, but there are other games that have exactly what you want?

Maybe people like an aspect of a game, but not the game itself, and want to add features from the game they hate to a game with a core they love.

That isn’t bad at all.

But it is a bit self-centered and selfish with no regard for the existing player base. Expecting ground breaking suggestions to be accepted with open arms just reinforces how self-centered their entire approach likely is.

People usually dont’ say that.

They just say I’m the minority, vocal minority, there is no proof what I said is important, or what I said is just not important.

Which I said that sometime to other people too.

mtpelion.4562:

If you want to play a game that has mounts, then GW2 is not the game for you because it does not have mounts.

You are free to suggest that they add mounts, but until they do you are better off enjoying one of the hundreds of other games that do have mounts, and people are not out of line to suggest this to you.

See how that works?

If that would be the only element those people suggesting it are interested in. Then you are right. If they just would like it as an addition you are not right. And then in that second case acting as if adding that one thing would go completely against the core of the game while it wouldn’t, is wrong. Thats what the thread is also about.

bloodletting wolf.2837:

Why did this derail into a mount thread?

I used mounts as an example and them people had to come and tell why mounts would not fit in the game (while they do) in a way only proving the point I made in the first place where I used mounts as an example. Anyway. Thats how it got into a mount thread for a while. But I think we are back on track now

Brother Grimm.5176:

Azure The Heartless.3261:

Yargesh.4965:

What is wrong with figuring out that what you want is not in this game, but there are other games that have exactly what you want?

Maybe people like an aspect of a game, but not the game itself, and want to add features from the game they hate to a game with a core they love.

That isn’t bad at all.

But it is a bit self-centered and selfish with no regard for the existing player base. Expecting ground breaking suggestions to be accepted with open arms just reinforces how self-centered their entire approach likely is.

I can see how a demand would be that way, but not a suggestion. A suggestion is placed on the forums for the explicit purpose of gaining community feedback and potentially a developer’s eye, is it not?

Azure The Heartless.3261:

Brother Grimm.5176:

Azure The Heartless.3261:

Yargesh.4965:

What is wrong with figuring out that what you want is not in this game, but there are other games that have exactly what you want?

Maybe people like an aspect of a game, but not the game itself, and want to add features from the game they hate to a game with a core they love.

That isn’t bad at all.

But it is a bit self-centered and selfish with no regard for the existing player base. Expecting ground breaking suggestions to be accepted with open arms just reinforces how self-centered their entire approach likely is.

I can see how a demand would be that way, but not a suggestion. A suggestion is placed on the forums for the explicit purpose of gaining community feedback and potentially a developer’s eye, is it not?

Which is back to what I said. People just calling each other what they said is not important, and they are the minority so their suggestion shouldn’t be put seriously.

“this game isn’t for you” is simply the catch all defense for people adding in features they don’t like. Their hate for those features has no basis in logic or reality so they have to fall back on the catch all defense.

This includes things like:
Raids- Abundant and fun in GW1
Trinity- Also present in GW1, and after the 2 year of clear failure in GW2s removal clearly superior
Mount- Fit the lore, makes more sense, wanted by players.

There isn’t any real reason for Anet not to add these things so the only defense players have against them is to try and force players to leave the game. Games evolve after release, things they tried didn’t work, they can change the original design to improve the game. Ascended gear is a prime example of this. The game was plummeting into failure so they changed their position on gear and saved the game.

ZudetGambeous.9573:

“this game isn’t for you” is simply the catch all defense for people adding in features they don’t like. Their hate for those features has no basis in logic or reality so they have to fall back on the catch all defense.

This includes things like:
Raids- Abundant and fun in GW1
Trinity- Also present in GW1, and after the 2 year of clear failure in GW2s removal clearly superior
Mount- Fit the lore, makes more sense, wanted by players.

There isn’t any real reason for Anet not to add these things so the only defense players have against them is to try and force players to leave the game. Games evolve after release, things they tried didn’t work, they can change the original design to improve the game. Ascended gear is a prime example of this. The game was plummeting into failure so they changed their position on gear and saved the game.

Nice! Does that mean people can start requesting *ANY*thing? Hmmm… I’ve always wanted the Science Vessel from Starcraft as a mount. That’ll show those pesky thieves always going into stealth mode… >_> I’m sure ANET can make up some lore introduce the Science Vessel into Tyria

ZudetGambeous.9573:

“this game isn’t for you” is simply the catch all defense for people adding in features they don’t like. Their hate for those features has no basis in logic or reality so they have to fall back on the catch all defense.

This includes things like:
Raids- Abundant and fun in GW1
Trinity- Also present in GW1, and after the 2 year of clear failure in GW2s removal clearly superior
Mount- Fit the lore, makes more sense, wanted by players.

There isn’t any real reason for Anet not to add these things so the only defense players have against them is to try and force players to leave the game. Games evolve after release, things they tried didn’t work, they can change the original design to improve the game. Ascended gear is a prime example of this. The game was plummeting into failure so they changed their position on gear and saved the game.

I would like to request cyborg disco monkeys with flamethrowers cuz ets sew kewl. Ascended gear saved the game…..LOL

ZudetGambeous.9573:

There isn’t any real reason for Anet not to add these things so the only defense players have against them is to try and force players to leave the game. Games evolve after release, things they tried didn’t work, they can change the original design to improve the game. Ascended gear is a prime example of this. The game was plummeting into failure so they changed their position on gear and saved the game.

Other than it’s not part of their vision for the game.

As for Ascended gear they’ve said it was already in development before the game went live. Now they have shifted gears before the game went live and experimented with ways to get players into underpopulated zones with LS content back in LS1 and have settled somewhat with megaservers attempting to keep the player numbers in each zone instance up and isolating the LS2 content into mainly a new level 80 zone.

NPE is the result of them trying to figure out why their casual or at least not hard core MMO was losing players during the early levels of player’s first characters. But really that’s a tweak to mechanics, not a shift in vision.

bloodletting wolf.2837:

ZudetGambeous.9573:

“this game isn’t for you” is simply the catch all defense for people adding in features they don’t like. Their hate for those features has no basis in logic or reality so they have to fall back on the catch all defense.

This includes things like:
Raids- Abundant and fun in GW1
Trinity- Also present in GW1, and after the 2 year of clear failure in GW2s removal clearly superior
Mount- Fit the lore, makes more sense, wanted by players.

There isn’t any real reason for Anet not to add these things so the only defense players have against them is to try and force players to leave the game. Games evolve after release, things they tried didn’t work, they can change the original design to improve the game. Ascended gear is a prime example of this. The game was plummeting into failure so they changed their position on gear and saved the game.

I would like to request cyborg disco monkeys with flamethrowers cuz ets sew kewl. Ascended gear saved the game…..LOL

LOL!

notebene.3190:

Other folks make those games.

Which, makes us wonder why some folks don’t go play those.

Which makes us scratch our heads and say, “Maybe GW2 is not the game for you?”

It’s a fallacy. People are assuming that any one of those features would turn GW2 into a insert other MMO here-clone. There isn’t much to support that.

GW2 has our unique characters. It has a unique combat system and a unique world. We can not get that by just simply going off to another game. Nor will that other game’s ideas necessarily make GW2 a substitute or clone for itself if those ideas were implemented.

Therefore the “go play another game” responses are just as invalid as this common answer in other threads:

Q: My game music won’t work.
A: Doesn’t matter to me, I turn it off and listen to my own music.

Offering (and I use the word lightly) an alternative only works if it can truly be used by the asker. In other words: Don’t tell a man who wants red sand under his house to go live on Mars.
It just isn’t going to work out for him.

DarkWasp.7291:

notebene.3190:

Other folks make those games.

Which, makes us wonder why some folks don’t go play those.

Which makes us scratch our heads and say, “Maybe GW2 is not the game for you?”

It’s a fallacy. People are assuming that any one of those features would turn GW2 into a insert other MMO here-clone. There isn’t much to support that.

GW2 has our unique characters. It has a unique combat system and a unique world. We can not get that by just simply going off to another game. Nor will that other game’s ideas necessarily make GW2 a substitute or clone for itself if those ideas were implemented.

Therefore the “go play another game” responses are just as invalid as this common answer in other threads:

Q: My game music won’t work.
A: Doesn’t matter to me, I turn it off and listen to my own music.

Offering (and I use the word lightly) an alternative only works if it can truly be used by the asker. In other words: Don’t tell a man who wants red sand under his house to go live on Mars.
It just isn’t going to work out for him.

Why Mars? Tell them to move to P.E.I.

DarkWasp.7291:

notebene.3190:

Other folks make those games.

Which, makes us wonder why some folks don’t go play those.

Which makes us scratch our heads and say, “Maybe GW2 is not the game for you?”

It’s a fallacy. People are assuming that any one of those features would turn GW2 into a insert other MMO here-clone. There isn’t much to support that.

GW2 has our unique characters. It has a unique combat system and a unique world. We can not get that by just simply going off to another game. Nor will that other game’s ideas necessarily make GW2 a substitute or clone for itself if those ideas were implemented.

Therefore the “go play another game” responses are just as invalid as this common answer in other threads:

Q: My game music won’t work.
A: Doesn’t matter to me, I turn it off and listen to my own music.

Offering (and I use the word lightly) an alternative only works if it can truly be used by the asker. In other words: Don’t tell a man who wants red sand under his house to go live on Mars.
It just isn’t going to work out for him.

I wasn’t trying to say anything about clones. I was saying that many of us, myself included, enjoy this game specifically because they designed it ‘without’ many of those features. Granted, some small things here or there may be completely benign, and that’s fine. I’m just saying, and not in all cases, that a response of “maybe this game isn’t for you” is warranted, when someone asks for things that seem to completely go against the grain.

By your same analogy, you are saying that a man should be entitled to have the red sand under his house even though he knew there would be no red sand because no one wanted red sand, and everyone who moved into the neighborhood 10 years ago didn’t want red sand. He should be allowed to have red sand, and you are telling everyone else in the neighborhood that didn’t want to see red sand in the neighborhood that the onus is now on them to leave? When the moved in specifically because there was no red sand?

And taking it ‘out’ of design by committee, many of us moved in because we knew the association would never put red sand in, even if 6 out of the 10 people that lived there asked for red sand, because they specifically stated that they were never going to have red sand there. Now, they’d be happy to listen to suggestions for what sorts of things we’d all like in the pool area, but talking about red sand is ‘right out’, thus proceeding to 3.

There are lots of things to ask for in the game that are really minor that wouldn’t impact what drew many of the rest of us here. Even something like mounts doesn’t bother me. Houses? Sounds fun. Fishing? Sure.

But you start getting into L33t D00dz Pew Pew KeK Kek Rekt GG rofl type changes, well, then maybe GW2 is not the game for you.

Devata.6589:

stuff

1) Most NPCs don’t use teleports because in case you haven’t noticed most NPCs are thematically poor.
They’re not heroes. They’re not commanders of the pact. They don’t have the financial means to back up this sort of transport.

Also Asura gates are a big deal of the lore – but so are waypoints and you should know that by now. And if you say there’s no lore about waypoints – there’s a lot more lore about them than there is about mounts that’s for certain.

Also the traditional standard “mount” isn’t used even by the NPCs. You only see pack animals but I’ve yet to see an NPC model riding a horse/bear/whatever.

That would in fact make much more sense and explain why they put in place such a system that does not really fit the game and the lore and makes there world feel so small.

This is again subjective – immersion means a lot of things for a lot of different people but making you wait longer between doing the things you want to do is not going to improve the game for anyone.
The world feels small? Walk. Nobody is forcing you to teleport.

You can paint it any way you want but any player with common sense realizes that doubling the amount of things on the map at the same time will create huge amounts of lag.

Imagine the lag you get in a 50 man zerg. Now imagine if it was an 100 man zerg. It’s as simple as that.

Your logic – that it’s just another skin and cosmetic doesn’t justify adding it – why not have Capes added? They were a part of the game once.

The game also features very prominent lore about the undead – *why not have an undead butler for each and every one of us to follow us around * – there certainly is enough lore in place to make it happen and I think there’s actually more lore related to undead in the game than there is lore related to mounts.
So – why not have cosmetic undead butlers that also give a speed buff? It’s certainly functionally identical to a mount – so why not this?

Also – I see you’re unhappy with the definition of “lag” so we’ll call it “poor performance” instead if it makes you better.

notebene.3190:

^^Above post

I never said anyone was entitled to the features they suggest/request.

The focus is on the response.

All that stuff you said about the neighbors not wanting red sand and all that. That’s still a valid way to oppose a suggestion.

“You can’t have red sand because the neighbors don’t want it.”
That’s fine.

“You can’t have red sand, go to Mars instead.”
Might as well just say: “Kitten off, you martian creep!”

Unless you genuinely believe that your alternative, going to a different game, is valid of course. However as I stated before, it usually isn’t practical. Sure, if the suggester wants 7-16 features from another game, I’ll grant you that.

That was the example you gave, so in that case you might be right. However, I still think it would be better to go into why they might not work rather than telling the player to go away.

More often than not, I see these kinds of responses given to smaller suggestions like:

• Marriage
• Character bios
• Houses
• Releasing permanent content
• RP anything
• Increasing ranged damage

… and even if someone wanted all of those things at once. I still don’t think GW2 would be the wrong game for them.

(FYI, I’m personally fine with ranged damage how it is.)

Harper.4173:

Stuff

Not really going in to it because it would be to much a mount discussion. I guess everybody can make up the flaws for themselves. But this is exactly what I reffed to before.

You seem to have your own view what the game / lore / core should be for you. Then you act as if that it is that way (maybe you even manage to convince yourself) and so if anybody wants to add something that does not fits in your idea they should go play another game meanwhile coming up with excuses why it really does not belong in the game. Not why you don’t like it but why it does not belong in the game.

While you could of course also just say you don’t like mounts in stead of having to try to make it so it would not fit in the game while it very much does.

Vesuvius.9874:

ZudetGambeous.9573:

“this game isn’t for you” is simply the catch all defense for people adding in features they don’t like. Their hate for those features has no basis in logic or reality so they have to fall back on the catch all defense.

This includes things like:
Raids- Abundant and fun in GW1
Trinity- Also present in GW1, and after the 2 year of clear failure in GW2s removal clearly superior
Mount- Fit the lore, makes more sense, wanted by players.

There isn’t any real reason for Anet not to add these things so the only defense players have against them is to try and force players to leave the game. Games evolve after release, things they tried didn’t work, they can change the original design to improve the game. Ascended gear is a prime example of this. The game was plummeting into failure so they changed their position on gear and saved the game.

Nice! Does that mean people can start requesting *ANY*thing? Hmmm… I’ve always wanted the Science Vessel from Starcraft as a mount. That’ll show those pesky thieves always going into stealth mode… >_> I’m sure ANET can make up some lore introduce the Science Vessel into Tyria

As long as it functions within the existing lore and can be styled by the artists to fit into the world then I don’t see why not.

Selling players what they want seems like a much better idea than telling them to give their money to other companies.

Cassandra Nea.2507:

Please, can people please stop using this phrase?

If you don’t like the GW2 community, maybe GW2 is not the game for you. /s

If you don’t find what you want here, then perhaps these aren’t the droids you’re looking for.

Vayne.8563:

OP, I have a question for you. How is “this game isn’t for you” and more dismissive than “you white knights will defend anything even if it’s bad”.

Both sides of the equation dismiss completely legit commentary. Human nature at its finest.

I’m not the OP, but I’ll field this one.

No entertainment created by people is perfect. Everything can be changed (sometimes in extremely minor ways, sometimes in major ones) to improve their entertainment value for specific people/subgroups.

Suggesting changes is therefore a more potentially positive action than defending the status quo is (depending on the legitimacy of the change).

So when someone dismisses a suggested change with “maybe this isn’t the game for you” it’s stifling to potentially positive changes, whereas “you white knights will defend anything” is a criticism of those attempting to prevent change.

Is that saying that in every case “this game blah blah” is more dismissive than “white knights blah blah”? No. But, one phrase has the potential to prevent positive progress more than the other.

As long as GW2 Official Forums function as an eternal boxing ring between the “Order of White Knights” and “Negative Hater Scumbag Club” these words will be repeated over and over again.

One does not simply take away the forum weapons.

mage.3570:

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

When suggestions pop up for things like “open world PvP” or “remove all waypoints, then add mounts” . . . no, I’m still going to respond with that statement. Because this game is clearly not the one they’re looking for.

But we get the same reactions when we request features in GW1 that are absolutely missing or lacking in GW2 …

Rightly so because “being a feature in GW1” doesn’t give any validity to the idea those same concepts should be in GW2.

After two years, it’s not hard to see what kind of game they want to deliver to the market. Most of the suggestions are obviously not inline with the direction the game is going. Yes, it’s tiring seeing people suggest things that aren’t inline with the game, just because of some poorly thought out reasons.

There tend to be two kinds of changes that get implemented: Changes that match what the devs want to see to realize the game they envision and Changes that they feel are overall beneficial to the game. People should think about that when make their suggestions. Ideas like “it’s in GW1” isn’t necessarily beneficial to a game that isn’t GW1 or that the devs don’t want to make into GW1. In fact, it’s one of the more stupid justifications I read here.

Harper.4173:

So how come people can suggest changing huge parts of the game that I love and/or overhauling it completely and I shouldn’t feel offended at all .

No you probably should not be offended because someone else likes something somewhat different than you. Feel free to take offense if you choose of course, but player X’s preference for something that you do not want is not an insult to you.

Harper.4173:

since it’s their right to ask for whatever they want but when I tell them it’s not a good idea and maybe they should consider that instead of changing 80% of what this game is maybe it’d be easier to leave the game as it is for those of us who enjoy it and seek out a different game that already caters to their wishes they’re allowed to be super offended because apparently I shouldn’t have any say on whether the game is or not for them.

You do not have any say whether the game is or not for them. There is a huge difference between a customer expressing how a given product might be more appealing to them and you making judgement calls about another player.

NewTrain.7549:

Vayne.8563:

OP, I have a question for you. How is “this game isn’t for you” and more dismissive than “you white knights will defend anything even if it’s bad”.

Both sides of the equation dismiss completely legit commentary. Human nature at its finest.

I’m not the OP, but I’ll field this one.

No entertainment created by people is perfect. Everything can be changed (sometimes in extremely minor ways, sometimes in major ones) to improve their entertainment value for specific people/subgroups.

Suggesting changes is therefore a more potentially positive action than defending the status quo is (depending on the legitimacy of the change).

So when someone dismisses a suggested change with “maybe this isn’t the game for you” it’s stifling to potentially positive changes, whereas “you white knights will defend anything” is a criticism of those attempting to prevent change.

Is that saying that in every case “this game blah blah” is more dismissive than “white knights blah blah”? No. But, one phrase has the potential to prevent positive progress more than the other.

I still don’t think “…leave…” is a well-considered suggestion. However, it might be well-meaning. Say someone wants to change MMO gameplay to, say, shooter gameplay in an MMO. As positive as that might be for some, it’s unlikely to be for a lot of MMO players. In that case, saying, “You might be happier with another game.” could be well-meaning.

However, “white knight” is just another of the many dismissive means used to try to invalidate comments by others. All of those tactics are reprehensible and have no place in civil discussions.

IndigoSundown.5419:

NewTrain.7549:

Vayne.8563:

OP, I have a question for you. How is “this game isn’t for you” and more dismissive than “you white knights will defend anything even if it’s bad”.

Both sides of the equation dismiss completely legit commentary. Human nature at its finest.

I’m not the OP, but I’ll field this one.

No entertainment created by people is perfect. Everything can be changed (sometimes in extremely minor ways, sometimes in major ones) to improve their entertainment value for specific people/subgroups.

Suggesting changes is therefore a more potentially positive action than defending the status quo is (depending on the legitimacy of the change).

So when someone dismisses a suggested change with “maybe this isn’t the game for you” it’s stifling to potentially positive changes, whereas “you white knights will defend anything” is a criticism of those attempting to prevent change.

Is that saying that in every case “this game blah blah” is more dismissive than “white knights blah blah”? No. But, one phrase has the potential to prevent positive progress more than the other.

I still don’t think “…leave…” is a well-considered suggestion. However, it might be well-meaning. Say someone wants to change MMO gameplay to, say, shooter gameplay in an MMO. As positive as that might be for some, it’s unlikely to be for a lot of MMO players. In that case, saying, “You might be happier with another game.” could be well-meaning.

However, “white knight” is just another of the many dismissive means used to try to invalidate comments by others. All of those tactics are reprehensible and have no place in civil discussions.

Well meaning doesn’t help anything. You can’t build a wall with good intentions. What matters is the end result and the end result is that stifling potentially positive changes to the game is far more harmful then calling someone a “white knight”.

Devata.6589:

Esplen.3940:

Not to mention more data because of files, assets in addition to making them all work with game physics, jumping, clipping, animations, racial animations, idle animations (which also have to be done for character models in addition to mount models), and then there’s other issues such as size. A Norn would not be able to ride something that a Human, Sylvari, or Asura would be able to ride because of weights. A Charr would not be able to ride most things because of their body shapes.

Thats all not lag.

And where, pray tell, did I even mention the slightest reference of lag?

NewTrain.7549:

Well meaning doesn’t help anything. You can’t build a wall with good intentions. What matters is the end result and the end result is that stifling potentially positive changes to the game is far more harmful then calling someone a “white knight”.

You certainly can build a wall with good intentions.

And you just dropped in “the ends versus the means” into the conversation, which is a tricky thing to handle. Mostly because often you can’t tell what the result of something is really going to be until after it’s done, especially when we’re talking about things with social components . . . like an MMO.

Also worth considering is not all changes are positive (you just admitted it in your post, things with good intentions can still turn bad) and now you can understand it when I say: “change for change’s sake is not the answer we need to be embracing”.

I mean we could, and if we have the absolute best of intentions, nothing could go wrong, right?

NewTrain.7549:

IndigoSundown.5419:

NewTrain.7549:

Vayne.8563:

OP, I have a question for you. How is “this game isn’t for you” and more dismissive than “you white knights will defend anything even if it’s bad”.

Both sides of the equation dismiss completely legit commentary. Human nature at its finest.

I’m not the OP, but I’ll field this one.

No entertainment created by people is perfect. Everything can be changed (sometimes in extremely minor ways, sometimes in major ones) to improve their entertainment value for specific people/subgroups.

Suggesting changes is therefore a more potentially positive action than defending the status quo is (depending on the legitimacy of the change).

So when someone dismisses a suggested change with “maybe this isn’t the game for you” it’s stifling to potentially positive changes, whereas “you white knights will defend anything” is a criticism of those attempting to prevent change.

Is that saying that in every case “this game blah blah” is more dismissive than “white knights blah blah”? No. But, one phrase has the potential to prevent positive progress more than the other.

I still don’t think “…leave…” is a well-considered suggestion. However, it might be well-meaning. Say someone wants to change MMO gameplay to, say, shooter gameplay in an MMO. As positive as that might be for some, it’s unlikely to be for a lot of MMO players. In that case, saying, “You might be happier with another game.” could be well-meaning.

However, “white knight” is just another of the many dismissive means used to try to invalidate comments by others. All of those tactics are reprehensible and have no place in civil discussions.

Well meaning doesn’t help anything. You can’t build a wall with good intentions. What matters is the end result and the end result is that stifling potentially positive changes to the game is far more harmful then calling someone a “white knight”.

I would say, “Stifling resistance to features that the poster believes is negative.” rather than, “…potentially positive changes.” Naturally, the person posting the suggestion will think otherwise. However, there’s no crime in liking the game as it is better than one would if change Y were implemented.

I’ve certainly seen game defenders posting negatively about many different things. Some of these posts seem more like knee-jerk reactions. Others are legitimate feedback. No post calling someone a white knight is legitimate feedback. They’re all personal attacks.

IndigoSundown.5419:

I’ve certainly seen game defenders posting negatively about many different things. Some of these posts seem more like knee-jerk reactions. Others are legitimate feedback. No post calling someone a white knight is legitimate feedback. They’re all personal attacks.

Shhh, you’re not supposed to notice that. You’re supposed to pretend they have legitimate feedback and under no circumstances are you to point out they’re not addressing points raised by your posts, only addressing the person/reputation.

Devata.6589:

Harper.4173:

Stuff

Not really going in to it because it would be to much a mount discussion. I guess everybody can make up the flaws for themselves. But this is exactly what I reffed to before.

You seem to have your own view what the game / lore / core should be for you. Then you act as if that it is that way (maybe you even manage to convince yourself) and so if anybody wants to add something that does not fits in your idea they should go play another game meanwhile coming up with excuses why it really does not belong in the game. Not why you don’t like it but why it does not belong in the game.

While you could of course also just say you don’t like mounts in stead of having to try to make it so it would not fit in the game while it very much does.

Here’s the funny part :
I don’t care about mounts. I don’t like and I don’t dislike them either.

I do care about poor game performance. I also think that not every idea someone thinks up should be in the game should actually be in the game just because it works in other games MMOs.

As a general rule of thumb if the only answer to the question " Why should it be in the game" falls along the lines of " Why not" then that thing should probably not be in the game adding to the clutter.

Ashen.2907:

Harper.4173:

So how come people can suggest changing huge parts of the game that I love and/or overhauling it completely and I shouldn’t feel offended at all .

No you probably should not be offended because someone else likes something somewhat different than you. Feel free to take offense if you choose of course, but player X’s preference for something that you do not want is not an insult to you.

Harper.4173:

since it’s their right to ask for whatever they want but when I tell them it’s not a good idea and maybe they should consider that instead of changing 80% of what this game is maybe it’d be easier to leave the game as it is for those of us who enjoy it and seek out a different game that already caters to their wishes they’re allowed to be super offended because apparently I shouldn’t have any say on whether the game is or not for them.

You do not have any say whether the game is or not for them. There is a huge difference between a customer expressing how a given product might be more appealing to them and you making judgement calls about another player.

Maybe it’s the difference between the societies where we each grew up but if there’s a situation like :

There’s a product – product A – and someone suggests making it very similar to product B. Of course product B already exists – I don’t see a problem with telling that person " Hey – maybe you actually should consider product B for your needs instead of changing product A which others are using/enjoying".

Oh I dunno I had fun using that against some of the very same hardcore 1%ers who’ve been saying that for years against casuals.

Turnabout…

Obtena.7952:

Rightly so because “being a feature in GW1” doesn’t give any validity to the idea those same concepts should be in GW2.

There tend to be two kinds of changes that get implemented: Changes that match what the devs want to see to realize the game they envision and Changes that they feel are overall beneficial to the game. People should think about that when make their suggestions. Ideas like “it’s in GW1” isn’t necessarily beneficial to a game that isn’t GW1 or that the devs don’t want to make into GW1. In fact, it’s one of the more stupid justifications I read here.

I guess you never watched the teaser before GW2 was released……………
They had the developer in there talking about
!!!!!!!!!We took the best out of GW1 and put it into GW2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This was for me like for many GW1 vets THE reason to buy the game.
What A-Net delivered is something completely different.
I don’t even know why they give it the name GW beside to trick the GW1 guys in.

Let’s face it….
If we go by popularity the best things in GW1 were:
- Skills to choose from and the freedom to build whatever build you want… no limits
- Crossing classes
- Weapons NOT tied to skills except a few
- Dangerous monster groups that needed planing and knowing what to do
- PvP integrated in open maps like the Jade See.
- PvP that actually made sense
- Customizing of the heroes
- Customizing your weapons and Armor in a way that makes sense
(Like elemental sword pommel + Fire resistance hilt to tank fire damage)
- And last but not least GUILD HALLS !!!!!!!!!! Because it’s named GW for a reason.
- Different Scenery and classes coming with it (Cantha, Elona,Kryta)
- Much Much more

All that made GW1 the most epic online game ever and they had huge success.

Really and now you come here and tell the people how do they dare asking for these awesome GW1 features ???
How do they dare they are betrayed by the developer ????

Btw….. what all that has to do with Mounts is far beyond me.
Make mounts cosmetic for people who want them but keep way points like they are.
No reason to really fight about it