Guild Wars 2

Same here. 15 chars.

No.

It’s worse than it ever was; at least on my realm.

Almost all the main guilds just mass transfer to one server and dominate the others.

Play EOTM if you want fun.

It’s also not balanced, but at least it’s not always dominated by one side.

GW2 would be doing better if it had a better, or fresher, gemstore offering.

We need more armour sets (ideally) and/or outfits in the gemstore and they need to be less prudishly designed, on the bottom half.

On the one hand, there are many chars (including my own) running around in the Profane armour set and other armour sets that leave little to the imagination and then, on the other, the newest offerings all seem to have skirts, or wraps, thickly covering the char’s behind.

It’s one extreme, or the other, in other words.

We need more in between the two.

The Bandit Sniper’s Outfit, for example, would have been a brilliant addition (and not overly revealing, or concealing), had it not been for that bulky butt wrap thing, that makes my char’s hips look both enormous and a very unnatural shape, on one side.

Get this stuff right and you will make more sales.

Dragon’s Jade skins (all) – I would love it if they did a tiger version of that type of skin.

Most of of the Zodiac skins, especially the bows.

I also like the Dwayna skins.

decoy.9037:

Same boat. This is the first time it has been on the shop this go around. I don’t want to spend any unneeded gems either as I too have the pick.

Still might be worth having, if you use more than one char, so you don’t have to keep switching mining tool every time you switch chars.

BTW, has anyone noticed that, when your char wears heels, they don’t get any taller?

In fact, their legs get shorter.

So, whereas I estimate my char was about 5’ 9", with (unusually long) 37" legs, in flat boots; she is only about 5’ 4" (minus heels), with about 32" legs, in the Raiment of the Lich heels.

Kind of defeats the purpose of wearing heels, if it actually reduces height and leg length.

Wonder why they did it like that?

I tried to buy them, but just got an empty letter, for some unknown reason…

Skittish.4539:

Tigaseye.2047:

EphemeralWallaby.7643:

It already exists. It’s called Perfect Imbalance. Its ever-changing effects helps keep the game interesting.

~EW

You should be a politician.

Or, actually, you shouldn’t – we really don’t need any more of that type of whataboutery.

Imbalance isn’t “interesting”, it’s just bad design.

Yes, it would be much more interesting if the winning tactics never changed.

Rampant sarcasm, on a games forum?

Surely not!

I said nothing about winning tactics never changing.

You can (or should be able to) change things, without upsetting overall balance.

Of course, it’s not easy and that is why they don’t do it.

Please would it be possible to add a pair of simple, close fitting, plain leggings, for light armour?

At the moment, we only really have the Profane ones, which have garters and fancy 3D details around the waist, which clash badly with some tops.

I think it would also make other light armour sets more saleable, if there were a pair of leggings like this.

As people would then still buy them, to wear with the plain leggings, even if they didn’t like the bottom half of them very much.

EphemeralWallaby.7643:

It already exists. It’s called Perfect Imbalance. Its ever-changing effects helps keep the game interesting.

~EW

You should be a politician.

Or, actually, you shouldn’t – we really don’t need any more of that type of whataboutery.

Imbalance isn’t “interesting”, it’s just bad design.

I’d like it if Norns could also have the long, loose, natural, wavy style that humans can have.

Actually, I’d like it if there was a slightly longer version of it, for both races, but I’d settle for the current version.

I like the boot model used for the Peg-Leg Boots, but don’t really want a peg leg.

Please would it be possible to produce a pair of pirate boots, which are similar to the boot design (but without the peg leg)?

Now I’m getting “Guild Wars 2 is currently full. You have been placed in a queue…” when I try to log-in.

Same here.

Annoying, as couldn’t finish my dailies (had about 2 3/4!).

nerovergil.5408:

yesss!!! yessss!! i want big boobs and big butt!!!! why i cant get it anet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You already can (within reason).

The body type in the attachment I linked to has both.

My issue is that you can’t have a female character with a reasonably substantial ribcage (like that one), unless it also has a larger bottom half, as well.

^ As I said, I mean keep the top half of the first option on the second row (which has a bigger ribcage, already) as it is and just make another option with a slightly smaller bottom half.

I’m not even asking them to redesign the top half.

This is the one I mean:

Going to try asking for this, again, as I think it would be fairly easy to provide.

To keep it simple, I would like a female human body type option, which combines the top half of the first option in line two, with a slightly less generous bottom half.

Not a tiny bottom half, by the way – just slightly smaller.

By “the top half”, I don’t just mean the bigger boobs (this isn’t a sexual thing), either; I mean the slightly larger ribcage, arms and shoulders, as well.

You shouldn’t have to, automatically, have a large bottom, just because you have a slightly less insubtantial-looking ribcage and shoulders.

My main issue with Kudzu is that the gold parts aren’t actually a true, metallic gold, but just a vivid (and slightly unpleasant, IMO) yellow.

Reminds me of Black Adder, when Lord Percy makes “Green”, rather than gold, when he tries alchemy.

Oxidia.8103:

by the posts of everyone everywhere on the internet, gw2 is dead, so is wow, wildstar, path of exile, diablo and every mmo that ever existed. They are all dead along with the poor horse who is beaten one too many times.

Not saying WoW is dead, but Blizzard now flatly refuse to publish sub numbers.

Take from that what you will.

On the one hand, I think it’s really good that the TP isn’t like the auction houses in other games, where people (or more likely their addons…) constantly cancel and undercut anyone who lists something cheaper than them.

That system makes it very unfair for people, who don’t use addons, as they simply can’t afford the time required to fight a constant price war and gives those who do use addons (and/or have nothing else to do) an unfair advantage.

It also creates a situation where it becomes a race to the bottom.

Having said that, it is perhaps a little OTT that you have to lose the whole of the original listing fee (which is quite high, after all, especially for expensive items) just to relist, in this game.

Especially as this game doesn’t allow TP addons, as far as I know(?).

As you say, they could maybe just charge a slightly more reasonable relisting fee, rather than taking the whole of the original listing fee.

It could still be high enough to put people off constant undercutting, without being so high that it makes (occasional) relisting seem unviable.

It could also have a limit on the maximum number of times you could relist something, without cancelling first, within a certain amount of time.

Like, once per month, or something.

Re. time limits: I’m generally against these, as it is a lot of hassle having to constantly relist everything, whether you are happy with the price you originally listed it at, or not.

Nothing worse than the AH in WoW, where you have to relist things every two days, whether you want to, or not.

If the time limit was far longer than two days (e.g. 3 months) that might be OK, though.

However, you would need a far larger mailbox limit for the returned items.

Unless they just kept the items indefinitely for you, in a storage type part of the TP, until you could relist (which would be a far better solution, IMO).

Still think it would be better to just leave things listed indefinitely, though.

Unless, perhaps, they were going to refund the original listing fee when they delisted them (which I doubt they would).

Re. price history: I really like the idea of in-game graphs, to save people having to tab-out constantly.

Forum bug…….

Really not worth it.

Worth about 100g, IMHO.

Danikat.8537:

Charrbeque.8729:

Michael Henninger.7451:

This is allowed behavior; as it was designed to function that way.

Unless your policies have changed recently, that is incorrect.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Is-an-engineer-going-AFK-with-turrets-up-considered-an-exploit/first#post337232 CC Dalmarus

Anything that enables a person to play the game without actually playing the game is a problem, such as using third party programs to automate game play.

Going AFK with turrets running isn’t technically an exploit, but players should be playing the game in good faith.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/support/support/After-reading-these-forums-slightly-worried/first#post277742 Gaile Gray

We do not consider “not answering a whisper” as an indictment. Please do not worry about this; as long as you legitimately are playing, or are not gaining undeserved rewards when not playing, you’re just fine.

This one was very clear https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/players/Has-there-ever-been-an-official-response-on-what-is-considered-botting/first#post204144 Regina Buenaobra

Anything that automates game play to the point where you are able to not actually play the game as-intended (example: you can walk away from it) is considered a breach of the User Agreement.

Using ranger pets or necro minions to kill stuff while not actively playing the game is considered “Extended Unattended Play” and players have been suspended/banned for it in the past.

I don’t know about now, but it was a major problem in the past in Dry Top and Silverwastes. Often times these AFK players with pets/minions are using macros and/or bot programs to prevent the AFK timer from kicking in and logging them out of the game.

That last bit, which I put in bold, is the difference between the two.

Going AFK for whatever reason and leaving the game running is one thing, but when you’re using a macro or bot program to make sure you don’t get kicked (and/or to heal/pick up loot/tag mobs etc.) then you’ve crossed the line into what Anet have always said is not allowed.

I always thought it was pretty clear myself, but I know this rule has caused confusion in the past. Taken all together it seems to me what everyone from Anet has said is this: If you start up just the game on it’s own, log into a character who is out in the world somewhere and then walk away that’s fine and whatever happens is allowed.

As soon as you add the use of another program, whether it’s a script or a macro you’ve set up on your keyboard or whatever to influence what happens while you’re away, whether it’s healing you ever so often, tagging mobs or simply moving around so you don’t get kicked by the AFK timer then you’ve crossed the line into what they have always said is not permitted behaviour – automating gameplay.

(And part of the reason the first one is allowed and the second is not is that they’ve put in functions, like diminishing returns and the AFK timer, to prevent players being able to take advantage of situations like this.)

This.

Vayne.8563:

Tigaseye.2047:

Vayne.8563:

Tigaseye.2047:

Vayne.8563:

Guhracie.3419:

Vayne.8563:

Healix.5819:

Behellagh.1468:

1) There was simply no reason for Level 500 Food and Jewelry. It was the presumption of the players that these crafts would go to 500.

“We’ll expand all crafting professions to allow them to reach a new milestone: 500 points!” (2013)

There’s also the Xunlai Ingot

From the same article:

“As always, the content above is subject to change as we test and iterate on these systems.”

Changing your mind on doing something isn’t quite the same as not finishing it. For example we were going to put a shed in our back yard, but we decided on a gazebo instead.

They probably did some tests, and figured the time, energy and expense to level it wouldn’t be worth it, so they changed their minds about doing it.

You’re making a completely different argument than that quote was meant to express. Context matters. If you read it, Behellagh said that the players made the presumption that the two crafts would be expanded to 500. The quote shows that it was not an assumption made by the players, but it was based on actual information given by ANET.

Also, anyone who is using the “And you wonder why ANET doesn’t communicate with players” argument: Yeah, it’s super unreasonable to expect that people mean what they say. Why is it that in this format, it’s suddenly inappropriate to use official communication as a fact of intention? This is on the same level as politicians who make stupid statements and then say, “That was not intended to be a factual statement.”

You say things like that, and then you turn around and act like anyone who questions the various development plans that are currently “on the table” are people who just want to complain about everything and if ANET says they’re doing something, then they’re doing it and that’s that.

How do you even live with that kind of cognitive dissonance going on? It boggles the mind.

I live with it quite easily because I know the company is doing stuff that I like. I was told straight out we wouldn’t have gliding in core Tyria, but we do.

I find that adds to my game a lot more than more raids being out, or even more legendary weapons. It’s something I use frequently.

That’s how I live with it. I don’t get everything I want, and sometimes I don’t even get everything mentioned, but I get other stuff I didn’t expect to get.

Thing is, while I personally agree with you that gliding in Central Tyria is a far more fun and useful addition than more Legendaries I won’t make, I have to recognise that; a) that is a totally subjective opinion, on my behalf and b) they did, specifically, promise people the legendaries, in their marketing materials.

So, while we may be happy, in this instance, that doesn’t make it an OK thing for companies to do, in general.

…and in fact, if other types of companies did something like it, they would be in big trouble.

For example, if you bought a vacuum cleaner and they (intentionally) delivered a lawn mower, while you might be happy, as you happened to need a lawn mower even more than you did a vacuum cleaner (and felt it was worth more), that wouldn’t make it OK, if other people who bought the vacuum cleaner didn’t happen to agree with you.

…and OK, you could say that they are only changing a part of the vacuum cleaner, but even that isn’t really OK.

For example, if you ordered a vacuum cleaner that used bags and they sent you a bagless one instead, you would be under no obligation to accept that change, even if they (and some other people) viewed it as an improvement.

You are supposed to get exactly what you ordered; not a different thing, even if it could be viewed as better.

That’s kind of how trade works.

These analogies, everyone single one of them is pointless for a lot of reasons. Guild Wars 2 isn’t a vacuum cleaner. A court would have to determine if it’s a product or a service and both products and services come under different laws.

The whole false advertising commentary, at least in the states, presupposes intention to deceive by the company who creates the advertisement. That has to be proven in court and so far, no one can prove that intention to deceive exists. Laws exist to protect consumers, but laws also exist to protect companies.

If Anet had every intention of doing something and they say they’re going to do it and they don’t, then we have to actually prove they knew before they said they were going to do it that they couldn’t do it at that time. If no one has proven that, then it’s not false advertising. Nor is it a vacuum.

What you’re paying for when you purchase an MMO is access to an account and a world. That’s what you pay for. The specific nature of what you get in that work is determined by a lot of different factors, including fan pressure.

Simple example, HOT was advertised with a new WvW zone. That zone WAS delivered and many people, I’m sure most people, didn’t like the zone. So if Anet brings back the old zone due to player pressure, and that zone isn’t here anymore, they’re not actually false advertising, or breaking a promise. They made the zone and players asked for the old zone back.

In effect, the new “promised” zone won’t be here, but it’s still not false advertising.

All this comparing HoT to a vacuum cleaner is pointless. One thing is a service and one thing is a product. They follow different laws.

What you’re really paying for is a game key.

A better analogy would be buying a season ticket to a theme park based on the idea that one ride would be available and then finding out they weren’t going to finish it due to reasons.

In the mean time though, you’ve gone to the park and ridden other rides and seen other shows. That’s the best analogy for an MMO, particularly a theme park MMO.

You may not like this, but this is by far the best anology. A theme park isn’t a vacuum cleaner and sometimes planned things don’t happen. You could try to sue the theme park, and you could even ask for a refund. The problem is you’ve already used part of the product.

If you can PROVE that you bought this only because of one feature, and you never entered the park and did other stuff, or you can prove the theme park never had any intention of adding the attraction, you’d be right.

In this case those, with Anet furnishing 25% of the content listed, you’d have a very hard time proving in court that they didn’t intend to go further.

All they’d have to say is we did start providing this content and it proved unpopular with the percentage of the playerbase, so to give people more content they did want, we changed tracks.

And that would be enough to quash anything you could prove in court.

Well, while that may, or may not, be true legally speaking*, that is almost certainly not how most customers will view the situation.

…and how people view the situation is almost as important as whether they do, or do not, currently have a legal claim to compensation.

The more people lose faith and trust in the games industry, the fewer customers it will retain.

That is the point I was trying to make.

Not whether someone (in some undisclosed location) could, or could not, successfully sue Anet over this, at the current time, or not.

But sure, let’s go with the theme park analogy.

Let’s say someone bought a season ticket, for a theme park, on the advertised promise of a new ride, which was due to be opened at some point during the season.

Then, when they had got the ticket and had visited the park a few times, on the offchance the ride had opened (because, for some reason, the park simply refused to provide a specific opening date, or time) and had, perhaps, had to hang around the park waiting, they had then finally found out there was, in fact, going to be no new ride.

Or, not the specific ride advertised, anyway.

It wouldn’t really matter if they had tried to fill their time while waiting and/or had tried to console themselves, after they had found out there would be no new ride after all, by using some of the other attractions, would it?

Almost anyone would, after all – I certainly think it’s fair to say the “reasonable man” would.

They would still have been severely misled by an advertising flyer and would have made that purchase, mainly for a specific thing, which then wasn’t delivered.

Therefore, I think they would almost certainly be entitled to a refund (in the UK, at least).

I don’t really think the intention to add the ride, or not, would matter either.

If you promise a specific thing, to customers (or potential customers), you are supposed to deliver it; not just intend to deliver it and then change your mind (even if it’s for good reason).

…and this applies to services, too.

I provide services, with my business and I can’t just decide that I won’t provide the ordered service, for whatever reason, or that I will give the client some other service, instead.

If I can’t, or don’t want to, provide the specific service, I have to refund them.

…and OK, they are paying for a specific service, as opposed to a “theme park” of services, with me, but still.

Yes, things can change in games and adjustments may need to be made, but if that is the type of industry you find yourself in, you should either try to promise less (or sound far less definite, in your advertising), or be prepared to refund disappointed customers, from time to time.

Not that I’m saying, for one moment, I think everyone should ask for a refund, if they have used and enjoyed other aspects of the xpac.

I hope most people will be fair about the situation.

My point is, that I think they (reasonably) could, in the UK at least, if they wanted to and that is not a situation a company should put itself in.

*As you say, a lot of that probably depends on the customer’s location.

For example, I live in the UK and the British government were talking about making video games viewed (legally) like any other product and subject to the same consumer laws.

Not sure if that has been implemented yet(?), these things often take a while and I haven’t been following it avidly enough, but still.

I’m not convinced that taking away legendaries will affect most players and I don’t really believe most players are making a list and checking it twice. I don’t think most players are so vested in that feature that it’s going to tear down people’s confidence.

I do believe people who were already doubting will take this much harder than people who just log in and play the game without doing a lot of research, without following every feature.

There are people in my guild who don’t even know legendaries were cancelled yet. Most players aren’t following the game closely in any kind of detail…in my opinion anyway.

This isn’t like the amusement park guaranteed space mountain and then didn’t build it. To some legendaries are a major major feature and to some it’s a non-feature, that was 25% delivered anyway.

My wife made the staff. She’s not looking forward to making another of the new legendaries anyway, because they’re so costly. So she’s not particularly sad that they’re not bringing out more legendaries.

The question is how big a feature was this, for how many people. I think there’s a very loud minority screaming about this, but I don’t think this is a major percentage of the playerbase.

Will some people see that badly? Sure they will.

And many won’t as well. But I think a whole lot of people see the content drought badly, in comparison anyway. That has to be the main priority.

I totally agree that true content, for everyone, is far more important than (relatively) niche content, for a few.

…and if it really was an either/or situation, they made the right decision.

However, don’t you think that a company breaking promises, on one thing (however relatively niche), affects consumer confidence, in general?

Even if that particular broken promise doesn’t happen to affect you, personally.

I’m not so sure most people aren’t (or won’t soon be) aware of the situation about the new legendaries?

People talk about this stuff in mapchat, after all, so it’s going to be pretty hard to not hear about it, at some point.

I just think it’s something games companies should be aware of, in future.

If anything, you should promise too little and deliver too much; not the other way around.

dace.8019:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

Kek is a carryover from WoW. The two opposing sides in that game can’t speak to each other. Kek is lol translated from hoarde as seen by alliance, iirc.

That is, a hoarde player will type lol in chat and an alliance player sees kek in the hordes player’s chat.

Which is, in turn, a nod to StarCraft’s Korean players, in which “kekeke” is a sort of “hahaha”.

Interesting.

I knew about “kek” being the Horde for “lol”, in WoW, but not the origins of why that was the case.

Bumping this, as I couldn’t find another current thread about guilds and I don’t feel this post warrants its own thread.

Just thought I would say that guild changes in HoT are why I have, finally, decided to quit playing the game.

I had a personal bank guild, pre-HoT and was very close to unlocking the final guild storage space and then they removed the ability for me to ever do so.

That was bad enough, but I soldiered on (because I, at least, still had the two storage spaces), until I accidentally left my bank guild, while trying to leave another one.

Anyone who has tried to leave a guild, in this game, will presumably know how ridiculously easy that is to do, due to the horrendously bad design of the “leave guild” function, which automatically switches you to another guild, if you accidentally tick the rep box of the one you are trying to leave.

I would still have soldiered on, despite this, if I had been able to make a new bank guild (or 2) with only the basic bank slots, but you can’t even do that, anymore.

If you make a new guild, now, you can do literally nothing and (as far as I can work out) have absolutely no storage space, or way of getting any, without recruiting lots of people and unlocking guild halls.

So, bank guilds are a thing of the past.

I’m simply not interested in playing a game with no bank guild.

I don’t want tons of green runes and sigils piling up, endlessly, in my personal bank and I’m certainly not going to be listing them, one by one, on the TP.

Just seems ridiculous to risk losing players over such silly and unnecessary design decisions.

There is no reason, I can see, for preventing people having their own small bank guilds, as well as offering people, with bigger guilds, the choice of having guild halls, if they want them.

I would continue to log-in, just for the log-in rewards (for a while, at least), but I’m guessing doing that just artificially inflates their active player statistics and I don’t want to do that, as it would be misleading.

I’m not posting this to start a discussion, or create drama.

Just to let Anet know (in case they are interested) why I am stopping playing; as there is no where else to put it on record, privately, in-game, as far as I’m aware.

No, I won’t pre-order any more games/xpacs, from now on.

The last couple of xpacs I have pre-ordered have been too disappointing, one way and another and I feel pre-ordering may encourage less than well thought-out (or even highly biased) decisions, on behalf of the developers.

Whereas, if you hold on to your money, until you know for sure they’re not planning on pushing your preferred features/style/level of gameplay under the bus, you retain more of the power.

…and at a time when games companies are (for whatever warped reason) continuing to attempt to appease the minority, over the majority, at every turn, maintaining your consumer power is very important.

Simply not fun enough to warrant the stress and effort.

I loved LFR style raiding, in WoW, but they have ruined that, now, to try to keep a few “real” raiders happy.

I did some “real” raiding in WoW myself, but only because I felt I was capable of it, having learned the basics of the fights from MoP LFR and happened to have the time; not because it is my preferred form of raiding.

There is, literally, nothing worse, IMO, than being forced to look up fights, in advance and then paint by numbers.

When I was a kid, looking stuff up was viewed as cheating; now it’s compulsory.

I don’t like it and never will.

Raiding should be for all and have a learning curve (so you don’t have to look up tactics) – while it isn’t, they can keep it.

Vayne.8563:

Tigaseye.2047:

Vayne.8563:

Guhracie.3419:

Vayne.8563:

Healix.5819:

Behellagh.1468:

1) There was simply no reason for Level 500 Food and Jewelry. It was the presumption of the players that these crafts would go to 500.

“We’ll expand all crafting professions to allow them to reach a new milestone: 500 points!” (2013)

There’s also the Xunlai Ingot

From the same article:

“As always, the content above is subject to change as we test and iterate on these systems.”

Changing your mind on doing something isn’t quite the same as not finishing it. For example we were going to put a shed in our back yard, but we decided on a gazebo instead.

They probably did some tests, and figured the time, energy and expense to level it wouldn’t be worth it, so they changed their minds about doing it.

You’re making a completely different argument than that quote was meant to express. Context matters. If you read it, Behellagh said that the players made the presumption that the two crafts would be expanded to 500. The quote shows that it was not an assumption made by the players, but it was based on actual information given by ANET.

Also, anyone who is using the “And you wonder why ANET doesn’t communicate with players” argument: Yeah, it’s super unreasonable to expect that people mean what they say. Why is it that in this format, it’s suddenly inappropriate to use official communication as a fact of intention? This is on the same level as politicians who make stupid statements and then say, “That was not intended to be a factual statement.”

You say things like that, and then you turn around and act like anyone who questions the various development plans that are currently “on the table” are people who just want to complain about everything and if ANET says they’re doing something, then they’re doing it and that’s that.

How do you even live with that kind of cognitive dissonance going on? It boggles the mind.

I live with it quite easily because I know the company is doing stuff that I like. I was told straight out we wouldn’t have gliding in core Tyria, but we do.

I find that adds to my game a lot more than more raids being out, or even more legendary weapons. It’s something I use frequently.

That’s how I live with it. I don’t get everything I want, and sometimes I don’t even get everything mentioned, but I get other stuff I didn’t expect to get.

Thing is, while I personally agree with you that gliding in Central Tyria is a far more fun and useful addition than more Legendaries I won’t make, I have to recognise that; a) that is a totally subjective opinion, on my behalf and b) they did, specifically, promise people the legendaries, in their marketing materials.

So, while we may be happy, in this instance, that doesn’t make it an OK thing for companies to do, in general.

…and in fact, if other types of companies did something like it, they would be in big trouble.

For example, if you bought a vacuum cleaner and they (intentionally) delivered a lawn mower, while you might be happy, as you happened to need a lawn mower even more than you did a vacuum cleaner (and felt it was worth more), that wouldn’t make it OK, if other people who bought the vacuum cleaner didn’t happen to agree with you.

…and OK, you could say that they are only changing a part of the vacuum cleaner, but even that isn’t really OK.

For example, if you ordered a vacuum cleaner that used bags and they sent you a bagless one instead, you would be under no obligation to accept that change, even if they (and some other people) viewed it as an improvement.

You are supposed to get exactly what you ordered; not a different thing, even if it could be viewed as better.

That’s kind of how trade works.

These analogies, everyone single one of them is pointless for a lot of reasons. Guild Wars 2 isn’t a vacuum cleaner. A court would have to determine if it’s a product or a service and both products and services come under different laws.

The whole false advertising commentary, at least in the states, presupposes intention to deceive by the company who creates the advertisement. That has to be proven in court and so far, no one can prove that intention to deceive exists. Laws exist to protect consumers, but laws also exist to protect companies.

If Anet had every intention of doing something and they say they’re going to do it and they don’t, then we have to actually prove they knew before they said they were going to do it that they couldn’t do it at that time. If no one has proven that, then it’s not false advertising. Nor is it a vacuum.

What you’re paying for when you purchase an MMO is access to an account and a world. That’s what you pay for. The specific nature of what you get in that work is determined by a lot of different factors, including fan pressure.

Simple example, HOT was advertised with a new WvW zone. That zone WAS delivered and many people, I’m sure most people, didn’t like the zone. So if Anet brings back the old zone due to player pressure, and that zone isn’t here anymore, they’re not actually false advertising, or breaking a promise. They made the zone and players asked for the old zone back.

In effect, the new “promised” zone won’t be here, but it’s still not false advertising.

All this comparing HoT to a vacuum cleaner is pointless. One thing is a service and one thing is a product. They follow different laws.

What you’re really paying for is a game key.

A better analogy would be buying a season ticket to a theme park based on the idea that one ride would be available and then finding out they weren’t going to finish it due to reasons.

In the mean time though, you’ve gone to the park and ridden other rides and seen other shows. That’s the best analogy for an MMO, particularly a theme park MMO.

You may not like this, but this is by far the best anology. A theme park isn’t a vacuum cleaner and sometimes planned things don’t happen. You could try to sue the theme park, and you could even ask for a refund. The problem is you’ve already used part of the product.

If you can PROVE that you bought this only because of one feature, and you never entered the park and did other stuff, or you can prove the theme park never had any intention of adding the attraction, you’d be right.

In this case those, with Anet furnishing 25% of the content listed, you’d have a very hard time proving in court that they didn’t intend to go further.

All they’d have to say is we did start providing this content and it proved unpopular with the percentage of the playerbase, so to give people more content they did want, we changed tracks.

And that would be enough to quash anything you could prove in court.

Well, while that may, or may not, be true legally speaking*, that is almost certainly not how most customers will view the situation.

…and how people view the situation is almost as important as whether they do, or do not, currently have a legal claim to compensation.

The more people lose faith and trust in the games industry, the fewer customers it will retain.

That is the point I was trying to make.

Not whether someone (in some undisclosed location) could, or could not, successfully sue Anet over this, at the current time, or not.

But sure, let’s go with the theme park analogy.

Let’s say someone bought a season ticket, for a theme park, on the advertised promise of a new ride, which was due to be opened at some point during the season.

Then, when they had got the ticket and had visited the park a few times, on the offchance the ride had opened (because, for some reason, the park simply refused to provide a specific opening date, or time) and had, perhaps, had to hang around the park waiting, they had then finally found out there was, in fact, going to be no new ride.

Or, not the specific ride advertised, anyway.

It wouldn’t really matter if they had tried to fill their time while waiting and/or had tried to console themselves, after they had found out there would be no new ride after all, by using some of the other attractions, would it?

Almost anyone would, after all – I certainly think it’s fair to say the “reasonable man” would.

They would still have been severely misled by an advertising flyer and would have made that purchase, mainly for a specific thing, which then wasn’t delivered.

Therefore, I think they would almost certainly be entitled to a refund (in the UK, at least).

I don’t really think the intention to add the ride, or not, would matter either.

If you promise a specific thing, to customers (or potential customers), you are supposed to deliver it; not just intend to deliver it and then change your mind (even if it’s for good reason).

…and this applies to services, too.

I provide services, with my business and I can’t just decide that I won’t provide the ordered service, for whatever reason, or that I will give the client some other service, instead.

If I can’t, or don’t want to, provide the specific service, I have to refund them.

…and OK, they are paying for a specific service, as opposed to a “theme park” of services, with me, but still.

Yes, things can change in games and adjustments may need to be made, but if that is the type of industry you find yourself in, you should either try to promise less (or sound far less definite, in your advertising), or be prepared to refund disappointed customers, from time to time.

Not that I’m saying, for one moment, I think everyone should ask for a refund, if they have used and enjoyed other aspects of the xpac.

I hope most people will be fair about the situation.

My point is, that I think they (reasonably) could, in the UK at least, if they wanted to and that is not a situation a company should put itself in.

*As you say, a lot of that probably depends on the customer’s location.

For example, I live in the UK and the British government were talking about making video games viewed (legally) like any other product and subject to the same consumer laws.

Not sure if that has been implemented yet(?), these things often take a while and I haven’t been following it avidly enough, but still.

Vayne.8563:

Guhracie.3419:

Vayne.8563:

Healix.5819:

Behellagh.1468:

1) There was simply no reason for Level 500 Food and Jewelry. It was the presumption of the players that these crafts would go to 500.

“We’ll expand all crafting professions to allow them to reach a new milestone: 500 points!” (2013)

There’s also the Xunlai Ingot

From the same article:

“As always, the content above is subject to change as we test and iterate on these systems.”

Changing your mind on doing something isn’t quite the same as not finishing it. For example we were going to put a shed in our back yard, but we decided on a gazebo instead.

They probably did some tests, and figured the time, energy and expense to level it wouldn’t be worth it, so they changed their minds about doing it.

You’re making a completely different argument than that quote was meant to express. Context matters. If you read it, Behellagh said that the players made the presumption that the two crafts would be expanded to 500. The quote shows that it was not an assumption made by the players, but it was based on actual information given by ANET.

Also, anyone who is using the “And you wonder why ANET doesn’t communicate with players” argument: Yeah, it’s super unreasonable to expect that people mean what they say. Why is it that in this format, it’s suddenly inappropriate to use official communication as a fact of intention? This is on the same level as politicians who make stupid statements and then say, “That was not intended to be a factual statement.”

You say things like that, and then you turn around and act like anyone who questions the various development plans that are currently “on the table” are people who just want to complain about everything and if ANET says they’re doing something, then they’re doing it and that’s that.

How do you even live with that kind of cognitive dissonance going on? It boggles the mind.

I live with it quite easily because I know the company is doing stuff that I like. I was told straight out we wouldn’t have gliding in core Tyria, but we do.

I find that adds to my game a lot more than more raids being out, or even more legendary weapons. It’s something I use frequently.

That’s how I live with it. I don’t get everything I want, and sometimes I don’t even get everything mentioned, but I get other stuff I didn’t expect to get.

Thing is, while I personally agree with you that gliding in Central Tyria is a far more fun and useful addition than more Legendaries I won’t make, I have to recognise that; a) that is a totally subjective opinion, on my behalf and b) they did, specifically, promise people the legendaries, in their marketing materials.

So, while we may be happy, in this instance, that doesn’t make it an OK thing for companies to do, in general.

…and in fact, if other types of companies did something like it, they would be in big trouble.

For example, if you bought a vacuum cleaner and they (intentionally) delivered a lawn mower, while you might be happy, as you happened to need a lawn mower even more than you did a vacuum cleaner (and felt it was worth more), that wouldn’t make it OK, if other people who bought the vacuum cleaner didn’t happen to agree with you.

…and OK, you could say that they are only changing a part of the vacuum cleaner, but even that isn’t really OK.

For example, if you ordered a vacuum cleaner that used bags and they sent you a bagless one instead, you would be under no obligation to accept that change, even if they (and some other people) viewed it as an improvement.

You are supposed to get exactly what you ordered; not a different thing, even if it could be viewed as better.

That’s kind of how trade works.

I don’t really mind if games release content as an xpac, or bit by bit, I just want it to be non-rushed, quality content and available to as many people as possible.

mrstealth.6701:

cosmicegg.8502:

This thread has nothing to do with a drought it has to do with a contract between 2 parties and one not honoring their end. If you want to complain about a lack of content start another thread and whine there all you want. This is about false advertising which in fact is continuing on the website.

It’s not the primary issue here, but it’s certainly related to it. The drought was part of their excuse for not honoring their marketing. And that decision, in a somewhat ironic turn, leads to a further (or at least a different) drought for a number of players. This may not be the place to complain about the content drought, but it’s definitely a part of this issue and has a place in the discussion.

And it is kinda funny that the false info is still up on their website. I don’t know if any devs are still paying attention to this thread, but it’s safe to assume that at least some moderators are. And I would think they would at least be able to get word to someone able to address that. It’s been pointed out enough times that they just about have to be aware.

They seem to be a bit slow in updating the website, in general.

The forum description for the HoT subforum still said “the upcoming HoT expansion” (or words to that effect) for ages after HoT release.

So, I’m guessing it isn’t intentional, but I totally agree it is misleading and amounts to false advertising, either way.

Aeolus.3615:

Ashen.2907:

Naix.8156:

its never worth it to invest in toughness; or any of the defensive stats for that matter.

Never say never.

There are situations where defensive stats can be worth the investment.

The investment in toughness is not good, pve does not it much and on WvW anything over 3k-3.2k is lost sacrifice in all stats, the trade to bet on defense stats is awfull compared if player boost for damage outout mostly.

Best defense is kill target, faster than he kills you.

Depends what your priority is.

If you’re lurking around, trying to jump out and gank people from behind, in WvW, that may well be true.

But if you’re running to the zerg and just trying to get there alive (while avoiding fights), without being one or two-shotted by a ganking Thief, or insta-stomped by their zerg (before you can even stealth) and your main priority, once with the zerg, is to survive, while tagging as many people as possible and have time to escape, when it all goes pear-shaped, then that is obviously a different matter.

In the latter case, the more defence (i.e. both Vitality and Toughness) the better, pretty much.

Certainly, that is my feeling as far as Ranger and Mes go, anyway.

Might be different for heavy armour classes.

I use Soldiers for WvW and with that and stealth (on Mes) I rarely die, unless I am seriously distracted, or led into a complete trap.

Not dying often, to me, is far more important than maximising DPS.

In PVE it may be different and I think it’s fair to say that most people expect you to maximise your damage in group PVE content.

Which is partly why I avoid it – especially as I don’t want to lug around two sets of gear and have to switch each piece, one by one, all the time.

I would still stay that it is far more relaxing to take your time and die far less (especially in HoT content), than it is to do more damage, kill things faster, but have to keep waypointing because you die more.

Especially if you suffer from very poor FPS and/or lag, as I sometimes do.

There again, I’ve never really struggled to do decent DPS in games, so maybe that is partly why I don’t mind losing some for survivability.

Sird.4536:

Dinks.2478:

Sird.4536:

Linken.6345:

Sird.4536:

ZudetGambeous.9573:

Here’s a good analogy:

A company promises to produce some digital content, you pay for that digital content and then the company fails to deliver it. Said company loses the faith of its customers and sells their next scam poorly, leading to layoffs at the company, starting with the fool who tried to scam their players out of content they paid for.

Colin has already left.

And your sure Colin the middle man was responsible?

Colin was game director from the start. He drove the game to where it is and if he couldn’t handle the work load then yes he is responsible.

Mike O’Brien was in charge of the game from the start. He had been Colin’s Boss since day one. He basically approves or denies policy, He is the one responsible overall. I am sure Colin had his hand in it but to try and say it was Colin and that Mike O’Brien is the hero coming in to clean up is just dumb.

Never said Mike was coming in as a hero. He as much as Colin are to blame but for most of the player base I guess Colin was the face of this expansion.

…and that could be why he was thrown under the bus.

Assuming he was, which I don’t honestly know in this case, but that is how these things tend to work.

Dinks.2478:

Tigaseye.2047:

Dinks.2478:

SonOfJacob.7396:

I think it’s funny that this entire thread is completely subjective and yet each person attempts to argue from a position of objectivity, and particularly on what Anet “should” charge for an expansion.

They are going to charge $49.99 for the next expansion, with higher prices for extra stuff. There won’t be a “$20 version”.

Why? Because that’s how much those things sell for – or do you not live in the real world?

mmm, maybe I am crazy but industry standard for an mmo expansion is about $40.

Doesn’t WoW charge more than that?

Plus they have a sub fee.

OK, I spent more real money in the GW2 gemstore in my first year, than I did on my WoW sub in three years, but I bet most people don’t.

I’m pretty sure all expect for one of the most recent WoW expansions were $40, and that one just obliterated the amount of content from previous ones to justify the price difference.

Oh, OK.

I’m British, so I don’t really know what they charge in dollars, but Legion pre-order is £34.99, which is more like $50.

ETA: Just looked it up and it’s $49.99.

Whether it’s going to be worth that, or not, is another matter, obviously.

After WoD I would be pretty sceptical.

Actually, I was pretty sceptical pre-WoD release (it already sounded pretty bad, to me), but I digress…

Dinks.2478:

SonOfJacob.7396:

I think it’s funny that this entire thread is completely subjective and yet each person attempts to argue from a position of objectivity, and particularly on what Anet “should” charge for an expansion.

They are going to charge $49.99 for the next expansion, with higher prices for extra stuff. There won’t be a “$20 version”.

Why? Because that’s how much those things sell for – or do you not live in the real world?

mmm, maybe I am crazy but industry standard for an mmo expansion is about $40.

Doesn’t WoW charge more than that?

Plus they have a sub fee.

OK, I spent more real money in the GW2 gemstore in my first year, than I did on my WoW sub in three years, but I bet most people don’t.

SlateSloan.3654:

due to all the circumstances we as players faced since HoT arenanet delivers the expansion for free.

each player can try it out then and can freely buy a number of special expansion-gems in the gemstore based on what each player thinks the expansion is worth.

like if i think its worth 10 bucks i buy 10 expansion gems.
someone who believes its worth 50 bucks buys 50 expansion gems.
someone who thinks arenanet shall get 26 dollars enters to buy 26 expansion gems.

is arenanet self confident enough for such a project?

Too many utterly mean people in the world (and especially in games, from my experience) for that to work.

Some people would happily pay nothing for anything they use, if they could get away with it and feel no guilt, at all.

While, quite possibly, simultaneously expelling the “virtues” of unfettered capitalism and the supposed “evils” of socialism.

Despite the fact they try their utmost to contribute as little as possible to the capitalist economy they pretend to love.

What they actually mean, is that they should be allowed to grow rich, via receiving money from other people for their services, but should have no responsibility to return the favour.

I was OK with the price of HoT – if I play a game a lot, I am happy to pay for it (within reason, obviously).

My issue was more with bad decisions – like all guild progress being made impossible for one-person guilds.

I preferred guild progress as it was pre-HoT – slower for very small guilds, but still possible.

Also, HoT is simply too “hardcore” for the average player, IMO.

Games devs should know, by now, that raiding only works, for the majority of players, if you provide a decent casual (i.e. LFR-style) version.

I don’t see why we have to sit and watch (and pay) while games companies make the same type of mistakes, over and over…?

They should be able to learn from their own (and other companies’) mistakes and not repeat them.

Rather than appearing to think they can re-invent the wheel, every few years and/or that things have drastically changed since the last time something simply didn’t work; just to, inevitably, find out they can’t and they haven’t.

Designing a game should be a logical, objective, open-minded process, based on pleasing (or not displeasing) the majority.

Not a selfish, subjective, short-sighted, prejudiced one, with individual devs implementing their own very personal visions, at the expense of the happiness of most of the people who pay for the game.

They should also learn to stop listening to the people who only want to take things away from other players.

If one of your kids asked for a new toy, you would probably listen to them and try to get that toy for them, at some point.

Whereas, if one of your kids demanded you took a toy away from his brother/sister and said that was the only way he could be happy, you not only wouldn’t do that, you would tell him off and probably ground him.

…and yet, we have to sit there and watch devs reward the second type of “kid”, in games, time after time.

That kind of behaviour makes games worth roughly $0.00 to most people, frankly.

Anet doesn’t seem to be the worst for this kind of behaviour, to be fair, but with HoT they did start wandering down that path, IMO.

There’s a good reason why games like Wildstar flop and WoW loses millions of subs when they neglect LFRers and try to remove flight.

Danikat.8537:

kurfu.5623:

What would they even gain from doing that?

I thought I read somewhere that pet-only kills give nothing in return…

One possibility is that they simply went afk and were relying on the pet to keep them alive, rather than trying to get anything from it. I main a ranger and I have to admit I have a bad habit of doing that.

Me too.

I don’t do it to get anything (I don’t have auto-loot, yet), I just have to go AFK sometimes without much warning.

Pure Heart.1456:

Why limit the number of shared inventory slots!!??
This totally blew my mind, and annoyed me at the same time.
Same goes for bank tab slots – having said that, after 3 years Anet finally allowed an additional 2 — but only 2!?? What’s with the limits?? Mind blown.

Pretty sure it’s because they don’t want to make it seem too P2W.

Minor convenience advantages, for people who can pay real money for gems (and/or play a heck of a lot) are one thing, but huge differences are another.

I bought the max number, a while ago, as I wanted to share my Terrace pass and my gathering tools and it is definitely more convenient, but (hopefully) not game-breakingly so.

I guess it’s always going to be a fine line, though, in non sub games.

Tsazao.6318:

I feel bad for people who bought multiple unlimited tools. You should allow them to exchange a tool for shared inventory slot 1:1 up to 5 times.

IDK, I’m still thinking about buying more gathering tools, at some point, even though I have the shared slots.

It’s still much more convenient to have them permanently equipped on each char, than it is to have to remember to unequip them and put them in the slots, every time you swap chars.

If people have bought multiple Airship/Royal Terrace passes, maybe they should be swappable for slots, though?

As you can, obviously, just sling one of them in the shared slot and leave it there, permanently.

Just a flesh wound.3589:

spartan.9421:

Dinks.2478:

spartan.9421:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

spartan.9421:

Dinks.2478:

spartan.9421:

Ahhhh…. the amount of people getting upset over this is amusing to me.

I too get amused when consumers get upset when they’re robbed by companies.

I meant the everyone yelling at each other and Anet.

And no one was “robbed” they just feel robbed, legendary weapons were pointless anyways.

So, you’re saying that if you pay for a product and you only get part of it and the company tells you that they’ve stopped working on the rest of your purchase until “eventually,” you would be completely satisfied and not feel “robbed” of part of your money?

And how fast would you be to buy another product from that same company if they haven’t delivered all you paid for on your first purchase?

Well considering i don’t care about legendary weapons because i can see how useless they truly are… yeah i wouldn’t be fazed

So you’re fine with people not getting what they paid for as long as its not the thing you wanted. I sure hope that the people you’re kittenting on right now are still around to return the favor when they inevitably cut the content you want.

Legendary weapons are completely useless why are people making such a big deal about this? Do you truly honestly care or are you just complaining because you’re mad? Are you that heartbroken by anet scrapping the legendary weapons? Or just mad/upset because it wont happen? It was a dumb move on their part, sure. But in the grand scheme of things, it really doesn’t effect much.

You really don’t understand do you?

It’s a matter of money spent but product not delivered.

If you’re happy in real life to spend money and not get what you paid for, them Yay for you.

But I paid for it and I want them to keep their word and deliver what I paid my hard earned money for.

I heard, in the UK, they are either making, or have already made, legislation where digital companies will be held to the same standards as other companies, re. delivering what they have promised.

Ultimately, it doesn’t really matter if a company has delivered 50% of a product, 75% of a product, or 99% of a product; if something that was promised is not included, you should be (and normally are) entitled to a refund, on that basis alone.

…and by “promised” I mean if they stated something would be included, in their marketing material; not that they have to say the words “we promise”, for it to count, lol.

I say this, as Blizzard (ludicrously) tried to say they hadn’t used the word “promise” for various things they failed to deliver on, in WoD.

As if you have to say the word “promise”, for something to be accurately described as a promise.

It’s the kind of thing a 10 year old might try to pull, when telling his mother he hadn’t actually said he “promised” to do his homework.

You simply don’t expect that level of immaturity and evasiveness from a company run by adults and it just made them look even worse than they otherwise would have.

At least Anet aren’t trying that, here.

Lexander.4579:

i suppose all the salt is being spilled over the new legendary shortbow skin, so here’s an absolutely insane and shocking suggestion for all the PvE loot hoarders who are upset they cant use it:

how about you roll a class that can use it and play it with shortbow as a main weapon, I guarantee you wont even notice any significant difference in your daily PvE loot hoarding routine

Well, you may say that, but I foolishly tried shortbow, on Ranger, when I was new and it was pretty awful (although, admittedly, so was I at the time) and I have a newish Thief now and shortbow is also extremely puny on that, damage-wise, compared with duel wielding daggers (although, not half as puny as it was on Ranger).

So, I gave up on shortbow entirely on Ranger and only really use it on Thief to get around the map quickly and then, generally, swap to my daggers to actually kill things.

So, unless they are going to improve it, it will probably only really be being half used, mainly as a map-hopping pogo stick, by only one of the two classes who can potentially use it.

Which will, obviously, be a waste.

Sartharina.3542:

Eh… Rangers have axes for range as well.

Yeah, I know, I use longbow and axe/warhorn on my Ranger, but chucking an axe around doesn’t really feel like true ranged play, to me.

As the above poster said, I think it is fairly unlikely they will give Rangers pistols, or rifles.

I think, if they were going to have them, they would probably have them already.

…and actually, I would rather have two bows, than a bow and a noisy gun.

I just wish the second bow was far more useful than it currently is.

Drakz.7051:

So because a weapon isn’t as used much it should be removed?

Well not HoT is out almost every ele uses the warhorn, so now the focus isn’t used as much why not remove it ???? doesn’t matter that it has different uses in battle.

What happens if they did that and you want a Condi ranger and only have a small selection and no ranged Condi weapon, you would complain.

Every guardian now either uses Gs,longbow or staff so why not remove every other weapon because meta is those?

Variety made gw good so taking that away will not be a good idea even if no one uses them.

I think part of the problem in this game is in making one weapon better for condi, or power, or whatever.

As opposed to them being more flexible choices, based only on preference.

You’re already backed into a corner (often quite literally, on Ranger!), if you want to play ranged, without making the weapon choices so specific.

Sartharina.3542:

Tigaseye.2047:

Shortbow should just be better and more widely usable than it is.

Saying something is underused and/or not very good, relative to other weapon choices (although true in this case), is not a good reason to remove/merge it.

It’s a reason to improve it.

For example, I’d like to be able to play longbow/shortbow on my Ranger (I don’t think that is an unreasonable request for a Ranger?), but no one does that ATM, for good reason.

That shouldn’t be the case.

But I want my fabulous Guardian to wield The Dreamer, my Sylvari Rogue to wield Kudzu, and Charr Warrior to unleash the fury with Champawat!

I honestly wouldn’t mind if they made them cross-transmutable, visually speaking.

My point was more that, given the weapon-swapping design of the game, I think you need at least two true ranged weapon choices (ideally bows) on Ranger.

Even though it’s not really working out like that for Ranger, ATM, due to this ongoing obsession they seem to have with nerfing ranged weap damage, relative to melee.

roamzero.9486:

I can’t remember the last time I saw a Ranger running around with a SB. Unless Anet buffs Ranger SB to the point of being not-garbage again, the only class this new legendary will used on is Thief lol (and even then only as a utility weapon)

True.

Shortbow should just be better and more widely usable than it is.

Saying something is underused and/or not very good, relative to other weapon choices (although true in this case), is not a good reason to remove/merge it.

It’s a reason to improve it.

For example, I’d like to be able to play longbow/shortbow on my Ranger (I don’t think that is an unreasonable request for a Ranger?), but no one does that ATM, for good reason.

That shouldn’t be the case.

BTW, I’m kind of disappointed to hear that the legendary shortbow will be tiger themed, as that presumably rules out the possibility of a tiger themed BL weapon collection.

Part of the reason I’m not really interested in legendary weaps, apart from the complicated process and/or exorbitant cost, is that they are stand alone pieces that don’t generally go with any of the other weapons available.

Therefore, you’re going to inevitably have clashes of colours and styles and if you co-ordinate your outfit to go with to the legendary weap, it probably won’t go with the rest of your weaps.

I have to say that, personally, I feel content-for-everyone>legendaries, any day of the week.

So, if it really came down to a choice between the two, you absolutely made the right decision.

However, I can totally see how people, who may have bought the xpac partly for the new legendaries, may be left feeling very disappointed.

These kind if decisions should really be made pre-release (or pre pre-sale, actually) to avoid people feeling the product has been misrepresented.

Cyninja.2954:

BrotherBelial.3094:

Obtena.7952:

Dear ANet

Do you realize that everytime we get an outfit, you are missing out on making sales in the Gemstore? How you ask? Because outfits are all or nothing: I have to either decide to purchase and wear the whole outfit or simply not buy it at all if there is a certain part of it I don’t like.

Do you realize I would pay MORE for an Armor set that I could mix and match with other parts because I believe it has more value to me that an outfit? Do you understand that I’m not alone when I say “Oh man, that’s a great helmet on that outfit, but the rest is ugly” and that prevents me from buying?

Just to make sure this doesn’t get dismissed as just a rant, I propose a solution: Do an experiment but offering the SAME skin in both an outfit and an armor, adjusting the price of each for what is necessary for projected revenues. See what happens. Make me eat words if I’m wrong. I will do so willingly.

Awhile back alot of people complained that ANet was adding armor to the gem store and not the game. So ANet said that they would no longer add armor to the gem store and armor would only be attainable in game, bar the sets that where already in the gem store.

I’d much rather see armor sets in game. Outfits are just that, all or nothing. You like it or you don’t.

This.

The decision to split outfits and armors into:

- outfits via the gemstore
- armors ingame

was one of their better decisions. This way the gemstore stays unmandatory and the outfits are a hit or miss. Armors on the otherhand are now mostly ingame only and can be attained without spending money on them for mix and matching.

Now we could argue that the ratio of outfits to armors added is skewed as there are way more outfits added into the game than armors, but that would be a different topic now right?

I don’t know about that?

I think it sounds OK, in theory, to do that…

However, in practice, we have just ended up with lots of nice, but completely lacking in versatility, gemstore outfits and only a very few, pretty ugly, armour sets being added ingame.

At this point, I would really welcome some new (good looking and versatile) gemstore armour skins being made available.

By “good looking” I, specifically, mean pant options without bulky skirts/flaps/straps etc. attached.

Kako.1930:

I might be an outlier, but I really like the outfits. They’re so convenient and I like how I can change my armor and level my characters without having to use transmutation crystals for every piece to make them look good, lol. It would be kind of cool if they could separate the outfits into armor pieces and make it an option to use those pieces as armor skins or use the whole set as an outfit too, though.

No, you’re not an outlier, at all.

Outfits are especially good for levelling.

It’s just that established players rarely need to level anymore, as they can just use the tomes they have collected to boost themselves to 80.

So, it is less of a concern for them.

I’m really interested, as I’m into fashion and style.

Was just looking through the hairstyles and colours, on my female Asura and really think the best option, from the point of view of the front of the hair, is the one in the first pic, below.

This is also a better option, from the point of view of movement, as it has proper hair physics; which the new styles don’t really seem to have.

However, not everyone will like the buns, or the bows, at the back, or they will become bored with them.

Therefore, I think it would be nice if the fringe (bangs) from this hairstyle could be taken and then re-used for various other new hairstyles, in the future.

This would, presumably, have the added advantage of saving some time in terms of the design process.

Also noticed that there is, currently, only a fairly darkish/mid blue hair colour available.

A slightly lighter blue option would be nice – especially as there are already lighter options for most other colours.

Finally, was thinking that the human female, loose, wavy option (pic 2) could probably, also, be made available for Norn female, without too much real work?

As there is not currently a long, totally loose, wavy hair option available for Norn (all have bandannas etc.) and I think the style is natural and neutral enough to not be seen as culturally peculiar to humans.

Thanks for your time and if anyone has any other hair suggestions/requests, please feel free to add them.