It’s because in Europe we tend to have VAT, which is a sort of tax that’s included in the listed price (so if it says €20, it costs €20).
In USA they may or may not have a sales tax that I believe is added onto the listed price (so $20 with a 10% sales tax would cost $22).
The lowest VAT rate in the EU seems to be luxembourg at 17%.
$1 is around €0.85 at the moment.
0.85×1.17=0.9945, so actually $1=€1 for the listed price seems perfectly reasonable at the moment, you’re “overpaying” about half a cent per dollar.
Yes, you may be able to pay less by buying from a state without VAT, it may even be legal to do so without paying import taxes (for instance when it’s cheap enough).
But it’s totally reasonable for a company to convert $1 to €1, they get to keep about the same.
(edited by Etienne.3049)
What? Those are all dramatically different. The only thing that you posted that’s the same is 321 and 15,10,5
BTW, guys, you can never have 210 cause that would drop the bottom server, if it’s very weak and almost never places 2nd, off the glicko chart.
If it leads to the same outcome (that is, which position the servers end) I can’t see any relevant difference. Looking at it that way I’ve only mentioned 2 different ones, 2,1,0 (and variations) and 1,0,0 (and variations), you can multiply those by whatever you want and add whatever you want and the outcome will remain the same.
I’m sure they can find some way to modify the scores for the glicko thing only (as I’ve suggested twice in the bit you quoted).
How is 5,4,3 different than 3,2,1?
Since there has been a lot of debate on this, with most people being right but debating different points, there are three things that are true:1. The scores will be closer.
The absolute difference stays the same. And as you admit the “closer” scores don’t matter for the outcome, how is a smaller relative difference relevant?
Not that the absolute difference matters either, you could make it 15,10,5 and there’d still be no actual difference whatsoever. Any scoring of [2n+m],[n+m],[m] will give you the exact same result, really.
If you want it for matchmaking, isn’t there some way you could accomplish that withoutgiving every team 216 points for free?
And if you really want to go with 5,4,3, why not give every team 216 points up front and then reward 2,1,0? It’d lead to exactly the same result ony it’d let people see what 5,4,3 actually means (it being the exact same as 3,2,1, that is).
And since you’re sort of asking for alternative scoring suggestions I’d suggest 2,1,0, or 1,0,0 (I haven’t played that long enough to find out if it really matters), or anything where the 3rd place gets 0 points really. (I mean only for the displayed scores, if the matchmaking would be better with higher scores just add those in any way that doesn’t show in the score.)
Do we expect 5,4,3 to be a cure-all for scoring problems?
No. 5,4,3 will not make match scores dramatically better than 3,2,1. The scores might look closer, but if a world is dominating 5,4,3 isn’t going to stop them from winning. Population imbalance is the biggest factor in scoring problems and changing the skirmish score values isn’t going to change that. Population imbalance is a different problem that we are working on solving outside of changing the skirmish score values.
Nice to see you’re working on the population imbalance though.
Yeah, I don’t see the point in going to 5,4,3 rather than 3,2,1; both are essentially 2,1,0 only you’re giving everyone 216 points up front rather than 72.
I’d prefer a straight 2,1,0 with no free points distorting anything.
And if the free points are for matchmaking (as someone theorised), couldn’t those just be added to the matchmaker but not shown on the score screen?
1. How do you feel about this proposal?
Moderately negative, largely because I don’t believe linking is a good long-term solution (although it is a good short-term solution). I’d prefer to play with the same people for longer periods of time, it wouldn’t be so bad if my world wasn’t nearly empty, but it is.
However, if liking is to stay, it’d probably be an improvement to the current situation.
2. What, if anything, would you change about this current proposal?
Almost everything as it still relies on linking.
I do like the ideas of new worlds and lower population caps though.
3. Would you be interested in transferring to a new free world?
I probably would end up transferring as I assume the new worlds would end up with a greater population than my world has now (and I assume no old worlds will be free to transfer to).
I’m not sure if you’re interested but I’d prefer the following:
Destroy all current worlds (with the possible exception of the Spanish one).
Make as many worlds as you consider useful/necessary, if at all possible so that [players in worlds of a certain language]/[worlds for that same language] is as close to equal for all languages as possible.
Set the population caps at no higher than 105% of the average by language (preferably 102 or 103%).
Make transfering free (at least to any world with below average population but preferably to any world).
Without linking if at all possible.
The shift of gold from being the lowest coin to being the highest one could be explained by deflation (money becoming worth more/goods becoming cheaper).
The discrepancy between ingots and coins probably can’t be explained.
Fiat currency (coins are worth what they say they’re worth rather than what the material they’re made of is worth) just doesn’t seem likely in this setting. It would require all 6 major political entities (5 races and Lion’s Arch) in Tyria to either accept using coins minted by only one of the six (or possibly an outside source) or to agree on minting only a certain amount each.
Seems like a good idea, most people on my block list I have absolutely no desire to ever play with.
I am willing to take increased queue times for this. It’s better wait a bit longer than know I’m gonna lose because that abusive **** is on my team again anyway, and that’s besides the not wanting to put up with the abuse.
A decent alternative would be banning players who break the rules, but they appear unwilling to do so.
This suggestion has been made over and over again and it won’t work in a pvp game, no matter how big it is. People would block the best players in the game so they can get free wins.
This is what happened in Overwatch as well.
Players abused the ‘avoid player option’. Guess what happened? The best players were stuck in queue forever because everyone intentionally avoided(blocked) them. Blizzard had to take it out of the game.
Where did you get the block list doing anything about opponents? The suggestion seems to be only about your own team.
There’s no real disadvantage in being unable to read what your opponents say so there’s little reason to have this affect the opposing team.
(edited by Etienne.3049)
I’m not surprised, the game’s getting older, which tends to hurt sales. There’s been nothing new to compensate for this.
And there’s been no new content in the game for a long time which probably reduced player numbers which in turn should lead to reduced sales for the cash shop/RMT business.
Wow, that’s an absolutely horrible idea.
No condition stacks:
I remember how bad it was when stacks were capped at 25, adding a second condition necromancer already cost damage as 1 could easily get to 18 (I think) or so stacks, leaving only 7 stacks worth of effect for the second one. This idea manages to be even worse, as a second one would have no benefit whatsoever.
Increasing base duration:
I hope you meant damage because increasing duration while making them also stack duration (rather than effect) would have no effect to most conditions (I can already keep 1+ stacks of bleeding on a target indefinitely, and guess what, 1 stack of bleeding does close to nothing).
Torment has always done damage to stationary targets and bonus damage to moving ones, I can see no reason whatsoever to change this, and if it was changed to only damage moving targets its damage would have to be increased massively.
Resistance clearing conditions:
1: I can’t see why your proposed change to conditions would necessitate resistance becoming a condition cleanse.
2: Resistance is powerful enough, if not a bit too powerful.
- Currently conditions are by far the most prevalent thing played
Do you have any proof of that?
- Quite simply there are just to many Conditions and not enough ways to deal with them.
And there we get to the problem. There aren’t supposed to be enough ways to deal with them, you’re supposed to die to them just like to power damage.
And no amount of “fleshing out” will make this a remotely good suggestion
Well, obviously condition base damage would have to be raised making the current damage the average damage (or damage to an averagely armored characted), so low armored targets would die faster to conditions.
- Condition duration effects would have to go, as you’re already reducing condition damage through toughness.
And if you’re equalizing power and condition then resistance should be changed to
reduce condition damage by 33% (like protection does for power) rather than fully negating it. So no more condition immunity, that’d be nice.
And condition removal would probably have to be removed (for damaging conditions).
Or you could accept that Power and Condition damage are 2 different things, having different ways to mitigate them. And that “conditions” are not, and will never be, a balance problem, the balance problem (when there is one) will generally be induvidual skills, possibly (rarely) induvidual conditions (say, burning), and maybe (though probably not) an single entire class.
Short, really short.
A short and mostly uninteresting story and a small map, it feels about the size of an average season 2 release.
I haven’t played the new fractal yet, nor the “new” pvp map but assuming they aren’t wildly different from the other maps in their categories this update’ll still be rather small.
Somehow I thought the 3 months per release meant more content per release.
Some other points:
Positive:
- Salvage all
- Account wide recipes
Negative:
- The enemies being the White Mantle was obvious months ago through the raids and “current events”.
- The new infusion (as in anti-spectral agony infusion, not ascended equipment infusion) mechanic was fun exactly twice, the first time I used it and the first time I used it to break a shield, very quickly I wanted the passive infusion back instead of having to press – every time.
I agree it’s a bad mechanic (an enemy should never be worth more alive than dead) but I don’t think changing that now is reasonable.
I like the fact the block list shows where such a player is. Recently I blocked a player for being extremely unpleasant (which happens far more often than it should) in PvP and after just quitting my 3rd match with him before it even started (which I really don’t like to do) I just stopped queuing when he showed up in Heart of the Mists, queuing only when he was already in a game.
Now as to stalking, isn’t that banable?
I’m not particularly fond of the follow list, but that’s just because it mildly annoys me to have a list half of which is probably people who don’t play anymore.
And if someone on your friend list is bothering you, maybe he shouldn’t be on that list anyway.
So tools are 1,000 gems.
You get 5 characters with the base game, with the ability to add more.
If they let you simply copy that tool to all characters, that’s a minimum of 4,000 gems that you never have to buy.
Some people have 50 characters on their account, so that’d be 49,000 gems that never get sold.
See the issue?
While it would be super awesome to have an account-wide unlimited tool, it isn’t practical due to the lost revenue it would cause.
I have 1 set of gathering tools now, and will probably never purchase another if they remain as they are.
If they were made account bound I’d be quite likely to pick up the sprocket one at some point.
They could probably sell me shared gathering lots for a few thousand gems.The issue is nowhere near as simple as you’re trying to make it seem.
For the sake of keeping things clear, they are account bound already. The request is for the ultimate convenience of a means of not having to slot them every time on each character.
Ah yes, I made a small error there, meant to say account wide.
So tools are 1,000 gems.
You get 5 characters with the base game, with the ability to add more.
If they let you simply copy that tool to all characters, that’s a minimum of 4,000 gems that you never have to buy.
Some people have 50 characters on their account, so that’d be 49,000 gems that never get sold.
See the issue?
While it would be super awesome to have an account-wide unlimited tool, it isn’t practical due to the lost revenue it would cause.
I have 1 set of gathering tools now, and will probably never purchase another if they remain as they are.
If they were made account wide I’d be quite likely to pick up the sprocket one at some point.
They could probably sell me shared gathering lots for a few thousand gems.
The issue is nowhere near as simple as you’re trying to make it seem.
(edited by Etienne.3049)
How can we know gw2efficiency is safe? Those API keys they require have a LOT of power.
Do they? I thought they just allowed them to see some things they can’t DO anything with it.
Worse: you can’t remove an API key. That’s a security nightmare waiting to happen.
You can delete the key in “MY ACCOUNT” on these forums (same place you make them).
But anyway, more on topic, you can see (almost) all skins and whether you have them or not on the wardrobe tab in the bank in-game. If you want to look up a specific set you can use the search bar at the top (although you can’t find, say, fractal weapons without also finding gold fractal weapons).
The people who complain about the Upgrade Extractor being “not worth it” are always people who use the gold>gems exchange.
If you are using cash to buy gems, the Upgrade Extractor costs no gold and is much cheaper than buying all new runes.
You can still calculate a gold value from how much gold you could get for those gems, you’re just using an exchange rate that favours the extractor a bit more.
At this time the extractor still costs slightly over 43 gold (43 gold costs 195 gems) if you buy with real money (and per 25 extractors).
Only the refractors, queen bee, superior sigil of karka slaying, superior sigil of concentration and minor sigil of generosity seem to cost more (at instant buy prices) out of the entire trade post category of “upgrades” (discounting infusions which have their own, actually reasonably priced, extractor).
In a vast majority of cases it really is not worth it.
(edited by Etienne.3049)
No
1: The election last time was an anomaly, that’s not how the captain’s council works (the election was for who would get the trade contract with the zephyrites, which lead to being appointed to the council, not for the appointment itself).
2: The election thing was a mistake the first time, there’s no need to repeat mistakes (disappointing up to half the players by telling them what they could have if they win and then not having it because they lost is not a good idea).
3: All over the world? I know of 1 major country having elections this year. Alternatively, there are statistically going to be elections all over the word every year.
I am somewhat surprised New Lions Arch (or New New Lions Arch) even has a Captains Council, given that they allowed the city to be destroyed in the first place.
It’d have made more sense to me if the captains had been exiled (or worse) for their guilt through negligence in the deaths of quite a few citizens.
If there’d been a more democratic government it might make some sense to have elections although it’d still be a bad idea (see point 2 above).
Did you know trolling (which, by now, I’m all but convinced this is) is in fact against the forum rules?
Wow, this has got to be the worst idea on these forums I’ve seen in a while.
1: Per day will mostly limit the amount of games people play per day.
2: It would change how and what people play in ways I don’t think are desireable, only bunkers or something with great escape options (and run at the first sign of trouble) and only in a group of 5, or maybe 4 (there’s no way I’d solo cap close in such a system, the odds of losing a 1v1 should still be 50%).
3: Dieing isn’t always bad, nor avoidable.
I voted yes (from the bottom server in europe) because by this point I’d prefer getting merged into a server to the situation before links which was that there were barely any players left and we lost every week.
I think it’d be nice if there was a chance of a team being named for the smaller server depening on the proportion of players coming from this server, so if Gandara has 90% of players and Ruins of Surmia has 10% there’d be a 10% chance of the team being Ruins of Surmia+ rather than Gandara+ (which it’d be the remaining 90% of the matches).
I’d also prefer a solution where every world has a roughly equal population but to keep linking utill this is realised but as it was on the last poll my options were:
A: Go back to my dead server
B: Effectively transfer to Gandara for a period of time
And being that dead servers are no fun (to me) to play on the only possible answer was B.
It would be interesting to see the votes per server though (which I believe they referenced but didn’t release so far).
It does require some explanation of how the results will be used.
The reasonable way to me seems to take the option where:
>50% voted for that time or longer and
>50% voted for that time or shorter
Which I’m kind of expecting them to do, but it would be nice to get some information on how they will use the results.
Removing the cap now seems unfair to people who have been at the cap for a while now.
The amount of points you could get per day has fluctuated a fair bit (due to changes and, if I recall correctly, bugs), at the current rate you’d need 1500 days to reach the cap, the game hasn’t even been out that long.
More achievements, on the other hand, would be good.
Given the size of Heart of Thorns, I doubt it.
It’d take several expansions per continent.
After trying it for a few days, I also prefer the old way, now I’ve just got 4 slots of wasted space, which looks bad as well.
And a few notes in case anyone from Arenanet reads this:
The people who are content with a system tend not to be too vocal about it.
Options are generally good. Arbitrary changes, not so much.
how about the auto loot mastery is ONLY active in dungeons,fractals,WvW,raids and disabled in open world. problem solved
No?
I’ll take AFK farming over autoloot being removed from most of the game.
I just wanted to highlight why players hate condition spam.
1) You are punished harder for not dodging it.
If you read a condition skill tool tip you will see the thousands of damage the enemy takes from just getting hit by the skill if the condition is not removed.
Yes, some skills can do high amounts of damage, those exist in both power and condition versions.
2) It is annoying to be dying when you not being hit.
As opposed to already being dead by that point because the damage happened instantly rather than over time?
3) Some conditions cover other conditions.
When you need to remove 20 stacks of bleeding and you remove vulnerability you get pretty upset.
would you rather not be able to cleanse it at all? Like power damage.
1.) Ignores armor, isn’t effected by weakness.
And therefore doesn’t hit harder on low armor characters.
Edit: I can add to that. Condition damage is not affected by protection, weakness, armor, aegis, blocks, retaliation (I really wish retaliation proceed per condition dot type), Distortion, evades, many damage immunities,
It is affected by aegis, blocks retaliation, distortion and evades; unless you’ve found some way of using conditions without hitting the person you’re trying to kill.
and generally can burst as much as 10k in one second or more. This is Dot damage per second. I wish power was that strong and had no mitigation.
Is that 10k worth of conditions applied in a second or conditions you’ve already allowed to hit you?
And conditions have no mitigation?
Condition mitiation =
1) removal (hope they don’t reapply)
2) Resistance (Hope they don’t steal/remove this)
Oh, right, and that’s in addition to most of the same things that work against power damage, which is mostly not getting hit in the first place.
There is no contest comparing condition damage to power
Which is why with a quick look on a build site, out of 6 PvP builds listed as “meta” 2 use a hybrid amulet (any amulet with equal power and condition damage) and the remaining 4 a power one (any amulet with power but no codition damage) and the 6 builds listed as “great” are 3 power and 3 hybrid?
Everyone needs some build to win. What makes one build cheese and another one not?
It seems to mean any build the person calling it so doesn’t use and/or loses to.
Originally, both types were effect only (no DoT) and too strong.
That’s not true for torment, it always did damage regardless of movement, and more with movement.
And for anyone complaining about conditions in general:
Conditions take time to kill, when the equivalent damage on a power build would already have your opponent dead a condition build may still be taking damage.
Conditions can be cleansed thereby reducing the damage they’ll do.
If conditions are so overpowered why doesn’t everyone use them?
Quick check on a build site: Out of 6 PvP builds listed as “meta” 2 use a hybrid amulet (any amulet with equal power and condition damage) and the remaining 4 a power one (any amulet with power but no codition damage); the 6 builds listed as “great” are 3 power and 3 hybrid.
I did address your “lag” concern in my first point. Get rid of the white non-important “set decoration” creatures if they really feel the need to remove something.
Those life-force batteries serve a purpose, unlike your minipet. They have an impact on the game beyond a visual level, I think they count towards the max targets of skills and for weapon master achievements.
That’s not to say I’d be completely opposed to removing them when performance would suffer, but not before minis and equipment that takes too much graphical/processing power (mostly legendaries and the like).
But it’s obvious you’re only gonna read what you want to read rather than what is actually written.
it’s actually the opposite here. Those on the side that it is fine are the ones reading only what they want to rather than what was written.
Not really, I don’t particularly care either way (on the one hand I don’t want people AFK farming but on the other I think banning for it is very excessive) and I read it as clearly allowing it. And the way I read it is a lot more sensible then I’d have given Anet credit for, given some banning decissions early on.
The entire thread was about AFK, I don’t have to insert anything.
And the dev was addressing a sub-issue within that thread about whether or not it was okay to combine pet kills with auto loot in general… not afk specifically. Afk was not mentioned in his post. Are you honestly trying to claim that an official statement on the policy of afk farming would not include the words “afk farming” or similar? Seriously? Only mechanics are being addressed, and the validity of those mechanics.
It is the 4th post in the thread (and the 2nd and 3rd add nothing), there is no sub-issue at that point. And why would pet kills and autoloot need a clarification?
In a thread about AFK farming the support lead posted the following:
This is allowed behavior; as it was designed to function that way.
Yes, they did.
That’s the statement addressing mechanics only. Not players going afk exploiting those mechanics… as talked about ad nausium.
Again, what mechanics? Does this mean players switching to a build using pets don’t have to disable autoloot from options? Why would such clarification be necessary? And why would it be in a thread about AFK farming?
You also seems to be ignoring
This does not mean design can’t/won’t/should/shouldn’t update the system as it works today.
Which does support the preceeding bit being about AFK farming; unless you’re also goning to claim this is about the combination of auto-loot and pet kills.
No, it’s about changing things so the mechanics cannot be exploited. It does not support afk farming, or support the toleration of it. It’s an acknowledgement that the exploit exists and that things can be changed to remove it in the future.
~EW
So that does refer to AFK farming but the earlier part of the paragraph:
If your pets are doing the killing and your mastery is doing the looting; you’re okay as far as GMs are concerned.
doesn’t?
But it’s obvious you’re only gonna read what you want to read rather than what is actually written.
I won’t comment on confusion as I don’t use it that often.
But torment seems fine to me, it does roughly 0.75x the damage of bleeding when standing still and 1.5x when moving and is a bit harder to apply than bleeding.
Also, torment has always damaged whether the target moved or not while confusion used to only only damage on skill use.
Torment at least (and probably confusion as well) would probably have to be increased in damage if it were ever changed in this way.
Is somewhat unfortunately written as there seems to be an internal inconsistency but “If your pets are doing the killing and your mastery is doing the looting; you’re okay as far as GMs are concerned.” seems very clearly to mean: “yes you can” as the only way to interpret it as not being allowed is to add “but being AFK while doing so isn’t” which would be unlikely given the topic.
No. You (and others) are inserting the “while afk” qualifier into that statement. “If your pets are doing the killing and your mastery is doing the looting; you’re okay as far as GMs are concerned” does not say anything about being afk… it’s talking about mechanics specifically and only.
The entire thread was about AFK, I don’t have to insert anything.
“intentional mechanics that allow pet kills to give experience and loot =/= permission to afk farm.” can be interpreted in different ways:
1: The situation does not allow it, but the post(s) from the support lead do(es).
2: It’s not permitted but you won’t get in trouble for doing it.
3: He means you may at some point in the future no longer be able to do this.Again, No. None of those interpretations are accurate. What it means is mechanics are not the same as policy. Just because you are able to do something, doesn’t mean it’s okay to do it. That is the functional definition of an exploit.
The only reasonable conclusion seems that yes, it is allowed (or at least tolerated).
At no point is it said, “it is okay to afk farm.” So, the only reasonable conclusion is that you can use the mechanics of pet kills and auto loot while you’re actively playing the game.
In a thread about AFK farming the support lead posted the following:
This is allowed behavior; as it was designed to function that way.
Yes, they did.
You also seems to be ignoring
This does not mean design can’t/won’t/should/shouldn’t update the system as it works today.
Which does support the preceeding bit being about AFK farming; unless you’re also goning to claim this is about the combination of auto-loot and pet kills.
…
It’s not. The “allowed behavior” was directed at the pets and not bypassing the idle timer by using skills on auto.
I guess that’s possible, the first post doesn’t mention auto-heal explicitly so none of the statements necessarily say anything whatsoever about auto-heal.
So then that would mean:
AFK pet farming is ok if you return before the timeout to press any key (or just allow the timeout to happen and set it up again when you have time to).
AFK pet farming may or may not be ok with auto-heal.But yes, a clarification would be nice.
I agree with the first one but I don’t see why healing on auto cannot be used when AFK. So long as you actively do something within the idle timer window (45 min?) then I don’t see any issues with it personally.
Yes, I did put that somewhat badly, I meant with auto-heal specifically to stop the timeout.
…
It’s not. The “allowed behavior” was directed at the pets and not bypassing the idle timer by using skills on auto.
I guess that’s possible, the first post doesn’t mention auto-heal explicitly so none of the statements necessarily say anything whatsoever about auto-heal.
So then that would mean:
AFK pet farming is ok if you return before the timeout to press any key (or just allow the timeout to happen and set it up again when you have time to).
AFK pet farming may or may not be ok with auto-heal to stop the timeout.
But yes, a clarification would be nice.
(edited by Etienne.3049)
It seems to me there is only one way to interpret the statements I’ve seen.
This is allowed behavior; as it was designed to function that way.
Is completely unambiguous, the only way to interpret this is: “yes you can”.
Tl;dr intentional mechanics that allow pet kills to give experience and loot =/= permission to afk farm.
This is absolutely correct.
If your pets are doing the killing and your mastery is doing the looting; you’re okay as far as GMs are concerned. This does not mean design can’t/won’t/should/shouldn’t update the system as it works today.
Is somewhat unfortunately written as there seems to be an internal inconsistency but “If your pets are doing the killing and your mastery is doing the looting; you’re okay as far as GMs are concerned.” seems very clearly to mean: “yes you can” as the only way to interpret it as not being allowed is to add “but being AFK while doing so isn’t” which would be unlikely given the topic.
“intentional mechanics that allow pet kills to give experience and loot =/= permission to afk farm.” can be interpreted in different ways:
1: The situation does not allow it, but the post(s) from the support lead do(es).
2: It’s not permitted but you won’t get in trouble for doing it.
3: He means you may at some point in the future no longer be able to do this.
I agree none of these are the most straightforward interpretation of that statement but one of the statements unambiguously states you can, while the second seems to agree and the third (which seems to be the most ambiguous) can be interpreted in such a way as to make it compatible with the other two.
The only reasonable conclusion seems that yes, it is allowed (or at least tolerated).
Generally I’ll hit the enemy untill he goes down or my ally asks (or even tells) me to stop (without abusing me, obviously). Downed enemies I’ll leave for my ally to kill unless my ally is badly injured (again there’s probably plenty of time to send “stop”).
Although if I’m in a hurry I might just pass them by.
Because I’m afraid “Lessen the gap between winning scores and losing scores so losing teams can still recover.” is gonna mean a change for the worse. The only way I can think of to allow losing teams to recover is to reduce the value of playing in the early part of a matchup. Although they can probably come up with other, equally poor, choices.
I’m not that keen on the nightcapping bit either, on the one hand, why shouldn’t people who play at night have their contribution counted equally, on the other hand, at other times there are probably more people playing so perhaps counting their collective contribution higher is somewhat reasonable. I do however estimate a fair chance they’ll mess this one up completely.
The other 3 seem relatively meaningless.
I agree on the boosters part, that’s just inconsistent.
EotM giving 3/4 of full rewards seems fine to me, but I wouldn’t really mind if they changed it either.
There are however several things I disagree with in the rest:
Most importantly the idea that progress should be equal (or similar) while PvP reward tracks are instead of loot and WvW ones in addition to loot.
No PvP match takes 15 minutes!!
They can if you include queues, during which no reward track progress is earned.
So max Point schould get increased ffrom 550 to 1000 and ther Point Ticker should get reduced from 15 to 10 Minutes
While I wouldn’t necessarily be opposed to a faster rate of gaining points I’m not sure it is needed.
The point ticker length however should be determined solely by what is best for WvW without caring about the reward tracks in the slightest. Although I would like to see the reward tracks seperated from the “tick” for several reasons.
Currently it seems so that all 40 Tiers always need just only 500 Points.
Maybe it could be changed then so thsat with every raised tier, the next tier costs 50-100 points more.
PvP tracks cost the same per reward as well (also always 500 if I’m not mistaken), if the WvW reward tracks go too fast surely the better option would be to reduce the rate you gain points, it seems better that they all take the right amount of time rather than the early ones going too fast and the later ones too slow.
I could probably get both Vista Viewer and Harvesting in less time than a full PvP match, probably the Leyline Run too if it’s not both a near-instant queue and a short (/one-sided) match.
I didn’t say within the same amount of time, I said “while participating in a single activity.” Obviously you can complete two or more PvE objectives within the same time as a PvE match, though the third would usually take considerably longer.
Hence the " I fail to see why it matters whether it is a single activity or not." bit, which you completely left out of your quote.
But this part of the discussion really is going nowhere, I wasn’t even planning on responding after my last reply, I just can’t stand people quoting only what is convenient for them and leaving other stuff, that is relevant to the quoted bit, out.
Before if you personally didn’t want to do swamp, there was nothing forcing you to do it, you could’ve tried to make your own group, but the fact is you had a choice.
I would ask “Have you ever tried to find a party for high level fractals?” but the answer seems obvious from the rest of your post.
You could indeed try to make your own group, the chance of not a single person joining appears to have been the largest chance by far, well over half if I remember correctly; and then there were the options of not enough people join to do the fractal and you get a full party but the party has a poor start and several people leave after the first wipe.
Since the patch I’ve been able to go from level 80 to level 86 in less time than a single level cost me before (with the exeption of when that level happened to be Swampland or Molten Boss).
And now that fractals doesn’t mean just 3x Swampland they can balance the rewards on actually doing fractals rather than just rushing Swampland thrice (for which the rewards were probably too high), I’d glady give up that “choice” for that.
Of course I mainly mention the class ones (which are half of them), those are the harder ones, the other two are almost as easy as the easy PvE ones (although I have failed to get 3 kills in a single match recently and if you’re unlucky you can fail to get a reward for a single loss).
But the thing is, if you get the “win with X class” ones, you can complete them in the SAME match as the other two. Try getting the “Brisban Wildlands Event Completer,” “Leyline run,” “Kryta Vista Viewer,” and " Orr Lumberer" at the same time. I’ll even cut you a break, accomplish any two of those by performing a single activity.
I could probably get both Vista Viewer and Harvesting in less time than a full PvP match, probably the Leyline Run too if it’s not both a near-instant queue and a short (/one-sided) match.
I fail to see why it matters whether it is a single activity or not.
That’s not to say I wouldn’t like to see world boss and especially n events in map x replaced by something else as I find both running around hoping to tag an event and waiting (for a boss to spawn) not worth doing.
But there are plenty of options (12 of them) and the game doesn’t NEED anything regarding dailies
1: I rather like them.
4: Fine, if a bit similar to the PvP ones.
5: One that rewards WvW Tournament Claim Tickets would be nice, that is unless you are planning to bring them back some other way in the near future (or if I just didn’t find it).
2+3: While the rate is reasonable, around half as fast as PvP but in addition to other loot, I’m just not fond of having to wait untill the “tick” to actually get the points.
I’d prefer just getting the points whenever it now gives “participation”.
The main downsides of the participation system (as far as I’ve understood it) to me seem to be:
If you have to leave less than 10 minutes before the tick you’re better off leaving the game running so you might at least get some of the “participation as actual points”
And you could probably get up to 550/“tick” and then just go do something else and just kill 1 guard or dolyak every 5 to 10 minutes to keep your “participation” at maximum.
Subjective, yes, but a commonly held opinion. Not just mine. Try seeing what would happen if they removed mounts from WoW, they most popular MMO of all time.
Also, “immersive” doesn’t mean the same thing as “realistic”. It means that it helps serve as an anchor for the setting.
Romoving a feature is far from equivalent to not adding one.
For me, and judging by the replies at least some other people, immersion requires realism, or at least some internal consistency.
All arguments against mounts in game were invalidated when gliders were introduced.
No they weren’t.
If you’re not even gonna give arguments I’m not even gonna bother figuring out why you may think so in order to respond properly.
Lore needs horses. Lore without horse is incomplete lore. It makes GW 2 much less valid for RP.
Why?
And just to note, the lore has horses in some capacity (GW: Iron Horse Mine and Necrid Horsemen, skeletons on skeletal horses; GW2: Rocking Horse Ornament), it’s just that we’ve never seen a living one. My best guess it they all died (possibly of some kind of plague) prior to Guild Wars.
Not in real PvP (you might on a farm server but that doesn’t really qualify as PvP), you can’t effortlessly win, well, you might, but you can’t expect to, the odds of losing 5 completely fair matches (50% win chance) in a row is still above 3%, which is far from negligible.
The class win category might take two matches, but not usually.
Then you’ve been lucky as you should expect to need 2 games for a single win.
less time than most individual PvE dailies.
Aren’t vista and gathering faster? That’s often half of the PvE dailies already (I wouldn’t know how long the others take as I never bother with them).
I said “most” of them. Most of them are “run four events,” dungeons, and JPs, all of which are likely to take more than 15 minutes, many of them more than a half hour, and that’s each, since they almost never line up such that you can do more than one of them at a time like you can with the PvP dailies.
Half of them are those, the other half are the easy ones I mentioned and daily fractal, which is fairly rare and should be possible within 15 minutes as long as you pick a quick fractal (Swampland or Molten Boss should do fine).
Half is not most.
I could imagine someone who normally only PvPs and plays 5 or fewer classes well and therefore can’t complete the daily in only PvP as the 4 classes for the achievements happen to be the ones he doesn’t play well.
You’re very focused on the “win with X class” achievements. But think of it like this, you play one match of PvP. You may or may not get all three of your dailies in that one match, but you’re almost guaranteed to get two of them. In that case, it’s not at all difficult to pick up at least one of the PvE options, the vista or harvest ones. The opposite is considerably more effort, picking up two PvE options and then trying to grab a single non-PvE option. Basically, if you’re going to PvP, you might as well just PvP.
Of course I mainly mention the class ones (which are half of them), those are the harder ones, the other two are almost as easy as the easy PvE ones (although I have failed to get 3 kills in a single match recently and if you’re unlucky you can fail to get a reward for a single loss).
Yeah, I have to agree here. While I haven’t played all changed content yet, what I played so far (WvW and fractals mainly) was changed for the better.
Yeah, they were quite amusing.
Probably the fractals updates. Both the new dailies, which means I can finally find a group for higher level ones, and the updates to cliffside in particular (haven’t done all fractals yet since the patch).
Autoloot in WvW is great too.
Not only are they perhaps the funnest collection item in a lot of MMOs
That’s very subjective.
but they also enrich the setting and make it feel more immersive.
They only help immersion if there are animals that make sense as mounts (dosmesticatable, strong enough to carry an armored Norn, faster than walking), there’s probably a reason so few species have been used as mounts on Earth.
Horses appear to have gone extinct some point prior to Guild Wars (Prophecies), and I’m really not seeing any animal in the game that would work as a mount.