Guild Wars 2

If anyone purchased the game prior to HoT announcement, they are forced to spend more based on how loyal they have been to the base game. This is what bothers me the most.

New player gets GW2 and HoT for $50. Awesome for them. I do not begrudge them this deal.

Loyal players pay the same $50 to upgrade their current progress to continue into HoT. But if that same loyal player has already filled their base game 5 character slots then they must either pay another $10 for a new character slot or delete progress made with a current character, or start a brand new account and begin the progress anew.

Bare in mind, a new account comes with 5 new character slots and new account bank tab, which is upwards of $60 worth of options if purchased from the gem store. But, again, can not continue progress made.

The more account bound items you have acquired (be it item drops in game, point unlocks, or via gem store purchases), the more one are apt to not want to start over with a new account. And continuing progress one have already attained will most likely cost more than the $50 price tag of HoT alone.

Anet should soften the blow in some way to existing customers. A very simple solution is to give gems to existing account holders if when HoT is purchased. At least 800 (for 1 character slot) to 2400 ($30 worth). Anet would still receive the same $50 from us, but the gems could be spent for the additional character slot, or for those who don’t want more than 5 characters, to spent on as they see fit.

Anet bottom line would be unchanged and player loyalty is rewarded, and the new players still get the same great deal they have.

DevonCarver.5370:

I’d just like to make a note of one thing that I think people aren’t considering when they transfer to stacked worlds. You will not, repeat will not, be able to receive the reward based on overall world place in the league, unless you achieve the meta achievement for the season. If you aren’t able to get into WvW much, you won’t get the rewards. So it is absolutely taking a risk to transfer to a world that has a large WvW population.

I don’t know if you play your own game or if you are just trying to misrepresent the facts. This past Saturday in JQ, the queue for EB was about two hours long. It was the longest I have ever seen the queues. Sounds shocking and reinforces all the fears of the long queues in T1, unless you also mention that all three borderlands had zero queue and the only reason why EB had such a long queue was because that was the only place FA and SoS had a showing. Out of four maps, three were complete PvDoor. As the leagues will be similar match-ups, we can expect plenty of PvDoor action for at least six of seven weeks, which should be plenty of time to meet whatever meta achievement needed.

Also, anyone in the gold league not in SoR/BG/JQ won’t be seeing a reward chest if they stay in whatever their current servers are anyway so they actually have a better shot at a reward chest if they stack to one of the top three. Where is this ‘absolutely taking a risk’ to be found in staying in a server we all know won’t be in the top three?

What is this mystical carrot you seem intent on dangling before us anyway? A chest with a couple of blues and a green? Maybe some more badges and 50 silver too? Whatever you give will either be laughed at and ridiculed by the general populace or be QQ’d over by the vast majority as it rewarded those who stacked to the top servers of their leagues.

Besides, anyone who’s been in WvW for any respectable length of time already knows they sacrifice rewards for the sake of world combat.

Aesthetics: Want those cool seasonal weapon skins, go grind the seasonal PVE content. Legendaries, you have to grind PvE. Even if a skin is on the TP, you have to grind PvE for the gold to buy it (or pay for gems). All WvW gets is lowlevel skins widely available (and forgotten) in the PvE leveling content.

Stat advancement: Want ascended stats, go grind multiple PvE content.

Wealth: WvWers earn a silver here and there while having to pay constantly for repair costs/sieges/upgrading objectives, etc. Want a blue dot on your head, go grind PvE for the 100 gold it’ll cost you ‘cause you’ll never see that kind of income in WvW.

New content: PvE gets an update every two weeks. WvW gets a guarantee that nothing will be touched for at least 7 weeks at a time.

TL:DR version: Please try understanding your audience before you make such comments.

Shiren.9532:

rhodoc.2381:

The buff does make no sense. You cant control the buff being on you at your wish. The buffs come and goes fast and you dont even realize even it is there. It is not different than any random code gives you between 0 to 3 buff every 10 sec for 10 sec.

It is not like " Hey we are going to attack garrison but lets cap those points first then try". Even if you cap the current map out of 3, you will lose it in not time. It has no synergy with the rest of the WvW whatsoever.

Sounds like you are playing really poorly. If you are going to cap the buff, all you need is three people to hold it until reinforcements arrive (if necessary). You can very easily maintain the buff if you try. If the enemy takes it from you, it’s either because you didn’t try to hold it, they outplayed you or they sent greater numbers to the ruins to swamp your defenders and any reinforcements. If it’s the first, you played badly, if it’s the second the enemy played better than you and deserver the buff and if it’s the third, it means the buff distracted the enemy forces and pulled resources from within their keep to the ruins and resulted in a net gain for you.

There is so much whining about the buff based on arguments like yours and the answer is usually “you are doing it wrong”.

You are going on the premise that all populations are equal. That one side can field X people to hold the buffs and another side will send an equal amount of people to take the buffs. Great theory-crafting, which I am sure the developer used, but it does not work like this in the live game. A server with more troops in a map will be able to devote more people to the buffs and/or just roll their zerg through the buff zones every so often to discourage any smaller populated server to even bother.

But again, theorycrafting may say, ‘Well, each map has a player cap, you will have the same numbers in your zerg if you used the same tactics.’ But if a larger populated server can field a zerg on on three battlegrounds and your sever can only fill one battle ground, you will be facing a zerg that all has at least +50 to all their stats (if you managed to hold the points on the currently contested map) to +150 (if they held it on the current map) because the other two borderlands will not have much, if any, resistance to their other two map zergs.

Say all you want about better tactics and whatnot, the bloodlust buff does indeed benefit the server with the greatest population and should be removed. The bonus points for spiking is more than enough incentive.

Personally, I would rather the bloodlust buff go away comepletely (buff stats and spike points) and have PPT based on how long objectives are held for (as someone else suggested in another thread). If I had my way, we’d refill the lake and have an underwater tower/keep. The game has some fun underwater mechanics that has never really seen any use aside from very small skirmishes.

I am also having this same issue. Please send out a tweet when resolved.

If Toypocalypse achievement is made easier to obtain, then I must insist that I also receive credit for the jump puzzle achievement, even though I have incredible difficulty completing that.