Guild Wars 2

They have been off work/ sleeping for the majority of the time this stuff has been going on. They are now at work; if we don’t see a response (even just a very brief one) in the next 3 hours or so then I feel frustration at the lack of communication would be justified.

If everyone submits bug reports the issue might draw their attention quicker.

Also not receiving any loot. Any communication from Anet on this would be appreciated

Also receiving no loot. Any communication from Anet on this would be greatly appreciated

I just came out of a escape from LA event where map chat was dominated by:

a) people complaining that the loot was bad
b)players asking what they needed to do to get acheivments
c)players talking about how happy they would be when they finished the meta and didn’t have to play any more

There seemed to be a general lack of awareness that we had a collective goal in the map. I didn’t see a single post about citizens.

I think achievements can be great for releases that have more disparate content (for example the zephyr sanctum) to give a sense of progression and accomplishment. But for events which have inherent success and failure states I feel the only achievement should simply be to beat the event.

Achievements do help keep players coming back to content and stop it from dying. the solution to this is in three parts.
1- most important and difficult – make the content fun, repeatable and challenging(at a variety of player-skill levels).
2- tie all rewards to the success and failure states of content.
3- Vastly improve event scaling so even if content dies small groups of committed players can still defeat it.

I’d really love to hear from someone who plays the game primarily to tick of their achievements. I think if I understand what the play style is about it will make me less sad. At the moment I feel like I am in a minority of players who play to …… play.

Glad you find my length admirable.

I actually agree that the content is badly designed. But as your first post highlights nicely it is more to do with the delivery of the content (making it hard/impossible for casuals to ignore, not giving organised groups adequate tools to err…. organise themselves, not effectively communicating how the encounters work) than the content itself.

The OP just seemed unaware of how the devs might have to consider players other than herself or those like her.

I doubt this will happen but would actually be pretty happy if it did. Maybe the devs should hire you

If you were disappointed about missing out on the game to go on holiday I think I can safely assume you enjoy something about it. Let us say, for the sake of argument, it is killing skritt.

It just so happens I am starting a company (Skrittbox). Our sole product will be a game in which you play a character standing in an empty box hitting skritt with a stick until fall down. It is the game for a hardcore skritt killer like yourself.

This game will certainly be a success I know there is an audience (you) and it is so simple it must be cheap to make. All I need to hire is someone to manage the finances, someone to negotiate the rights to skritt, sticks and boxes, an artist to draw the skritt the boxes, the stick and most importantly the dude who hits the skritt with the stick and developer to program the thing. Then I need a little bit from each sale for myself, otherwise why would I be doing this?

I can get all of this for $430. $430! GW2 must have cost at least 300,000 times that ammount. And I have a guaranteed audience! All you have to do is pay me $430…………

Wait. That is a lot for a game. You probably won’t buy it. We need more players. But who other that you is insane enough to buy a game where you stand in a box and hit skritt with sticks till they fall over? Well some people are nearly that obsessed with skritt hitting. I know four guys who will buy if we add character customisation, another five who will certainly play if the game plays the Jackson classic “Beat It” on a continuous loop and 10 who will play if we add an on-line leader board. And the best thing is since I’ve already paid for my team to put on shoes etc it is pretty easy for them to do a little bit extra and make these things happen. In fact I think I can bring in all these additional features, on top of the basic game, for a new total of $500.

That’s 20 guaranteed purchases for only $500 invested. I only need to charge $25 a copy. A perfectly reasonable amount to pay to fulfil your ( now slightly diluted and cluttered) dream of being a dude who hits skritt with a stick. In a box.

Thus games with production values over a certain threshold may contain content you find unappealing. I hope this great mystery has been solved for you.

reikken.4961:

I only just started PvPing a lot a week ago, and I was extremely saddened when I found out that I can only do 8v8 Play Now games. I can’t learn anything when there are so many people throwing stuff everywhere that I can’t tell what’s going on.

Don’t worry! You can join a 5vs5 “Play Now” game. Just look for ones which have team size:5 in the description

This is indeed a great thing but we have had Rox’s shortbow and quiver and Braham’s mace and shield as well. If you; complain a lot about RNG, like the skins, enjoy other aspects of the game and have some disposable income then put your money where your mouth is and fork out some cakittenhe only way you’ll see more stuff obtainable like this is if it is more profitable than people paying for RNG chests.

Agreed! Thanks Anet.

I like them they seem nice and detailed and are not too showy. Look like they could exist in the real world which I like to see.

I hate almost every weapon/armour with particle effects tough so guess I am in the minority when it comes to aesthetics in this game.

https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/clockwork-chaos-guide/

NOTE: At the beginning of this release, the Crown Pavilion will become temporarily unavailable. Upon completing the storyline for this release, you will be able to access the Pavilion for the rest of this release period, along with all the features and achievements contained within.

Pixelpumpkin.4608:

It is okay to tie rewards to success, but variance shouldn’t have been treated as a reward. In any case, can’t give it 10/10 for this reason.

I sort of agree with this but it is contrary to almost every game ever made and a pretty harsh reason to take away 3 points as it is more a flaw of the industry. Certainly every game I have played denies you content you have paid for in some way. It’s pretty unique to the medium!

Watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYUng5MtTd8 from 2:44 for a funny analysis of this.

Iconik.8712:

Not that difficult.

;)

http://i.imgur.com/DDiEz3h.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/GYHu50N.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/QpcDjby.jpg

I’ve been farming that event but this is too funny My first ever forum +1 to you!

Smooth Penguin.5294:

wingofbenu.4316:

mtpelion.4562:

Windu The Forbidden One.6045:

Because marketing in videos games is pretty much the same thing that waging world wars.

Hate to break it to you, but your main concern is a fallacy. This is known as a “Slippery Slope” argument and it is illogical.
No it isn’t.

You are arguing that Kenya will invade Poland because they are having a recession.
Your entire argument is fixed on the justification that Germany invaded Poland because they had a recession and now everyone who has a recession will be invading Poland.

That is an example of your argument, with only the terms being changed.

You are arguing that ArenaNet will go P2W because they are adding a new gem store exclusive. Your entire argument is fixed on the justification that “insert other MMO company” went P2W after adding new “gem store” items and thus every MMO company will go P2W after adding new “gem store” items.

Your entire premise is a fallacy and is illogical.

er. slippery slopes are a fallacy at times, sure, but that doesnt mean all slippery slopes are a fallacy. Anyone who’s observed games like DDO or LoTRO can tell you their f2p model has gotten progressively more abusive and money grabbing as players have taken any slight overreach theyve tried and continued buying anyhow.

Did you just use a fallacy to justify a fallacy?

The mind boggles.

Just read this thread through and found it very interesting! Surprising to see some well reasoned arguments on both sides for a change There are two things I think are interesting:

1.Regarding the more skills = harder/ more interesting games argument there is a difference between depth and complexity. Watch a middle distance running final at the Olympics. It has almost no complexity at all, a number of people have to run in a oval a set number of times the fastest to do so wins. However this event has almost infinite depth. Is it best to lead from the front and set a gruelling pace or hang at the back of the pack and try for a sprint finish or go somewhere in between the two? Who are you racing that day? Do they have strong starts, finishes, a powerful sprint? There are so many situations and strategies that can evolve from such a simple concept and they can be different every race.

Depth is what we want from a game as it leads to endless re playability. A high level of complexity but low depth might mean it takes players a while to figure out the optimum solution to any encounter but eventually they will and at that point the game becomes trivial.

I’m not suggesting that all games with limited skill sets have depth and all with extended skill sets are masking a lack of depth with complexity but just pointing out that loads of buttons does not necessarily mean a more involved game.

2. Encounters vs combat system.

I agree a lot of the PvE encounters in the game do not require a brain or synergy between a team, frustratingly this applies most to the encounters which give the best rewards. However I think this is due more to encounter design than combat design. Encounters that are impossible to win by pure DPS need to be designed.

Imagine an encounter where your party had to control a certain area(by making sure < say 10 mobs were in that area at all times) to lower a shield that was protecting a boss in another part of the dungeon/ open world. The area you had to control would be under constant assault by low damage but high toughness and hp mobs and it would be more optimal to CC them out of the area than to try and kill them. I’m not suggesting this exact encounter should be in the game but just trying to illustrate how roles for different players/ builds with strict success/fail criteria(which I think is the appeal of the trinity) could be attempted with the current combat system.

These seem like very well thought out suggestions. The only thing I would disagree with is the bit about up levelled characters. I understand it’s designed to punish blobs of people levelling alts however there are some people who have just joined the game or don’t even have the time to reach level 80 and I think it’s great that Anet makes an effort to let these people participate in content like WvW and the living story. Something like this would discourage new or time restricted players who I assume do a lot to support the game.

This is a nice idea. It only has to be a token amount of glory really to make sure PvP rank will still primarily represent s/tpvp skill and dedication but it would give PvE players a sense of progression across all the mini games, possibly act as a little bit of an incentive for PvP only players to check out PvE and maybe get a few PvE people curious about sPvP.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/1iwok3/dishonorable_mini_pets_motd_armors_and_much_more/

Recently data mined stuff apparently. If you scroll down to dishonourable it looks like some kind of afk/ rage quitting punishment is on its way.

lordkrall.7241:

JonG.7206:

The impact your choices will have is explained here

https://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/releases/july-23-2013/

Look under meet the candidates.

Seems a bit weird that this isn’t made clear somewhere in the game!

It is…
Talk to the actual candidates and they say more or less exactly the same as is written on the page (and more)

Oh haha. I haven’t had a chance to play yet was just making assumptions based of the OP

The possibilities are:

1) Some kind of research suggested that people hate rapiers.
2) They want to reserve the possibility of having rapiers as a separate weapon type.
3) They saw how much some people wanted rapiers and thought they needed to package a rapier skin in a more profitable way.
4) Some other reason.

I like wearing my tin foil hat as much as anyone but if they wanted to deceive the players it would be just as easy to put a fake bar/counter in as to not have one at all

I suspect it’s more to do with keeping support tokens as an effective gold sink. If one candidate was far ahead of another the losing candidates supporters would probably stop buying tokens.

The impact your choices will have is explained here

https://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/releases/july-23-2013/

Look under meet the candidates.

Seems a bit weird that this isn’t made clear somewhere in the game!

Allie Murdock.8152:

Please try to consider this, and think about how you would feel if you dedicated most of your time to something that people constantly bakitten

hink a lot of people who post on these forums could benefit from paying close attention to these sentences.
It seems a lot of posts contain the assumption that Anet actively want to make the game worse. It’s also worth bearing in mind that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. If you want to influence the devs maybe trying writing posts that won’t make them want to quit their job and instead engage them in an interesting and reasoned conversation about how to improve their product.

I bond with my characters because I make almost all of them super cute ^^ The only one I don’t find cute in some way is the one that I made to look a bit like me………

This is a terrible idea. Rank is only indicative of how much time you have spent playing not how good you are. I’ve come across many rank 1-20s I’d rather have in my team than some rank 40s I’ve played with.

I don’t understand how this thread is still going. It is IMPOSSIBLE for anything to be P2W from the gem store because you can trade in game gold for gems.

inazuma.7021:

Expiatus.4210:

Why no third party! QUAGGAN FOR COUNCIL!!!!

#TeamQuagganluvsU

A Quaggan would win the election easily. Anet wants this to be a challenge.

I would vote for a quaggan even if he wanted to double the cost of way points and research an canach fractal.

Conncept.7638:

Sarrs.4831:

Are ‘presents’ for buying gems with real money going to be the norm now? Am I the only one with a bad feeling about this?

You are most definitely not.

Have you enjoyed any of the new content released since launch? If yes than maybe you should thank the people who have brought gems with their hard earned money to support the game and to enable you to enjoy that content. Hey maybe you could thank them by letting them enjoy there cosmetikittentle gift rather than hovering your fingers over the “p” “2” and “w” keys of your keyboard?

I have a kite ^^

NornBearPig.9814:

Your argument is that the people of differing opinion will lead everyone else away from what you think is the ‘better’ game mode. There are other legitimate reasons why DM shouldn’t be implemented, but the argument you’re making is silly.

Hi thanks for the reply. Yes this is basically my argument I have seen this happen in other games. For example moddable FPS games where “headshot arenas”, flat almost empty maps where every player has the same sniper rifle that kills in one headshot, become the most popular mode. Also this is why I made the analogy to schoolboy football I’m sure everyone in the UK has seen what happens when children try to play football without someone imposing rules, it degenerates into a mindless blob. If you speak to these children afterwards the large majority of them would prefer a ordered game but the vocal minority rule the day.

I struggle to see why this argument is silly when I have seen it happen before but perhaps you could lay my fears to rest more effectively

Thanks for the thoughtful reply Jae.5138 looks like I didn’t explain some of my thoughts very clearly xD so I’ll have another go

1. Why I think conquest mode is good
1.1 Zerging is not the most effective strategy.

Actually, it is, outside of tPVP. Yes, you may lose the match but really, who wants to win at the cost of missing out on a ton of glory? (which u get from zerging)

I wasn’t really considering hot join when I wrote this. As someone said hot join is kind of death match all ready!

1.2 Conquest creates fights where players have different objectives.
the objective is the same, every map. take a point and hold it.

I was talking about individual players involved in the fight so in scenario 1 player A wants to stay alive as long as possible whilst player B wants to kill him in scenario 2 player A wants to smash a treb without getting killes and player B wants to stop him smashing the treb. I guess I’m saying conquest generates a variety of fights in any given game.
1.3 Conquest increases the significance and tactical usage of CC.
Yes, bunkering is fun, we know. Tactical usage of CC would be just as present in arena as sPVP, since you need to cc chain someone to kill them.

I guess so but I still would not have as much fun pushing people off points :P
1.4 Conquest allows for two levels of fighting
Coordinated teams, almost by definition, react well to situations and know their roles rather than ‘uncoordinated’ teams that have ‘fast reaction.’

I was talking about larger scale decisions vs smaller scale decisions. So by fast reactions/ situational awareness I meant noticing you are stunned and using a stun-breaker or interrupting a stomp. You could know your role is to interrupt or to pop stability or whatever but just not be able to work out what is going on in the fight quickly enough to perform your role in that moment. The other level of decision making I was talking about (which I think conquest enables to a greater extent than deathmatch) includes decisions like “do I leave this point to help the fight a mid?”, “should we abbandon mid point for far?” would you not agree that these decisions use a different area of your brain to the part you use once you are in a fight?

2. How death match could kill conquest.
2.1 People love to kill things.
Yes. That’s exactly why Arena would work. Killing wins you the match. That’s what a death match means.
Exactly and the loudest kids playing football love to score goals if you created a form of football which only had strikers and a goalkeeper kids would play nothing else and many of the elements of team play and strategy would dissappear from the game. Sometimes what people NEED isn’t the same as what they WANT.

2.2 Peer pressure
By saying that, you’re essentially agreeing that conquest lacks depth. If ANet balanced both aspects of PVP well (which, I admit, would be harshly difficult) this would be avoided.
I’m saying people who lack depth could flock to DM and create a culture where conquest was seen as inferior.

2.3 People follow each other.
I don’t see why the queue time for DM would be shorter than conquest unless you’re saying no one would play conquest if DM came out.

This is what I’m saying sorry I didn’t make it clear. My argument is basically that around a 30% vocal minority actually want DM but that they would generate enough noise and pressure to kill other game modes.
2.4 Conquest is dead
You’re saying we shouldn’t get a better version of something just because people wouldn’t play the old one? What a silly way of justifying it. That’s like saying no games should come out with expansions since no one would stay still for old content. That’s like GW2 never releasing more game content in case people don’t get 100% exploration.

No I’m saying we shouldn’t get a WORSE version of something because people would not play the old one which is actually pretty good.

“I used to play football a lot at school and I enjoyed it so much more when we had adults organizing then when the loudest kid in the class was in control and the game degenerated into 40 boys chasing a ball around all trying to score the goals. "

That’s essentially why DM would be better than a zerg conquest games

There’s much more depth availalbe in DM. There could be free for all matches. Team matches.

hmm I think you have missed my point here slightly. I feel conquest imposes stricter success criteria than DM just as the adults who organised our football games back at school imposed stricter success criteria on us. This led to a more complex and enjoyable matches. As you have already pointed out in hot join where people care less about capturing points (the imposed success criteria) the game degenerates into mindless zerging.

Anyway hope that has made some of what I was thinking clearer! =D

There seems to be an overwhelming demand for some kind of arena/ death match mode and I wonder if I’m alone in thinking this would be bad for the game and potentially destroy conquest mode. I’ll split this into two arguments firstly why I think conquest ode is good and secondly how death match could harm conquest.

1. Why I think conquest mode is good
1.1 Zerging is not the most effective strategy.
People complain about zerging a lot in his game but I can’t see how spliting up would ever be an effective strategy in death match.
1.2 Conquest creates fights where players have different objectives.
Even though this usually boils down to a bunker trying to stay alive vs someone trying to kill a bunker or people trying to kill each other it still creates more variety and forces you to get inside your opponents head to understand what his motivation is and what he might do next.
1.3 Conquest increases the significance and tactical usage of CC.
One of my favorite things in this game is being close to capping or neutralizing a point on my guardian and knocking back and AoDing an approaching enemy to cap the point.
1.4 Conquest allows for two levels of fighting
This is probably the biggest one for me. A well co ordinated team with terrible twitch skills has a very solid chance against a team with amazing reaction speed and situational awareness but no team coordination. For people like me who love having to make decisions about whether a point is worth bunkering or whether I’d be more useful in a nearby teamfight or love trying to guess where the enemy team is conquest has a lot to offer.
2. How death match could kill conquest.
2.1 People love to kill things.
About 30% (from my experience) of any multi player games audience simply want to kill other people and call them a noob. Not to think particularly deeply or to work in a team. Conquest is frustrating for these people since they can spend the whole match killing people and still be told at the end they have lost the game.
2.2 Peer pressure
The same people who love to kill things tend to be pretty vocal. I’m imagining the forums and the chat in the heart of the mists filling up with “conquest is for noobs” posts. My guess is another 20-30% of the games audience will be influenced by this and stop playing conquest in favor of death match. we now have 50-60% of people playing exclusively conquest
2.3 People follow each other.
At this point death match would be slightly more populated then conquest.There is probably a large chunk of the games audience( I estimate 20-30%) who don’t care what the mode is as long as they get to run around and have fun. These people will find the queues are shorter and the hot join servers are more populated for death match and start to play this mode almost exclusively.
2.4 Conquest is dead
We now have 70-90% of people playing death match. The game is small enough as it is and the remaining conquest population will likely either quit or migrate to death match due to the difficulty of finding games. We have now lost all the good things about conquest I listed earlier.

I used to play football a lot at school and I enjoyed it so much more when we had adults organizing then when the loudest kid in the class was in control and the game degenerated into 40 boys chasing a ball around all trying to score the goals.

Let me know what your thoughts are am I completely wrong? Are there solutions which would keep everybody happy? Maybe the tpvp map rotation could still only offer one map at a time but alternate between conquest and death match maps?

P.S I know there are currently no plans to introduce death match I’m just playing devil’s advocate against the forum consensus really.

I’d would like it to come back too.

Benji.9203:

DXIEdge.2789:

Come on people. You ask for diversity and then you scream when something different appears and your like “give me forest! Give me Foefire!”

This

So true. The relationship between between Anet and the users of this forum often reminds me of the relationship between this mother and her daughter.

Where you in a city? I think it can only be used in cities.

I find posts like this so difficult to understand. Is your pleasure from the game solely derived from completing 100% of achievements so that as soon as you have 98% it is impossible for you to enjoy?

Please stop turning your hobby into work. There must be some reason you play the game other than to tick arbitrary boxes set by the developers, try to remember this reason and you might find it a lot more fun. If it is the case that the only reason you play is for completions sake than certainly stop playing! Life is short no-one has time to turn there leisure time into work.

I also don’t understand how so many people find this dungeon so hard. I would have the “avoid the lasers” achievement 3 times over by now if I hadn’t had to stand in the lasers to kill myself after the rest of my party died. Maybe I’ve been lucky and avoided these devious golem pulls everyone is talking about.