Guild Wars 2

Fizzlepip.5218:

Also, @ xWESTsidex.4980: How many tries? I’d love to, but simply don’t trust the “RNG” system. It’s a horrible way to “earn” something.

you’ve never played a videogame before have you

Does the passive activation count as “a healing spell”. That is, when something says, “[Effect] whenever you use a healing spell (10 sec. cooldown)” Would the SIgnet’s passive activate it? Or do I have to activate it?

In your traits, what is the purpose behind having Cleansing Water/Elemental Attunement and Cleansing Wave?

Cleansing Wave removes a condition from you and your allies when you switch to Water. Elemental Attunement gives you regeneration when you switch to water, and Cleansing Water removes a condition when you give yourself/ally regeneration—so switching to Water will remove a condition regardless of whether or not you have Cleansing Wave.

Do you have it just so you can cure conditions from allies, too? Or does switching to Water, with all three of those traits, now cure two conditions?

How old are you? Or, rather… when did you start playing video games?

These are not patronizing questions—but you seem to either have forgotten, or never experienced the many online games (with content & item updates and bug fixes) that had neither a subscription price or micro-transactions. Micro-transactions were a thing popularized by games that were completely free to download and play (that is, there was no box price).

Similarly, the “You don’t like it? Don’t play it” mentality is… silly. First, I think GW2 is an amazing game—even down to their cash-shop. I have far less complaints about the game mechanics than the majority of my other friends do. The thing that irks me is the gem-to-gold, because the in-game economy is a huge factor in how the game runs, how people perceive it, and how people progress, and direct-cash to in-game currency transactions, over time, tend to drastically lessen the quality of a game.

Telling me, “if you don’t like it, don’t play” is a useless statement that gives no information, isn’t relevant, and is more indicative of you not having much of a point than anything else. As players, ANet should very much justify their decisions. This idea of, “Oh, no one doing anything has to discuss what they’re doing!” Is a big part of the paradigm shift that serves as a detriment to games in general.

Why stop there?

I petition for ANet to release an item that costs $100, but instantly levels a character to 80.

AmagicalFishy

No, he has a problem with a person’s IRL income directly affecting their status in an in-game world. He has a problem with people having more immediate access to the aspects of a game he bought—not because of anything they did in game, but because they shelled out a bunch of cash. He has a problem with ANet advocating the dissolving of a separation between an in-game world and IRL economic differences.
I can go on and on, but I’m sure you get the point. It’s silly that people can just throw out a bunch of cash and get whatever they want. I’d be glad to explain more if you genuinely don’t understand the idea behind wanting to buy a game—and have equal access to that game that everyone else has, regardless of whether or not your personal income is more or less.

I think the childish part is seeming totally oblivious to why people dislike being able to trade IRL cash for in-game progress.

I hate Diablo III because it’s a trash game—a statement that is widely agreed upon. Also, Blizzard’s money-to-gold system is far more in-depth and accessible (and similarly makes for a far worse game, where the ratio of people playing-the-game and and people focusing-on-the-auction house is very different, and Blizzard has to constantly add more equipment just to keep people running on the endless upgrade treadmill). Everything in that game is geared towards maximizing the usage of the “real money auction house”, including the drop-rates of items. Yes, items currently on the AH affect the drop-rates of said item. If more are on the AH, less drop. Diablo III is a kittenty game, and that is in large part due to the merging of IRL cash and in-game money.

The fact that you sought out a 3rd party to buy gold from is very, very different than Blizzard officially setting up an in-game means to buy gold from them. You’re just a player who’s bad for the game’s economy. Just because you, and some players like you decide to do scandalous things does not mean said actions should be officially promoted.

The fact that players will always trade IRL money for in-game currency is no justification for a developer to set up a system like gem-for-gold, nor does pointing that out address any of the reasons why people dislike the idea of someone progressing further in the game just because they spend more.

So, yes, the gem-to-gold system is ANet’s fault because ANet developed, implemented, and advocated it.

… ?

No, he has a problem with a person’s IRL income directly affecting their status in an in-game world. He has a problem with people having more immediate access to the aspects of a game he bought—not because of anything they did in game, but because they shelled out a bunch of cash. He has a problem with ANet advocating the dissolving of a separation between an in-game world and IRL economic differences.

I can go on and on, but I’m sure you get the point. It’s silly that people can just throw out a bunch of cash and get whatever they want. I’d be glad to explain more if you genuinely don’t understand the idea behind wanting to buy a game—and have equal access to that game that everyone else has, regardless of whether or not your personal income is more or less.

I… uh…
… a… wha?

… at least you responded. ._.

I’ve grown skeptical of people who claim to not understand why, when something rare is made less rare—that item loses some of its want-value. I guarantee you that if everyone in GW2 looked exactly like your character, you’d enjoy changing the way your character looked just because of that.

The fact that Legendaries are so rare is what makes you look more unique. You don’t need different skins. Making them less rare is what will render their wearers non-unique.

There’s a reason storybook heroes aren’t exactly like everyone else, and a reason lots of people want to be storybook heroes. I know in a fun rainbow ideal world no one would ever even consider what everyone else around them looked like, or did, or their perceptions, and everyone would be an island and an MMO would be pointless because socializing what for!?—but that’s a bad ideal to try to impose on… reality.

If you genuinely don’t understand why rarity increases value, then you must either not be human or you’re just saying things to make a point.

Chamone.6890:

AmagicalFishy.6935:

Soon, there will be no such thing as a super-rare item because everyone would have whined their way to the top.

Good. This is a western MMO, not a Korean Grind-Fest.

We don’t want or need “super-rare items”, whatever those are.

Did you get the most powerful and rare stuff in Final Fantasy 7? Yeah. So did everyone else that played that game.

Did it make it feel any less cool and awesome? No. No it did not.

If everyone were running around with the most powerful and rare stuff, and the townspeople I spoke to said, “Haha, you have that sword, Cloud? Me, too!” Yes, it would feel less cool and awesome. FF7 an MMORPG does not equal.

Was there the same type of satisfaction when I got the most powerful stuff in FF7 (not very rare) as there was when I’d get the most powerful, rare stuff in Phantasy Star Online? No. No, there was not.

Do you, in a massive multiplayer game, need to consider the fact that there are thousands upon thousands of players when you’re creating itemization mechanics? Yes. Yes, you do.

Rarity in a single player game is hardly a thing… because it’s a single player game.

bad job

A Legendary weapon is… Legendary. It’s not “something you do pretty quickly after you’ve finished other stuff”.

Soon, there will be no such thing as a super-rare item because everyone would have whined their way to the top.

Heaven’s Punisher, where art thou?

TWMagimay.9057:

There has to be better reason. Every single f2p game(you know, games that rely only on cash shop to exist) I ever played had a perfectly good trading system without having an income problem. And it’s so easy to create massive gold sinks out of thin air if needed.

Phantasy Star Online and Diablo just to name two w/o a trading post or auction house. There are a ton of games like that.

Define “balance” (in the context of a game’s mechanics)

First, I think the extreme: In order for a game to be completely balanced, all professions and corresponding builds must be equally effective in any given situation regardless of a player’s skill.

Ok, I don’t think anyone wants that, or thinks it’s attainable short of making every profession and build exactly the same.

In order for a game to be balanced, one profession and build combination should not be more effective in every situation than another profession and build combination, regardless of a player’s skill.

This is a little better, I think. If Profession-&-Build-A is more effective in a situation than Profession-&-Build-B, then Profession-&-Build-B should be more effective in something Profession-&-Build-A is not. Still, it’s lacking in a lot of ways. Do the developers partition a general list of situations and make a heiarchy of which P&B (Profession & Build combination) is more effective? Also, if a player’s skill isn’t involved, then what fun is it short of purely a stat-optimization game (hardly a game and more of a math problem)?

In order for a game to be balanced, the potential effectiveness of any two P&B combined with a player’s skill should be equal. That is, a game’s professions and builds would be balanced if one P&B is easy, and requires a low skill level to be effective, while another P&B is more difficult and requires a high skill level to be just as effective.

That takes into consideration player skill, which is better, but it seems contradictory to what most people intuitively consider balance (I think, though, at some point part of this definition will be a necessary evil in order to have an enjoyable game).

In order for a game to be balanced, the potential effectiveness of any P&B combined with a player’s skill should be proportional to the ease of the P&B—and the potential effectiveness of any one P&B combined with a player’s skill should not be much greater or much less than the potential effectiveness of any other P&B combined with a player’s skill.

So… if a P&B is “easy”, then its potential effectiveness will be lower than a P&B that is “difficult”. The easy P&B requires less skill to be effective. The difficult P&B requires more skill to be effective—but has the potential to be more effective. At the same time, one potential cannot be much greater than another potential.

Ultimately, I think that a good game will inevitably have a heiarchy of P&B—something will be intrinsically better than something else, and trying to standardize their effectiveness leads to dull classes and dull skills.

What do you guys think? The idea of “balance” is surprisingly vague; which one are we going for?

Some other questions to ask yourself:
- What’s the best way to gauge effectiveness? – Does it have to be guaged by individual situation or generally?
- Should we factor the frequency of particular situations? (That is, if one P&B is really, really effective at a particular situation—but that situation is fairly rare, should we lessen the weight of said P&B’s effectiveness measure?)
- Should we even be looking for a static “balance” value? Or is the best game one that is constantly changing?
- If the best game is one that’s constantly changing, it has to be changing towards a particular goal, which could be considered “balance”. What is that goal?|
- How much should meta-game and meta-game shifts be factored, if at all?

I know ANet employees seem hesitant to post in balance/mechanic discussions, but I’d really love to see ANet’s input, and what they want to achieve when employees say “balance”.

I think we all have a general idea of what “balanced” means, but to what extent are we looking? What is a good, but possible-to-attain definition of balance? What is the state the game should be in for ANet and players to say, “Ah, yeah. This is good, everything is pretty well balanced.” I’ll start with some (I think) reasonable assumptions:

(When I say “build/s”, I mean a combination of equipment, skills, and traits within a specific profession. “Skill” is something like the ability to increase the effectiveness of a profession/build combination in a given situation due to coordination, speed, awareness, etc. [basically, due to factors intrinsic in the player, not the game]; also, don’t confuse the above defined skill with “skills” [i.e. – a profession’s skills]—this isn’t Napoleon Dynamite.)

First,
– Builds with high synergy amongst all their components typically do better than builds that are scattered about.

When you have a game which allows for any synergy, that means there will be a finite number of builds which generally have more synergy than others (usually the smaller number) compared to a finite number which have less synergy (usually a larger number). The more synergistic builds are, the more effective they are within any given profession.

- This means that some builds will be more useful than other builds within a given profession.

Similarly, when you have a game which allows for any difference in classes (in this case, professions), the only way one class can be exactly as effective as another class in a given situation is if the two classes are built exactly the same, or their skills do the same thing.

– In a given situation, one set of profession-specific skills is probably going to be more or less effective than another set.

– Over time in any game, players will find particular professions and builds that are most effective in a situation—those combinations that synergize the best with their constituent parts.

Through this, I’ve been assuming same-skilled players. That is, one build will intrinsically be more effective than another build if the same player played both. But, video games in general, especially GW2, have a skill factor. The greater a player’s skill, the more effective he/she can play. A really, really good Thief might do better in a PvE 3v1 than a really, really bad Elementalist—even though the Elementalist’s set of skills is better for that situation.

- A player’s skill has an effect on how well a particular build does in a given situation.

On that note, no matter how good a player is, there are certain things he/she won’t be able to do. If there were a profession with zero AoE capabilities, then even the best players can’t AoE things. If there were a profession that had no damage abilities and only healed, even the best players wouldn’t be able to do anything but heal.

- A player’s skill cannot supersede the boundaries of a build. Warriors will never summon multiple turrets and Engineers will never conjure self-destructable clones of themselves.

… and…

– The ease of a profession and build is determined by the minimum level of skill required to be as effective in a situation compared to another profession/build combination.

I think all these points are universally true (replace “professions” w/ “class”, etc.), and reasonably assumed. My purpose for explicitly listing them out is that a lot of conversation is hindered by people not being on the same page, and the more I think about it, the less I’m sure I know what kind of “balance” we’re all talking about here.

There’s an intrinsic difference between having to seek out other parties from which to buy gold and having an easily accessible, officially advocated way of buying it. While the people who would buy gold from a 3rd party are definitely buying gold the “legit” way, there are a lot more people buying gold who wouldn’t have bought it otherwise because it’s supported by A-Net.

This question stems from so many people wanting Legendaries to be more accessible; saying, for example, things like “The precursor is the only thing holding me up!” Yes, that is because the precursor is the very rare aspect of having a Legendary weapon.

What is it with gamers suddenly losing the ability to accept the fact that some items are rare?

kitanas.3596:

in a way you’re both right. they probably could keep the servers running for quite a while with just the money from the box sales. however, the gem stores helps to fund the monthly free content we are seeing out of arenanet.

and fishy, if gems were just another item on the TP, would you be OK with that?

Originally, I was going to say, “Lots of games prior to micro-transactions had new content,”—but, you’re right. Games like StarCraft, Guild Wars, Phantasy Star Online, etc. didn’t have new monthly content consistently coming out, and that needs funding from somewhere.

If gems were another item on the TP, assuming they can only be bought with gold, I’d be ok with that (but then gems would be pointless).

Tallis.5607:

Well, I see it like this: people that buy gold with dollars (through gems) are the ones that keep this game free.

Unfortunately, this is something that I don’t believe. I have seen nothing that necessitates a micro-transaction system after already buying the game for $60. Wasn’t Phantasy Star Online, for example, one of the most popular and longest running online games for a long time? And once you bought the game, you had access to the whole game.

I’m of the belief that all micro-transaction systems like the Gem shop are a cost-free profit generator. Given this, it’s one thing to have account-bound aesthetic items or boosts for cash—I dislike it, and think it further advocates a bad direction for games in general—but whatever. It’s another thing to be able to buy the in-game currency with cash.

I love this game. I think it one of the greatest games I’ve ever played. Surprisingly, I feel the cash-shop system here is done pretty kitten well (I was afraid when I heard there was going to be one.)

But there’s one thing that smells off, and thinking about it bugs me consistently. It might not be a problem now (is it?), but, for me, it feels like an ominously morphing cell that I’m sure is going to turn into a malignant cancer. It’s the ability to buy gems and immediately trade those gems in for gold.

I notice the price of 1-gold is consistently falling. I, for one, wouldn’t mind in the slightest if this feature was completely removed. (Buying gems w/ gold is 100% ok w/ me, but not the other way around).

What do you guys think?

The downed state is fine.

This trend of trying to justify an opinion by its affect on some material level of “fun” is idiotic. “Fun” isn’t a currency that players use among eachother—saying, “This doesn’t add to the game’s level of fun!” doesn’t mean anything. If you dislike a mechanic, you obviously don’t think it’s fun. If you like it, you obviously do.

Saying, “I don’t like this because it’s not fun, and that’s why it should be replaced with something more fun!” is useless. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it should be removed, nor does it mean it is “unfun”. Christ.

Mif.3471:

I don’t see what’s so bad about the Inquest :P

i uh…

…

… you’re… ?

… have you ever heard… ?

… nevermind.

I’d have to say no, KirinDave.

There is going to be a best combination of something, no matter what. When developers try to alter the game so everything is equally viable, you get a mess like League of Legends or something.

If there was a way to improve Staff such that it had its own positive sides over dagger, then so be it—but the idea of “Dagger has this, so staff should have it too!” isn’t a good one upon which to base a philosophy of mechanics.

The only thing I would disagree with is the idea of making Elemental Attunement a “class feature” because it’s ubiquitous. Just because a trait is very widely used doesn’t mean it should be implemented by default—many games have skills that are generally present in the vast majority of builds, but the idea is that, regardless of whether or not a skill is widely used, we should have to pay something to have it implemented in the first place (in this case, we pay trait points).

I’m currently Level 45. My Lightning Hammer is superior for 1v1 melee and my Fiery Greatsword destroys everything in its path. They’re excellent skills which I make use of frequently. (Mostly PvE, but the Greatsword still does some nice damage in PvP)

I was just having a conversation and a good point was brought up to me—how do these weapons scale? Will they get far worse in their damage/use the higher I get in level? I’m assuming they don’t benefit from sigils or anything.

Does anyone have some solid percentages and numbers, too? That’d be excellent.

Creslin.1758:

After all, it basically renders them near impotent for 5 seconds.

good thing it only takes me 3