Showing Posts For Bob.7189:
Another story of management wanting to fix something that was not broken and as a result breaks it.
My problem is different. I completed the story and bought extra firestones and have 50+ suet. Although I have all the materials, I get a message saying I am not ready when I attempt to brew the potion. I notice that I have a dot on me when I enter the area of the hot springs.
I went back and completed the hearts, but it didn’t make any difference. Got plenty of mats, but cannot brew the potion.
I didn’t restart the story, which shows as completed. What is really strange is that the next day after I completed the story I was able to brew the potion. Now I cannot. So I cannot get the insight.
Yes Druids are very versatile, able to do many things well, but not all at the same time. Just like the other professions. A point that many ignore.
The problem occurred repeatedly and consistently when using the mouse to click the interface. Usually I was kicked out of CA immediately, i.e., in a small fraction of a second. Sometimes CA would load long enough for me to click weapon skill 4 which would then kick me out of CA without casting the spell.
This typically occurred while taking damage in WvW fights, but also when taking damage in PVE zones.
Yesterday I tried using the keyboard (F5) rather than mouse with much better success. I was able to get do some healing, but was still getting kicked out of CA sometimes prior to exhausting the bar. I didn’t use it enough to quantify it.
I primarily use healing as an active defense and mostly am DPS. I run a power druid version of the shout heal build, switching out LB and staff. Sometimes with a WVW zerg I will heal, but I just run PU and don’t see many zergs disciplined enough to heal them effectively.
I suspect that people using both hands on the keyboard are not noticing a problem.
(edited by Bob.7189)
…It’s working much better now compared to the initial release (completely borked), but it still needs some looking at.
Not for me. CA is still broken. In 3 hours of play tonight it worked on only 2 occasions and only long enough for me to heal one time before getting kicked out. And no, I did not change anything, including any settings. I do use the mouse to click the interface. I will try using the keyboard next time and see if I have better luck.
What is the point of having a druid if CA is broken? Or of having an interface if it doesn’t work?
I am on TC. My initial complaint was that ques were horrible for WVW after the change. A couple of times the que on EB hit 100. About a week later ques had reduced significantly. This week there are essentially no cues. But that isn’t a good thing.
The players who are playing on our server now are different. I haven’t seen any of the regular commanders in over a week. The realm went from very organized to disorganized. Disorganized as in uncoordinated, no supply management, and little defensive siege and repairs. Most players don’t even join a commander’s squad. Before the change we were successful at wvw. When we were organized we were successful. Now that we are unorganized we aren’t. It doesn’t help that we are facing the big blobs of Blackgate.
I don’t know why the people stopped playing wvw. I do know that there are a lot of new people playing wvw, and I am not sure if the new players appreciate what they missed before the change.
I got a letter about the poll while I was playing WvW. If ANET is targeting players in WVW now, I think that will skew the pool in favor of the “Yes” vote, because the people who don’t like the change tend not to be playing WvW.
This week WvW has not been fun at all. Very frustrating. I keep going back hoping to see the organized players return. I suspect we may have lost some WvW guilds. I hope not.
(edited by Bob.7189)
I don’t like the merger at all. Doubling the population density was introduced to save ANET money not because it is intended to improve play.
My experience: Several times the cue for EB has been over 100. Usually it is over 50. Rarely is there more than 1 battleground without a que. The quality of play is reduced. For instance last night I was in squad where half the squad was chasing kills instead of staying with the commander. Time and time again there will be a que and the one squad has only 20 people in it. Habitually I see dozens of players idle in the entry keep with no engagement at all in the game. The impression I get is that our “partner” is not generally interested in WvW. They are their for the dailies and the 15 minute reward track.
Before the merger we did well. Now we are a distant 3rd in the scoring. We had some very well organized smart commanders, but now we are getting overrun by sheer numbers. No skill to it.
As far as I am concerned the expansion is a failure and a big disappointment. On a 1 to 5 scale, I rate it a zero. I did not make a conscious decision, but I have not played the content in over a month. It is a grind-fest oriented to large groups and impossible to play solo. Too frustrating to be fun, missing the whole point of playing games.
The expansion has also made the core game less enjoyable for me in zones hosting the “events” daily achievement. It is flooded with expansion-enhanced level 80s to the extent that a core level 80 has a very difficult time competing damage-wise for rewards. And for those characters at the zone level, it is impossible to compete. You still get experience and credit for event and heart completion, but the loot rewards are much reduced.
Maybe someday ANET will remember its “core values” and make the expansion content enjoyable for solo and small group play too. Until then I will continue to stick to the core game content.
My response is to stop gem purchases.
Thanks. I found the two new stats on the hero display listed with the others. It identifies concentration as increasing boon duration.
You’re not.
Direct from the Q&A stream, colin stated anet considers a guild as a group of 5+ players, and less than that “not even a group really”
Sure they say that now. Even during the recent guild chat programs the employees referred to their “personal” and “vault” guilds.
From launch it was apparent that ANET intended players to be able to start a guild with 1 member and grow it from there, a pleasant departure from other mmo’s which required a full group to create a guild. The designers would have had to be clueless to not have foreseen personal guilds made for the vault space.
Anybody know what “concentration” is? It is included in “minstrel” spec’ed equipment.
April 28, 2015: “The new system will come to the live game before the launch of Guild Wars 2: Heart of Thorns™, allowing players to experience the changes to core specializations and stockpile Hero Points for their elite specializations. While elite specializations will be available to everyone who purchases the expansion, the upcoming core specialization changes will affect the base game.”
“Most skill and trait unlocks will cost five Hero Points. While the numbers should not be considered final or absolute, Jon estimated that it will require roughly 465 Hero Points to unlock every trait and skill available to a character. The process of leveling to 80 will award about 400 Hero Points, so players will only need to complete a fraction of the available hero challenges to have enough points to unlock everything.”
https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/ready-up-core-specializations-summary/
I thought the expansion spec would cost the same number of hero points. I rounded up and figured 100 points ought to do it. My main has 194 pts, and I felt comfortable that over twice the number of hero points ought to be sufficient to cover any risk. Wrong, the cost is over 4 times as much. Not as simple and painless as stated or at least implied by ANET.
There really is no gaming point in inflating both the hero point rewards and the trait and skill cost. It certainly adds no play value to the game. I can only assume that they established these rewards and costs based on profit projections from their business model.
(edited by Bob.7189)
“Sarcasm: the use of words that mean the opposite of what you really want to say especially in order to … show irritation, or to be funny”
Without the stealth (but keeping Super Speed) what do trappers need to survive? I have limited experience with this playstyle and could use some help.
Some general comments. I really don’t understand what most of you are trying to communicate, even disregarding slang like “kitten.”
Regarding the OP, from the context the best guess is that you are talking about WvW. If so, what do you mean by “survive?” Numbers matter. There are no super-builds that are impossible to kill if they stay engaged. What “needs” are you referring to? Are you talking about stats or abilities? Are you talking about someone comfortable with active damage avoidance methods? Generally speaking to “survive” any build needs a dependable way to disengage when overmatched. Take away stealth, and you take away something that helps you disengage. And then there is the context, survive in a zerg, in a group or roaming solo? If you are talking something like a 1v1 duel (which I don’t think is very realistic), then my belief is that every build is strong against some builds and weak against other builds. For years I played with friends who would rather wipe than run away from a fight. It is a choice of play style too.
Regarding dps comparisons for applications outside of dungeons bosses, measuring theoretical damage over a 60-second period is useless information as a build comparison, especially in PvP and WvW. And the comments about condition cleansing especially makes me laugh. I am not putting just one condition on targets, usually at least 4. My thought is to use burning as well as bleeds. Again I don’t think 1v1 duels are a realistic assumption for WvW. I will agree that 2 or more LB condition rangers working together would be much more effective than only 1. In group combat with coordinated targeting, burst damage is more important than sustained damage.
Finally since the boost to condition damage and removal of the caps, I am using conditions as extra damage even when running a zerker build, even IN PVE. Using a spider or burning pet instead of a control pet for instance, while using taunt. I usually might stack anyway. So I don’t see why this zerker vs condition build debate really helps us now at all. I am still thinking about what to spec when the druid is available.
An unrelated parting question, I can’t figure out what posters mean by “pressure.” Certainly not from the context. I suspect that no two posters mean the same thing by it. Do they simply mean “engaged” or “in combat” status? Or is “pressure” something more than merely “engaged.”
(edited by Bob.7189)
I still don’t understand how needing THREE people is a barrier. 3 whole people. That is not “hard core” or trying to exclude anyone. Three people is all that is needed in order to get credit for most guild missions. At most that’s finding two more people who have a similar schedule….
Because simply adding 2 new members with a similar schedule to a 1 person guild is not a viable solution. In practice a guild probably needs to maintain 5-6 active members (with level 80 characters) minimum to consistently complete the 3-person minimum guild missions over a 12+ month period. It would be very unusual to have 3 persons available each week more than half the time during a 12+ month stretch. And then you have to replace members who go inactive for various reasons.
Now add in the factor that every single small guild on the server will be looking to add members at the same time. Now the marketing strategy behind the changes is becoming apparent: ANET is motivating current players to recruit new players among their friends and family members.
This restriction is going to be a headache for small guilds (say 10 members or less) because many members are not playing consistently for whatever reason.
The barrier-headache is not just the 3 person minimum requirement, but the elimination of all sources of the new influence from any source other than guild missions. It also penalizes guilds whose members do not enjoy playing all three types of play (PvE, PvP and WvW).
The way things currently work influence rolls in from guild members leveling new alts. Level 2 earns the same influence as level 80. You don’t even need to farm influence. It is painless.
(edited by Bob.7189)
…So your group of two can do all the guild puzzles? You can do bounties without help in time? You can do all the guild challenges. The bias is there. You can deny it all you want, but it’s fact.
I am going to assume that you are not intentionally being obtuse, so I will answer your question. A group of two cannot complete a guild puzzle mission. (I like traditional non-linear adventuring and crafting. I didn’t buy the game to play activities, dance in a capital, or solve puzzles of any type.) There is no bias, however, because completing guild missions is not currently required to create a guild, function as a guild, build vaults, or train and level a craft. That is all now going to change, except one person will still be able to create a guild, but for no benefit. And if I recall correctly, there were no guild missions at launch.
Just so we understand each other, I have no desire to join a large guild so that I can contribute favor and materials so that the guild officers may enjoy the full content of the expansion, i.e., play a scribe. This would be the first time in 14 years of playing various MMOs that I will not be mastering every craft.
(edited by Bob.7189)
Although my main is a ranger, I spent my “beta” time, however, trying to look at things from a different perspective. I was sampling each profession trying to get a qualitative feel for the direction that ANET is taking with the expansion. I have always liked the shout heal mechanic, but moved on to a typical long bow zerker. I liked the melee shout heal build and always experimented with the mechanic. After conditions were boosted in preparation for the expansion I tried a lb/sb build for a while, but now I am using a conventional short bow/ax & torch build with utility slot boosts for survival and shouts. I play open world pve and wvw. Just so you know where I am coming from.
My general impressions (based on no data) are :
1. that ANET is significantly boosting dps and providing new build alternatives through the new specialization for each class, with exceptions.
2. that ANET is significantly boosting utility, boon buffing and additional stealth.
3. that ANET is not so much expanding the game as redesigning it.
4. that ANET went to open beta without the normal alpha and beta testing process. (I don’t think that is necessarily a mistake, just unexpected.)
5. The significant increase in dps and passive damage mitigation (not to mention new healing specializations and skills) would be unnecessary in PvE if the challenge of the “environment” were not increased.
6. Because the open beta was the first testing, we are not going to see stable profession designs until probably January.
7. I think the group roles intended for Revenant are tank, healer, buffer combinations. For ranger, a new healing specialization/profession, but they don’t want the druid healer to be a better group buffer than the healer Revenant whose class theme appears to be buffing.
The exceptions to the trends are guardian and ranger. The guardian got access to a new ranged weapon, which fills a need, but it is a wimpy version of the ranger longbow. I didn’t see any significant change to the guardian profession, other than access to another weapon and some slot skills of limited use. Dragon Hunter is a new weapon, not a new profession. Likewise Engineer got a new weapon and slot skills, but not really a new way of playing. Unlike the Guardian, the Engineer additions are a significant help to power build dps and add stealth-related utility in wvw. Hammer is a zerker weapon, which the engineer lacked, and exactly what engineer zerker builds needed.
The ranger of course got a new healer role and new pets. Verdict is still out on whether the new pets will boost dps or not, because they apparently were not working as intended.
Put this all together and I suspect ANET is moving GW2 to a healer-tank-dps design. Meaning druid/revenant/everyone else. As a casual ranger player, I am worried that ANET is going to nerf the dps and buffing role of the ranger to balance the new druid healer role and make a niche for the Revenant. (If Ranger dps is not boosted while content is tougher to kill and other professions see a dps increase, that is the same as cutting Ranger dps.) That will reduce the Ranger’s current ability to thrive solo and in pickup groups, which is why since launch Ranger has been my main.
So I am watching this thread and subject closely, as I think it indicates what ANET plans for the ranger. By January we should know.
(edited by Bob.7189)
Some people apparently think the game changes in the expansion are being driven by game designers striving to improve our playing experience. I don’t know ANET, but I do know how for-profit corporations work. Based on my experience management has directed the game changes to fit their views on how to improve profits under the new business model. It is not about selling expansions. Apparently they think if they attract “hard core gamers,” the hard core gamers will spend more cash on the game.
In my personal experience, I think that is a mistaken assumption. Broadening the customer base is good business strategy, but not when offset by dropping other customers. I expect most hard core gamers are under 35 and don’t have a lot of extra cash to spend on gaming after purchasing hardware and paying the ISP and smart phone bills every month. Rather I expect that older casual players tend to offer more cash flow per account. Two reasons. Casual players rather take short cuts to grinding and older players tend to have more discretionary income than the younger players.
When I was 35 I had less than half the income I do now and, raising kids, I was living paycheck to paycheck. Since I started playing mmos almost 20 years ago, my income has doubled and my kids are raising their own families. I am too embarrassed to even hint at how much I have spent on gems playing this “free to play” game.
ANET is making a business mistake in deciding to place barriers to casual gamers having access to the guild content. Why does management think it is smart to reduce the opportunity to sell gems to anyone? They need to start thinking of guilds as cash customers too. More guilds, more customers. Create content attractive to the hard core gamers, yes, but don’t stop the cash flow from your small guild customers.
For what it is worth I think the game designers are doing a great job within the restraints they are given by management. The concept of creating 9 new professions by adding specializations to existing characters, especially, is brilliant from both a marketing and design perspective.
(edited by Bob.7189)
“MMO” drops mic and walks away
You don’t seem to “get” the fact that I am part of the MMO. The only difference between us is the guild we represent as we play the content.
…There’s already a large guild bias in the game from launch….
Absolutely untrue. The status quo has no advantage to gaining influence in larger than groups of two. (Two players, representing a guild and completing events simultaneously, earn 10x the influence of a single player, but there is no further rate change after that.) Influence is currently earned in events which have no bias in favor of large guilds. The large guilds only potential advantage over a smaller guild is more influence farmers.
In other words, 20 people in 10 guilds completing an event earn the same amount of influence as 20 people in 1 guild.
The event system itself and the prevention of power leveling are other examples that there is no design bias in favor of large guilds. The only change that favored large guilds that I can think of was the guild mission and “merit” award system.
The expansion changes all that through the guild group requirements for earning favor. The elimination of events as a source of the “new influence” also acts as a barrier to small guild participation in “new influence” gaining events.
With the expansion there is a bias against small guilds (say about 10 or fewer active members) unless they all happen to live in the same time zone.
I wouldn’t be so upset (we have guild vaults already) but they have tied expansion content to guild halls. It really upsets me to buy the expansion and then afterwards it is announced that I won’t have access to the scribe.
(edited by Bob.7189)
All true. And "You have to be “this” tall to enter." is exactly where the problem is.
I contradicted myself there. It should be: You have to be “this” tall to win.
Not to mention you contradicted your original post: “Raids…exclude some people….”
You have completely baffled me as to the point of your thread.
But then I am a casual gamer who has no interest in completing a dungeon run much less a raid. I am just not interested in playing linear games. No one excludes me from raiding except myself. As for serious study of a subject, my interests lie elsewhere.
I don’t criticize hardcore gamers for their choices. Some of my favorite people are hard core gamers. The two viewpoints are not mutually exclusive.
(edited by Bob.7189)
So what I’m not getting is can you or can you not still do missions if you form a party with other people not in the guild? If you can then why is that a problem?
The problem is that some missions require that 3 or more players be representing the guild in order for the guild to get credit. Being able to complete the mission is not enough. It is easy to solo a lot of WvW content as long as you don’t get rolled. But it won’t earn favor for your guild.
…Scenario: You help another small guild do their mission etc and they promise help you with yours. When its time for them to help you they log off or just refuse to help you. So NO you didn’t solve anything but create another problem!
Regarding quid-pro-quo arrangements in on-line games, I have been stiffed more times than not over the years. And not just by strangers. I normally don’t group with strangers. And not just by people I don’t know in real life either. “Dinner time.” “The dog’s sick.” “Spousal agro.” “Catch you tomorrow.” Strangers have done much worse then breaking a promise. It is the primary reason that I am not in a large guild.
This is not just a 1-person-guild problem. As should be apparent from other comments, even guilds with 10 active players usually have only 1-2 players logged in at the same time. It requires a lot of commitment and coordination to get 5 players to log in at the same time. Even when I played in a large guild, I more often than not grouped with other guilds. I imagine all GMs of small- and medium-sized guilds are worried about these unnecessary restrictions on generating favor.
This whole problem will be magnified if ANET makes having a “healer” necessary to complete missions. I played healers exclusively for about 5 years. They especially end up playing a lot in non-guild parties. Competent healers also generally have a choice of parties (and guilds) to play with. When healers are required, the availability of healers becomes the pacing item regardless of how many other members are available. Which is why I liked GW2’s original everyone-is-a-healer concept.
(edited by Bob.7189)
Yea, that’s pretty much what you’re asking for actually. You want devs to spend time and resources to give 1-2 person ‘guilds’ the ability to earn a resource that was designed for actual real guilds.
And yea, taking those resources away hurts everyone that’s not in a 1-2 person guild. Updates don’t just magically happen out of thin air.
I have two comments in response.
1. Allowing credit to small guilds could easily work like the dungeon completion influence credits work now. Or PvE credit could remain for event completion too. So the code already exists. Currently this correction wouldn’t even require a budget from a management perspective.
2. Life doesn’t have to be a zero sum game. Someone else’s happiness is not a threat to you.
You cant seriously expect to be catered to by ANET, sure you can have your 1 to 2 ‘guild’ but its not really a guild or a community-nothing wrong in being in a guild of 1-2, but asking them to make it so people can have access to everything is ridiculous.
The word “expansion” implicitly promises additions to the game, not deletions of content already available.
What is ridiculous about expecting ANET to continue providing me the same features already provided? I tried to look up what happens to the existing guild vaults (and their contents) when the expansion goes live. I cannot find any mention of it at all. The Twitch TV presentations are ridiculously ineffective. The written information is extremely vague.
Do I have to empty my vaults since no one will have a guild hall?
(edited by Bob.7189)
The “3 person” minimum sounds to me like Anet intends to require guild groups for mission credit. So at least 3 of a 5-person party must be representing the guild. That means that a guild with 2 persons would never gain credit unless a full group wasn’t needed to complete the mission. Right now, 2 persons representing in a group of 2 is a guild group for influence credit purposes.
I tried to duo a bounty mission, and it wasn’t even close. The guild bounty missions are already a lot harder than the normal “party” level events. And from what I have seen so far, Anet appears to be increasing the dps across the board and correspondingly increasing the difficulty (offensively and defensively) in taking down mobs.
What I am hoping is that small guilds can perform a mission jointly and each get credit if in separate parties of 2 or more members. That won’t help the 1-person guild, but it would work for my situation (only 2 consistent members). I suspect that we won’t actually know how it will works until its live. The information put out so far is extremely vague.
The problem is that currently the game allows 1-person guilds to function. After three years, now it won’t. The upsets me. Do I prefer playing in a tiny guild? No. Actually I prefer to play with a regular group of 5 players, which makes a 10-person guild just about perfect in my view.
I have played various games over the last 15 years. I have only had bad experiences with larger guilds. I have had some good experiences with small guilds, but they never last long. Sooner or later real life problems or boredom sets in and people leave the game. After 15 years, I have no desire to make more anonymous “friends” on line. I prefer to play with friends and family. Most of them are not playing GW2 (they prefer pvp in other games), so I have the choice of switching games or playing with 1-2 others. After 10 years of switching from game to game, it got old. I quit. I ended up playing GW2 solo for six months before someone came back.
I am a casual gamer who enjoys world PvE and WvW. The guild influence system worked well for me. I hate doing dungeons or other structured play. So I have no need to find a guild in order to play the content I enjoy. The social side of playing for me is chatting with friends on vent.
Now apparently we cannot access the new guild content or the new profession unless we recruit strangers or join a larger guild, where we won’t have any control and may not be able to craft either. Even to have 3 people consistently for a guild group, you need about six members for practical purposes. Very frustrating.
If it is too frustrating, maybe I will start switching games again.
Nice thoughts and I like solo PVE and world content. Also roaming WvW. But for the majority, what group is going to want a DPS druid? In my experience from other games no one. I quit playing healers altogether after 3 years because of the way players treat them. Not to mention how boring it is. Guild always demanding that I play healer “this time,” but my turn to play another toon never came. I don’t think human nature has changed. Also I have yet to see a game that rewards healing commensurate with damage. Finally what happened to the GW2 design innovation of no healers?
You have given me some hope, but the bottom line is how bad will the expansion nerf the offensive specializations and the other weapon and utility skills. Furthermore if the druid turns out to be great at 1v1 duels, other players will start yelling about play balance. They will complain about play balance regardless. What matters is what is left two months after the expansion goes live.
My impression (not based on testing) during beta is that the changes have greatly increased the dps of the other classes. With the announcement of the druid now, it appears that the plan is to balance the increased dps by the other classes by adding a healer profession to the game. I cannot think of another reason to take a 3-year step backward in game design. I suspect that a designer who wants to force druids to heal would reduce the attractiveness of any other alternative. All it would take is to make rangers less effective at dps than the other eight professions. Then parties would take anyone but a ranger as dps.
Logically if you give rangers greater healing abilities than the other eight professions, something else has to be made worse than the other eight professions. The days of rough parity between the professions are gone.
(edited by Bob.7189)
Booooo. I waited 6 months for this?