Guild Wars 2

What you’re asking for OP, is not reasonable. The idea of a megaserver is to control the population. Giving a people a choice to not be a part of a solution to several problems in the game is not really an option.

Some changes are made for the good of the game whether individual players like those changes or not. Allowing them to opt out of something that’s good for the game isn’t really an option.

The amount of servers that Anet now spawns and maintains to maintain the entire population takes server processor power. The more servers, the more the whole system has to handle. By using something like the megaserver system, less servers over all will be spawned.

That means that the system will run more smoothly (in theory anyway).

But people who say they don’t like the new system have never tried the new system in the first place. My prediction is is that most people will adjust to it and enjoy it.

Bottom line is, it’s not reasonable for Anet to make changes to the game on this level and still maintain the old system, because it would defeat at least part of the purpose for the change.

OP has no clue of how computers (digital) actually store numbers….

64 makes perfect since if you do.

Anyone that hits the limitation has spent enough gems with ANet to request a special compensation by ANet to go to 128 (the next BIT increase) (and possibly some therapy coupons….)

I feel like Living World Season 2 would be a great time to do a expansion-type marketing push. Lots of the end-game and the feel of the game has changed; you’ll have new characters and concept art to show, and a very clear call to action. Also an explicit Season 2 trailer serves much the same as an expansion trailer – the game is healthy, investments are being made.

Just please, make an appealing trailer. Most of the trailers the game has had after launch have been pretty terrible, and the formula for a decent trailer for this kind of material is so simple: 30 seconds to show the premise (that’s compelling to an outsider – e.g. don’t show Lion’s Arch destroyed, show a character concerned about an elder dragon preparing to attack); 30 seconds to show an escalation; 30 seconds to a minute of stuff players will see – combat, concept art of new areas, lots of quick cuts to make it look like it’s very exciting and there’s lots to see and do.

Obviously you’re not going to make a great trailer, but the droning voice and out-of-context camera sweeps through bits of the map aren’t anywhere close to great so let’s walk before we run.

this is always been a big problem with ANET they have a horrible PR department. remember the taxi video or the pledge video they made for PR i thought that was horrible and embarassing. anyways they need to invest in commercials good one not the guy painting then swimming then becomes norn that was stupid. they need to make trailers that will peak current players and spectator about the game. the fractal trailer i thought was awesome but they can try make one of beautiful CGI scene like how blizzard does it.

I think MMO developers and publishers tend to give up on marketing their product about 6 months after release and just rely on word-of-mouth to market the game while working on retaining the player-base they have built over that time.

That’s a fair way to go about things, but I agree it might not be ideal.

MMOs are evolving products and as such they change over time. That’s a big part of what keeps me engaged as a player. But MMOs need to sell that change to new potential customers, which they rarely do.

I can understand that Guild Wars 2 might not be given much attention at this point because NC Soft, their publisher, is more focused on marketing Wildstar. But it would be a shame for the attention given to Wildstar to come at the expense of Guild Wars 2, which after tomorrow’s patch, has quite a lot going for it.

I agree with you wholeheardely. Most MMO players have no idea what GW2 is about and the lack of an expansion only feeds the talks about a failed product.

From the failed trailers (the live action one especially) and some bad marketing moves i believe they need to change the marketing team. The only good thing ive see from their side was the Super Adventure Box trailer and the GW2 Chinese trailer.

I agree with the sentiment proposed by the OP. Good post, and I hope the ANet developers read it and take it to heart.

Well, the game is almost 2 years old, so they probably won’t market it as much as they did back when it was new. It is what it is at this point, and most of the income will come from their existing fanbase. Most everyone probably already knows what GW2 offers.

Check with Amazon…

EB Games is more for ‘console’ players as they carry almost no PC games in the states.

I recall that they announced that those reward tracks would also give the transmutation charges so with the traits being repeatable it is possible to change your look in pvp just by doing pvp. So enough with the got nerf when it is the only mode of play being designed not to require at least a partial exploration/trial of another mode.

Professor Sensei.2941:

maxinion.8396:

inb4 lore reasons

holy crap dude good call LOL

But who gives a hoodle about lore. GvG and guild halls made Guild Wars amazing.

Good call? All he did was give you the Arenanet official answer as to why the series is called Guild Wars that has been said in all the other 100+ threads about the same exact thing. You didn’t post a unique thread at all

Professor Sensei.2941:

so why is there no official GvG? I’m honestly shocked in the time that I’ve played this game the closest the community got was the Obsidian Sanctum. Don’t get me wrong the Obsidian Sanctum was amazing for players who wanted GvG and dueling with PvE gear but being limited to two opposing servers at any given time?

Guild raids, guild versus guild, and guild halls should have been a given for this game. Looking back on Guild Wars it’s hard to see how they missed this.

There have been SO MANY THREADS ON THIS – the Name Guild Wars comes from the lore and history, not that there are Guild Wars NOW.

Please read the lore before posting….

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Lore

“Tyrian disasters

Throughout the centuries, the continent of Tyria found itself in constant warfare. The multiple Guild Wars raged across human lands – constantly ending and starting again, creating a series of wars between Humans. In all these years, not much aside from the constant wars and temporary times of peace existed. However, nearly two hundred years prior to the Searing, a powerful arcanist known simply as Lord Odran sought to reach into the unknown, and in doing so, by sacrificing many souls, found access to the Hall of Heroes. Though the spirits were outraged at Odran’s intrusion on the land they had paid to access with their life and blood, they could do nothing against beings of the living. For years, Odran explored the Rift and the many worlds, placing his portals in deadly locations and concealing them with spells. Until one day, the spirits of the Rift found a way to harm that which was corporeal and when Odran returned to the Rift they tore his body apart. In doing so that which they hated most came to pass as the spells of protection and concealment over Odran’s portals were removed and mortals gained free access to the Hall of Heroes."

If you want to I suppose there isn’t actually a drawback aside from it being impossible to transfer account bound items.

…why on earth would necromancers want to wear heavy armor, and at a loss of toughness to boot?
If there’s one thing we don’t need, it’s more armor oO (I’d take decent, reliable access to aegis or invuln. any day though)

Fror.2163:

EnemyCrusher.7324:

The kick system isn’t broken. Just right click on the offenders’ names in chat and report them for scamming.

You must be joking. Have you ever been kicked and done what you mention? No. Because I never ever got the /p chat kept after being kicked. Did you?

They “fixed it” a while back. When you get kicked from a party, the chat stays active, when you’re still on the same map. The only minor thing they forgot is that when you get kicked out of a party inside of the instance, you change maps the second you get kicked, because you’re not only getting booted from the party, but from the instance itself.

Would be nice if they went a little further with their “fix”. Or at least add an option in report section for abuse that keeps track of your record up to 5 minutes prior…

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

Lol. I wish it was a 50/50 chance to get a BLTC key from map completion.

Oh yeah, me too.

Sir Vincent III.1286:

MrRuin.9740:

Sir Vincent III.1286:

PvP also received glory points as they rank up that were used to purchased skins prior to the removal of glory points. Thus, receiving Trans Charges after April 15 per rank is rewarding them again. So for Arena Net to reward PvP again after April 15, I wanted to know if PvE will receive the same.

But thank you, I think I get what you mean, however still doesn’t answer the question.

I am curious why you are comparing the two things? Glory has been removed from PvP and isn’t even the same thing. Glory was PvP currency. On top of that, map completion =/= rank gain. They are not the same thing.

That’s exactly why I’m confused here, as you said, they’re not the same thing. So why are they doing it that way then? PvP will get Trans Charges per rank, while PvE may get Trans Charges per map completion. I underlined “may” because there’s a possibility of getting a BLC Key instead.

Come April 15, PvPer will have access to dungeon skins and legendary skins without ever leaving PvP. It just seems one sided reward system.

What PvPers bought with glory has nothing to do transmutation charges. Glory was in the same category as dungeon tokens. You farm a bunch, you buy a skin.
You did not receive a currency from map completion that was used to purchase skins.

Not really. Glory is like gold. PvP used glory to purchase the racial armor set, PvE used gold. So in that regards, they are equal, yet PvP will get free Trans Charges while PvE will have to have the Trans rocks. Then they mention about map completion that only confuses the issue.

You did map completion and have been rewarded for it. That reward you got is being changed to the new format replacing it.

This is where a clarification is needed. While PvP will get 1:1 per rank, PvE will get 50/50 chance to get Trans Charge due the possibility of a BLC Key.

1) Are they going to make a change that a map completion will always grant Trans Charges?

2) And if so, then how about those who have map completion that did not get Trans rocks because of the key?

So my main question is really based on the answer to #1.

That is the answer – you are not going to be retroactively rewarded again for something you already did and have been rewarded for. For more elaboration, see the 2 posts above mine.

As I’ve mentioned above, not all map completion were rewarded with Trans rocks.

Lol. I wish it was a 50/50 chance to get a BLTC key from map completion.

Guhracie.3419:

What? Why are they removing transaction history?

3 million players… 10,000+ transactions per player which include date, item, quantity, and price…

While i’m sure they love storing 100’s of billions of items in their database it is probably slowing down the TP trying to access them.

Elric Of Melnibone.4781:

Aidan Savage.2078:

A good example of this are globs of ectoplasm, which at the time of writing this post, has buy orders at above 37s, and sell orders no lower than 39s, both of which vary by as little as 1c. With such a tight boundary between buys and sells, if people were forced into a 1% minimum undercut, they would be forced into selling to buy orders in a matter of seconds.

How would someone be forced into selling into buy orders? To me if they wanted ~39s for their sale they would be forced to GET IN LINE with a 1% minimum undercut rule, not forced to sell for 38.7s.

I’ve watched ectoplasm shift below 36s on sell orders. With a 1% mandatory undercut, if I dont want to take the risk of ectos shifting below their current buy price and losing more money, I have no choice but to sell TO the buy orders. And you’re also disregarding the fact that as the price creeps down, it’s not ONE PERSON doing a listing here and there, it can be hundreds of players throwing their listings onto the market driving the price down 1c at a time.

In fact, the price of ectos, since the time of my last post, have dropped to just 1c over the buy order prices. Now it’s a matter of time to see if they shift even further down, or rise back up in price.

lordkrall.7241:

Actually the only other repeatable achievement I can think of is the Salvage one, and guess what? It is capped.

Also keep in mind that no one is even close to hitting the cap yet, so it is not really that much of an issue.

It is not really that much of an issue, now. When I hit the cap, which eventually I will if I keep playing, and there are still the achievement chests rewards that I want and it will take me longer, much longer, to get these rewards, then it will be an issue for me and anyone else like me.

The whole LIFO/FIFO argument in reference to the TP is simply an incorrect way to look at how business is done on the TP. The TP’s underlying principle is best price goes first. There is no “queue” in terms of temporal order of posting. And from the mechanics it’s all rather objective what best price is and that alone determines which order is executed first.

Now when a player posts and order, they can trade coin for an advantage that their order is executed sooner than later if at all. However when we are talking high end items with large price tags, the current minimum difference of 1c is an insignificant trade off for an advantage in trade position. I think that’s the gist of the argument.

So how about this, you bin closely priced items and if that bin is the current best price then execute orders from that bin as a FIFO. You can even set bin size in a non linear fashion relative to price. This way you don’t directly restrict players to a minimum difference in order price but since all items within the bin amount from the best price are lumped together and then ordered FIFO wise you could have a slightly higher priced item being sold first because it staked out that price range first.

It’s a wacky notion but those suggesting a minimum do have a point. On higher valued items the trade of coin for immediacy becomes extremely cheap, to the point of being meaningless.

^ You forget that the time difference between your two scenarios. It’s more likely that:

a) You list at 499g 99s and 99c. A few undercutters may do the same, pushing the price down to 97c with a few Dawn sellers at each tier.

2 weeks pass before your Dawn finally sells. (And I base this off my experience where I listed my Precursor, the Hunter, for sale slightly ABOVE the lowest seller. It took about 2.5 weeks to get a buyer.)

b) You list at 350g. Perhaps one (maybe 2, if we’re generous) undercutter sells at this price because he didn’t look at the price difference between your offering and the 500g offer above yours.

Both your Dawns sell within minutes because the market saw the 350g, realised it was an incredible bargain and snapped it up.

So the question becomes “Is two weeks time of having 350g for further investments/purchases worth the 150g loss?”