Guild Wars 2

I don’t mind the pull effect in WvW but hate it in PvE.

If I am running a ranged DPS GC build I do not really want to pull five foes into melee range with me.

If I am in a group setting I do not want to face a situation where, in order to use my own heaviest hitting attack, I have to pull foes out of attack range of the group’s melee combatants, potentially causing any number of teammate attacks to miss.

Vayne.8563:

See, the whole shooting a dragon with a canon thing is a red herring. This comes from people thinking of bosses as bosses, and gaming in a certain way. I have a whole different view of Arah story mode than most people, because I don’t separate boss battles out in my head. We never had bosses when I played pen and paper RPGs and even in many computer RPGs, boss battles are sort of a more recent addition (though an older one to be sure). Basically if you’re fighting an army, who cares about “the boss”.

The thing about Zhaitan wasnt’ that you killed him with a canon. It’s like ignoring the personal story and below this point there are SPOILERS to the personal story for those who didn’t complete it.

First, you weaken Zhaitan by partially blinding him, cutting off some of his food supply (which is where his power comes from) and even crippling his ability to make more undead.

From level 70 up, your entire personal story is all about weakening Zhaitan.

And in the end you’re not just shooting him with a gun (though it much looks like that). You’re taking a very specific weapon designed by the Asuran genius Professor Gorr (who you meet in one of the Asuran story lines while no one believes his theories), which is designed specifically to be anti-dragon magic. You even have a mission to test this weapon on dragon minions in the Asuran story line.

In fact, the story lines from the different races tend to meet up in Orr, and this is one of the most ignored parts of the personal story. The magic mirror comes back from the Sylvari storyline along with the people who first used it. Professor Gorr makes a return from the Asuran storyline. There are many characters found in different story lines who end up in the last scenes, and if you play one character and one personal story, you’ll probably never put it all together.

But you didn’t just go up to Zhaitan and shoot him with a gun. Your direct battle with Zhaitan begins the moment you get to Fort Trinity and continues until the moment you defeat him.

As a single boss in a game, Zhaitan is pretty meh. As part of the greater story it’s actually pretty kitten ed cool.

My perspective as a writer leads me to not isolate individual events and see the story as a whole. It’s much better that way.

I agree with this.

I also agree with most of the OP.

To be honest I rather miss bartering over the price of a trade with other players. Made some good friends that way in GW1.

Bran.7425:

You forgot “and also potent skirmishers,” So let’s just use whole quotation not just the parts that support your stance.

Historically skirmishers were generally ranged combatants (though some might have a back up melee weapon as needed).

kishter.9578:

Travel for free to LA can be so amazing.

You can already do this.

gradenko.1097:

Even if we were to look at D&D for inspiration, it’s important to note that at no point is a D&D Ranger obliged to use a ranged weapon – their trademark is the ability to have Favored Enemies, have an Animal Companion, be able to Track targets and move swiftly and silently through woodland areas. If anything, having to choose between Archery and Two-Weapon Fighting as the D&D Ranger’s preferred combat style allows a player to repudiate bows altogether as an deliberate choice.

Perhaps an interesting point is that the original incarnation of the Ranger class in DnD was primarily melee focused. Bows did poor damage and the Ranger’s extra hit points (more than a fighter) and ability to dual wield melee weapons made him a top notch melee combatant.

Vayne.8563:

1. I agree with this. This game is quite different from Guild Wars 1. I’ve said all along that this is the one line that Anet didn’t hold true to.

This is a very core element of the promise of the manifesto. It was used to sell the game. Inaccurate or dishonest advertising in order to generate revenue, could be argued as making the entire manifesto questionable. I personally never expected GW2 to be much like GW1. The nature of a persistent world vs GW1’s approach made that seem unlikely.

Vayne.8563:

2. Use of the word fully to disprove a point. Shame on you. Fully doesn’t mean INFINITELY. It doesn’t mean a lot. Fully branching means what to you? How do you describe a fully branching. In fact, it is fully branching, because two people can play through the entire story line and have 99% different experiences within the context of the game.

Partially is an antonym of fully. Only parts of the story branch. I think that you will find that significantly less than 99% of the playable story branches.

Vayne.8563:

Is the story personalized….umm yeah. I had a watch personalized. I had my name engraved on it. That made it a watch with my name on it. Someone else with the same name could have it engraved on the same brand of watch and it would still be personalized.

If you want to delve into apples and oranges analogies…where is your name engraved in the GW2 story ? The story elements are pre-written. They exist in their current state whether you are there or not.

Vayne.8563:

Why is it personalized? Because it’s different from character to character. I have 19 characters and each has a different story. This is trying to manipulate the language to get it to mean what you want. Personalized means it’s your story as compared to other MMOs like WoW which have NO personal story. There is just the story of the world. In other MMOs everyone has the same story and in Guild Wars 2 it’s personalized.

Actually it is not different from character to character. I guarantee you that your character story is exactly the same as thousands (perhaps even tens or hundreds of thousands) of other characters. Even within one’s own characters it may not be different from one character to the next.

Vayne.8563:

3. The term grind is DEFINED in the manifesto. Colin says DIRECTLY exactly the kind of grind he’s talking about. "In most games you have this grind that you have to get to to do the fun stuff…we don’t want people to grind in Guild Wars 2.

I addressed this in the post you are responding to. Fine, grind means something different here than it does everywhere else. I do find it odd that you feel comfortable using other MMOs, such as WoW, approach as a comparison when speaking of personalization, but dismiss them with a wave of the hand when it comes to grind. Even so, one does not inherently have the ability, in GW2, to bypass the boring grindy (using their definition of grind) to get to the fun.

Vayne.8563:

This was explained ad nauseum by Anet many times since the manifesto. In most games you have 1 experience leveling, which you do just to get to the end game which is different. You level so you can get to end game which is raiding. In Guild Wars 2 you fight the big bosses even in starting zones. That’s all that means.

I was, and am, commenting on the manifesto. Not on any redefinition of what was said. Nothing in the manifesto indicates that they were only talking about big bosses. “Fun,” does not mean big bosses. Do you really think that ANet believes that only big bosses are fun ?

Vayne.8563:

You can take every word of every document literally and try to prove a point. This is what lawyers and politicians do. It doesn’t make it truth.

Saying one thing and then claiming that it meant something else (in some cases the exact opposite) is what politicians do. In the rest of the world its called lying.

What permanent changes (permanent does not mean temporary, or lasts for a few minutes, etc) changes do we get ?

What village, that we rescue, stays rescued ?

Vayne.8563:

Anet released immediately after the manifesto was released a very specific clarification. Colin was talking about dynamic events, Ree was talking about the personal story. If you watch it again, it’s actually very clear. Editing muddied it, which is why Anet released a clarification.

Redefining the words used so that they mean something other than what was actually said does not actually support your position. I could do the same by deciding that the phrase, “no grind,” means that we were promised that a new car would be included with each purchase of the game.

Erasculio.2914:

Not really. It’s because farmers make the game worse for everyone else.

Even ignoring the economic impact farmers have, the fact is that farmers allow MMO developers to make mediocre content that said developers know will sell. That’s because farmers don’t need fun content, they are happy playing mediocre content as long as they get a shiny reward in the end.

Actually farmers make the game better for everyone else..

The fact is that farmers allow developers to make excellent content by paying to play the game in between content additions.

Sarcastic demonstration that I can pull facts out of my kitten as well as you can, fun is subjective. Your entire position falls apart because you do not get to define what is fun for everyone else.

Vayne.8563:

Actually, this isn’t quite true.

In order for you to rate whether or not something is fulfilled in the manifesto, you have to define certain words. Words like fun.

I understood exactly what Colin was saying about grinding and fun. Some people choose to take comments from that paragraph out of context and assign a different definition of grind than the one he’d already given. By taking that line out of context, they are changing the meaning of the entire paragraph.

But the manifesto talks about fun things to do also. That you’ll be able to do fun things without this annoying grind to get to them. That’s simply a matter of opinion since different people find different things fun. I certainly was able to do a bunch of stuff I personally found fun, but someone else might not find the same things fun, so the paragraph might not hold true for them.

You are mistaken. The experience of fun may be subjective but the word itself has a definition without our creating a new one.

I just revisited the manifesto for the first time since it was released. Afraid that I have to agree that it has not been achieved based purely on objective examination.

1) Does it include everything that was loved about GW1 ? No. There are things that some loved about GW1 that do not exist in GW2.

2) Does the storyline branch, “fully ?” No. There are very few points of story branch. Had the word, “fully,” not been included in the manifesto this aspect would have been achieved. It was an unfortunately poor choice of wording.

Is the storyline personalized ? No. Storylines are pre-designed with a small number of options. If something is shared, potentially with hundreds of thousands of others, it is not personalized.

Most rewards in GW2 are based on RNG or repetition. Ive yet to see a definition of grind that wasn’t at least close to something like, “doing task X repeatedly in the expectation of eventually receiving a desired reward.” One cannot get dungeon armor without this. One should not expect to get a legendary weapon without this. If your definition of grind is different than any other Ive seen I might be inclined to cede this point. On the other hand the manifesto mentions avoiding the boring stuff to get to the fun stuff. As there is no option to bypass leveling in order to gain access to higher level dungeons the manifesto fails if there are players who consider high level dungeons to be fun and leveling to be boring. The decision to not make GW2 a level-less system guaranteed the failure of the manifesto in this aspect.

The boss, in GW2, does respawn, “ten minutes later.” The manifesto spoke against that and yet it is present in the game.

You do not affect things in the game world around you in a, “very permanent way,” as the manifesto claims.

“The village that you rescued,” does not in fact, “stay rescued.”

I am not claiming that GW2 is not fun. I like the game. I enjoy it (admittedly less after the recent patch). Fun is subjective and so for each player to decide for himself. But the manifesto is rife with claims and goals that objectively failed to come to fruition. Unless you can demonstrate that when you defeat a boss it stays defeated, and so on, these failures are not subjective.

Vayne.8563:

Erasculio.2914:

Vayne.8563:

Erasculio.2914:

Vayne.8563:

I disgree. I think they did attain, within the limits of current technology, pretty much what they set out to do in the manifesto.

You are wrong.

I mentioned how haters are people who want the game to fail. What would you call someone who is willing to give excuses for whatever flaw is pointed in the game, instead of accepting criticism as something ArenaNet could use to improve Guild Wars 2?

I’m not wrong just because you say so. I could list out in text the entire manifesto and with the exception of a single line, I think they’ve accomplished what they’ve set out to do. They’ve certainly accomplished most of it.

I wouldn’t call that a failure at all.

You can say you are not wrong, but it appears you show I am right.

It’s so sad that you can’t see the difference between opinion and fact. In your OPINION that game doesn’t live up to the manifesto. In my OPINION it does.

But you’re so bent on being “right” that you won’t accept that people can have a different opinion. If you want to believe you’re “right” about something that is very much an opinion, go ahead.

It makes no difference.

The manifesto is essentially a list of things to be accomplished, or avoided, in developing GW2.

Either those things have been accomplished, or avoided, or they have not. I am not sure that opinion comes into play here. I am not coming in on either side of the argument regarding the manifesto (too long since I first visited it) but, unless it is vague to the point of being completely irrelevant, it should be possible to determine whether or not its stated goals have been accomplished.

In general a manifesto, resolution, or design goal that is so open to interpretation that success or failure in implementing its stated components is purely a matter of opinion is worthless.

Vayne.8563:

Those who are farmers wonder why people on these forums have trouble with them.

I don’t really wonder, I know. Its because some people judge a group by the behavior of a minority within that group. I know someone who plays computer games, including GW2, and who uses illegal drugs. So gamers, especially GW2 players, are drug addicts right ?

I was a farmer, and would never abuse another for playing the game. I might very well farm an event if it was available to be farmed, but if someone came along with the intention of completing it I would help them or just move on.

But a tiny fraction of farmer’s are rude, so many people felt justified in abusing farmers, and farming, in general. It says more about those casting aspersions than it does about those playing the game.

OP, you were treated inappropriately, not by farmers, but by rude people who happened to be farming when you encountered them. I hope you have better luck with people in game going forward.

Einlanzer.1627:

Throughout history, most people with skill in one have some skill in the other because they have different tactical applications. It’s actually far less common for soldiers, warriors, scouts, etc. to be highly specialized in one over the other rather than being competent with both.

Actually skill, (real skill, not just the basic ability to nock and draw) with a bow required such a lengthy period of training and experience to acquire that archers generally lacked the time to develop competency with melee weapons to any significant degree.

Skill with both was the exception, not the rule, and was generally restricted to specific castes in specific cultures evolved to support such.

Even in modern combat situations you will find far fewer soldiers that rate as highly effective at melee combat, compared to truly skilled melee combatants, as they are with their respective firearms.

jubskie.3152:

Your assessment is incorrect, sir. I have a problem with the posters here because they are infact, uncivil and immature. And it’s not limited to just this thread. If you browse the threads from the past week you will see just what I mean.

I have no issues with voicing complaints per se, as I have raised a few myself, but these posters add a malicious tone with theirs and that is what troubles me. Not only are they demoralizing the entire subforum by posting outrages opinions which they claim as fact, they also give out a negative vibe that echoes throughout the entire player base. That kind of stigma sticks and rangers getting kicked in groups becomes the norm. When going to this subforum, you’re more likely to see QQ threads instead of discussion threads.

So forgive me for being too emotional and escalating sarcasm into “verbal abuse.” I hate the state of this subforum is in and I’m doing what I can to make people see what non-constructive complaints and sarcasm is doing to the class and its players.

You are derogatory and insulting to everyone here because you feel that some are being uncivil ?

Zuer.2814:

Pretty much in the title. But if you can’t figure out what I’m trying to convey by that then just know that “Ranger” isn’t in reference to the word range. A ranger is a woodsman, outdoorsman, or someone who acts to protect the wild.

Actually the word ranger is in reference to the word range, but not in the sense of distance to target. Ranger refers to a range in the sense that the word means territory.

On the other hand I think that context is rather important and Ranger, in games with a pre-industrial setting, generally refers to the setting’s distance combat specialists, particularly its archer’s.

So, if you take into consideration the word’s common usage, the context of its usage here, the description of the class as presented by ANet, the similarity of the naming of class features/traits to similarly named classes in other games within the genre, and the nature of the class as presented in GW1, it is very reasonable for people to expect rangers in GW2 to be the game’s premier archers. To be a ranged class with a focus, primarily, on bows.

Aeri.5738:

He is 100% right.
There is nothing constructive about the whining going on right now

A paying customer’s complaints are almost always constructive, no matter how poorly they are expressed, so long as they make clear the nature and/or source of the complaint.

Your own signature is an excellent example of a whine that provides the company with insight into a paying customer’s concern.

Vayne.8563:

That’s it.

I’m not saying Anet should have done it or shouldn’t have done it. I’m saying these changes aren’t affecting my game significantly enough for me to notice..

No, thats not it. You are not merely defending your playstyle, you are telling people that they are wrong about their perception of how the changes affect their playstyle

Vayne.8563:

I’m saying that rangers aren’t as broken as people say they are.

If you had restricted your comments to something on the order of ,“these don’t really affect me,” then you would not have received the same sort of reaction as when you decided to tell others how the changes affected them.

I do not think that Anet, “needs,” to provide refunds of expended materials, resources, etc.

I do think that it would be a nice sign of good faith on their part.

Personally I do not expect such, nor would I ask for it. I, on the other hand, will no longer be spending a hundred dollars (75-125 on average) a month on the game as I now have reason to believe that any expenditure at all is likely to be rendered null by the company.

I would not say that I am raging, but I have decided to no longer support GW2 financially in the wake of the Ranger nerfs.

As long as individuals could choose to opt out, sure.

DropTrigger.5217:

Not at all. I like the sense of power progression which I feel is lacking in the game. Especially when exploring every area for 100% completion..

I’m not sure I understand. Even with downscaling a geared level 80 is much more powerful than a level 10 character (for example) in a level 10 area.

AlietteFaye.7316:

Wow. This whole thread seems really overcomplicated.
Here’s the short answer for a lot of players:
Players want new skins in the game that they can actively work towards. Not something that they can actively gamble towards with no guarantee of ever getting it. Especially not when it comes to real money.

As regards to the expenditure of real money, I agree.

As regards to in game things such as the Dragon Coffers, I disagree. There is no significant difference between killing hundreds or thousands of monsters hoping that one of them will drop the sword you want, and killing hundreds or thousands of monsters hoping that one of them will drop the coffer containing the ticket you can use to buy the sword you want. In both cases you are, “working,” towards your goal

itamar.4690:

Karizee.8076:

It tells you right on the purchase tab that the equipment is Soulbound on Acquire.

I know that and that writen in the post , im just saying there is no reason to not change it to account bound on purchase and then to soulbound on equip, no downside for that
only good will come out of this.

I am not trying to be rude, I really do understand your, “pain,” in this situations, but you are mistaken about there being no reason to not change it…

Any such change would take developer resources that can be better spent elsewhere. There is no amount of dev time spent on it that will prevent people from choosing to not read a warning, from clicking on, “yes,” when they really should click on, “no,” or, “cancel,” and so on.

There comes a point at which spending finite resources to prevent people from choosing to act against their own interests is throwing good money after bad.

Mentalhead.5721:

Let’s face it, there are players who just jump from one boss to another just to get the rare gear, therefore the zerg moves from one zone to another as soon as the boss spawns, thus leaving game world empty and abandoned.

Now, don’t get me wrong, there’s nothing wrong with fighting bosses and rewards, but switching from one zone to another just to get few hits on the boss and rare loot isn’t that fun.

Therefore, in order to prevent boss grinding and switching from one zone to another to get the boss, maybe you should be limited to one guarantied bonus chest per day.

Any other suggestions are more than welcome.

Perhaps chasing bosses for rare loot is not fun for you, but why does that mean that others, who may very well find enjoyment in things that you do not, shouldn’t be allowed to do it ?

If you don’t like it you do not need a new restriction in order to choose to not do it. I know that I do not enjoy world boss chasing so I can choose to not engage in that activity without denying anyone else the choice.

I really do not understand the logic of, “I don’t enjoy doing X, so you shouldn’t be allowed to do it.”

As to the, “leaving game world empty and abandoned,” comment…

If a couple dozen, or even a bit more, people chasing bosses leaves that impression about the population, the game has much bigger problems than your concern.

Zelyhn.8069:

Ashen.2907:

One of the basic tenets of morality, or at least those moral templates that I am aware of, is to do no harm to those who have done no wrong deserving of it.

A statement that does harm to one who does not deserve it is arguably immoral.

Lets look at a more explicit possible example of a statement that, if not altered, could be considered immoral:

You are in a movie theater. You tell a joke with the punchline of, “fire !” You note that the person next to you overhears your exclamation and begins to get agitated, as if they thought you had spotted a fire in the small crowded room. If you do not address this interpretation of what you said you are allowing a potentially lethal situation to grow out of your statement.

It would be immoral, in my opinion, to allow others to be hurt and perhaps even die because you chose not to alter your comment to prevent misunderstanding in such a circumstance.

I mostly agree with you (I won’t blindly defend my position), but I would like to be more accurate:

I am in a movie theatre. I tell a joke with the punchline of, “Red!” I note that the person next to me overhears my exclamation and begins to get agitated, as if they thought I had spotted a fire in the small crowded room.

-The person next to me interprets my words: they hear “red” so they think “fire”.
-I am aware of this potential interpretation before making the joke.

In light of this I should indeed be guilty: I knew that if I said “red” I could harm the person next to me.

If I say “red” I will cause harm, but this is only possible because the person next to me is interpreting my words, which is wrong. So in a way the person next to me is participating in the harmful action.

If I was a “nice person” I would then not say “red”. But that would mean accepting the wrongful interpretations. Accepting something wrong is not right So I am in a moral dilemma.

Let’s put some Godwin into this.
The Jews in kitten Germany were aware of the fact that kittens perceived their existence as harmful to them. So if they were to avoid causing any harm to the kittens they should end their lives.
Obviously this is wrong; and it is wrong because the “harmful perception” of the Jews by the kittens is wrong in the first place.

This is a bit drastic, I admit, but you get my point: not altering a statement in light of wrong interpretations is not wrong.

[Edit: apparently the name of Hitler’s party is censored, read accordingly]

You have supported my position that sometimes it can be morally wrong, and others not so. In your example of the joke it would not be morally wrong, in mine it would.

Your example using Germany falls a bit short of my statement in that the Germans believed that the presence of Jews was harmful, they were wrong.

My statement was that it is morally wrong to do harm to those not deserving of it, not that it was morally wrong to do what the recipient incorrectly thinks is harmful to them.

Many children think they are being treated in a harmful manner when a parent administers a scolding or punishment that will actually benefit, assuming the child pays attention to the lesson, them in the long run.

Xsorus.2507:

There is no way GW2 offers anything remotely close to Rift in terms of Class
differentiation

The amount of specs available in Rift is absolutely silly.

Not only did you have the “pure builds” you had all the hybrid ones as well.

I can actually name some of the “builds” off that were played back then on Mages

44 Necro
32 Necro/32 Warlock
32 Necro/32 Dom
44 Pyro/11 Necro (this was nerfed early on)
32 Storm Caller/32 Warlock
32 pyro/32 Warlock
51 Pyro
51 Stormcaller
32 Chloro/32 Dom
32 Dom/16 Chloro/16 PvP Soul
51 Archon
32 Pyro/32 Elementalist
32 Ele/32 Warlock

Thats all the ones i can think of off the top of my head only for Mage, there are more…

There are at several times that many builds available to just an Elementalist focussing on fire and dual daggers.

Multiply that by four elements…

Multiply that by the five weapon combination options…

and Elementalist alone has probably in the neighborhood of eighty to one hundred times as many builds as you list.

Vayne.8563:

but I still never really got an idea of who he was, because he was always changing.

Isnt this pretty much possible in GW2 as well ? Switching from support to tank to DPS with little effort ?

Aeonblade.8709:

This proves what a lot of us have been saying for months on these forums.

I wish that it did. Unfortunately it proves nothing.

It would be interesting to see some analysis done by someone who does not demonstrate such a significant degree of bias. I am not sure that I can trust someone to be objective when their result report demonstrates a marked lack of that objectivity.

I am not attempting to defend ANet here. I am pretty unhappy with significant elements of the game and am concerned about its future…

But surveys and analysis of this sort make everyone who has doubts about the company and the game look like we are intent on inventing problems rather than attempting to point out and/or solve those that really do exist.

Lord Kuru.3685:

That is ridiculous. Knowing the drop rate gives us a great deal of information. For example if the drop rate were 10%, you know that opening 22 chests gives just over 90% chance of giving (at least) one ticket. You know that opening 50 chests gives over 99% chance of giving (at least) one ticket. This helps you make an informed decision as to whether buying chests is worth it.

No, opening 50 chests give 50 separate 10% chances in the example you provide. These separate chances are in no way cumulative

Zelyhn.8069:

Ashen.2907:

Zelyhn.8069:

Ashen.2907:

Zelyhn.8069:

So you agree that not changing a statement because of potential interpretations is not wrong

Actually it is wrong. It is also not wrong. The situation you describe can only be described as wrong or not wrong in terms of the current social environment. It could be absolutely wrong to not change a statement based on potential interpretation in one instance, and completely not wrong at all in another.

Indeed, I meant “morally wrong” (as a reference to one of my previous posts).

So was I. It is morally wrong in some circumstances and not morally wrong in others.

I don’t believe morals change according to the situation.
Can you give me an example of when it is morally wrong to not change a statement in light of potential interpretations?
And by the way I believe that it is morally wrong to interpret statements

One of the basic tenets of morality, or at least those moral templates that I am aware of, is to do no harm to those who have done no wrong deserving of it.

A statement that does harm to one who does not deserve it is arguably immoral.

Lets look at a more explicit possible example of a statement that, if not altered, could be considered immoral:

You are in a movie theater. You tell a joke with the punchline of, “fire !” You note that the person next to you overhears your exclamation and begins to get agitated, as if they thought you had spotted a fire in the small crowded room. If you do not address this interpretation of what you said you are allowing a potentially lethal situation to grow out of your statement.

It would be immoral, in my opinion, to allow others to be hurt and perhaps even die because you chose not to alter your comment to prevent misunderstanding in such a circumstance.

I run forward and hit jump and dodge at the same time in order to do a mid air complete flip into the gate.

RoterFuchs.9216:

maddoctor.2738:

Ashen.2907:

maddoctor.2738:

Ashen.2907:

2) You don’t have to neglect to do something more than once in order for it to have been forgotten. The very first time you failed to remember to send in the rent check, even if you never made that mistake again, it was an example of having forgotten something.

So you mean just because a 10min (it’s not even 10min, it’s even shorter) instance was a solo one, suddenly Anet forgot the “Multiplayer” aspect of MMO? How tragic.

I said nothing of the sort. Did you mean to quote someone else ?

All I said on the matter of forgetting something was that Vayne was mistaken in his claim that the word forget only applies to repeated instances of forgetfulness.

I was quoting you, read the OP’s quote again you clearly didn’t, although you defend it for some obscure reason. The OP used the word “forgot” while his reasoning behind Anet actually forgeting something wasn’t as good as he might’ve thought. You can’t say Anet forgot “multiplayer”, as the OP very very clearly claimed, if your only basis is a 10min instance that is not doable with multiple people….

Vayne said: “In order for Anet to have forgotten about it, they have to not done it more than once.” The OP needed far more than just that to back his claim, his point/argument was weak to begin with.

Are you really arguing about a simple phrase that probably didn’t have any deeper meaning other than “I don’t like that I am forced to play this instance solo”? Wow.

It was just an introductory phrase to show his discontent.

Exactly, and fairly even keeled at that (particularly compared to some of the hateful stuff spouted on most game forums).

Bright.9160:

Ele Lady.6103:

I would like to see the enemies casting their spells/attacks in the interface. That bar under the enemy’s name showing the process. Would be easier to interrupt. And why do bosses in gw2 have unshakable/defiant? You could pretty much interrupt anyone in gw1 if you wanted to.

The reason they removed the skill bars underneath the damage bars was to give players the incentive to look out for animations more. Have their eyes on the target, and not on their health bar..

I kind of like it, it’s a good way to distinguish between good players and bad players. Although, what they should really do to make this system work is fix their freaking particle effects.. There is almost always a Guardian in my teams and they run a DPS blind spam build that involves spamming Virtue of Justice… But the downside of that is that your target is engulfed in blue flames almost 24/7 making spotting the animations kind of tough…

Exactly.

A good interrupter in GW1 didnt wait to see the activation bar and name of the skill appear over a target’s head. He was watching for tells (as simple as they were in GW1) and paying attention to the battlefield, knew his opponents rotation, etc.

In GW2 all of that knowledge and attention to detail means little if you cannot even see your target.

Zelyhn.8069:

Ashen.2907:

Zelyhn.8069:

So you agree that not changing a statement because of potential interpretations is not wrong

Actually it is wrong. It is also not wrong. The situation you describe can only be described as wrong or not wrong in terms of the current social environment. It could be absolutely wrong to not change a statement based on potential interpretation in one instance, and completely not wrong at all in another.

Indeed, I meant “morally wrong” (as a reference to one of my previous posts).

So was I. It is morally wrong in some circumstances and not morally wrong in others.

maddoctor.2738:

Ashen.2907:

maddoctor.2738:

Ashen.2907:

2) You don’t have to neglect to do something more than once in order for it to have been forgotten. The very first time you failed to remember to send in the rent check, even if you never made that mistake again, it was an example of having forgotten something.

So you mean just because a 10min (it’s not even 10min, it’s even shorter) instance was a solo one, suddenly Anet forgot the “Multiplayer” aspect of MMO? How tragic.

I said nothing of the sort. Did you mean to quote someone else ?

All I said on the matter of forgetting something was that Vayne was mistaken in his claim that the word forget only applies to repeated instances of forgetfulness.

I was quoting you, read the OP’s quote again you clearly didn’t, although you defend it for some obscure reason. The OP used the word “forgot” while his reasoning behind Anet actually forgeting something wasn’t as good as he might’ve thought. You can’t say Anet forgot “multiplayer”, as the OP very very clearly claimed, if your only basis is a 10min instance that is not doable with multiple people….

Vayne said: “In order for Anet to have forgotten about it, they have to not done it more than once.” The OP needed far more than just that to back his claim, his point/argument was weak to begin with.

Again, are you sure that you are quoting the right person. At no point have I said, or agreed with another’s statement, that Anet forgot anything.

The closest I have come has been to point out that it was inaccurate of Vayne to claim that one must repeatedly fail to remember something in order for it to qualify for the term forgotten.

I highly doubt that Anet has forgotten the multiplayer aspect of GW2. Of course I have not communicated directly with GW2’s content developers so it is merely an assumption on my part that they have not forgotten. But I think its a fair assumption to make all things considered.

For what it is worth the OP made no argument. He made a subjective observation of how things appeared to him. That is what the euphemism, “looks like,” essentially means in such a context.

Personally I think that the OP’s perception of the matter is inaccurate. But just because I disagree with him does not mean he should be subject to offhanded dismissal and deprecating comments.

Mkalafut.1273:

The trend I was speaking of is the amount of skins added to the game via “gambleboxes”

And I had already acknowledged and agreed with you on this. You hit upon it again so I did as well.

Mkalafut.1273:

relative to the addition of skins added without them per month. How about that? Better? Also I consider adding nothing per month is a trend of adding absolutely nothing per month. (I feel the need to post an edit here: nothing describes the amount of weapon skins added as discussed in previous posts. I obviously am aware SOME THINGS are being added in some way to the game every month)

I suppose that if you are entitled to your opinion as regards to what qualifies as a trend. I am afraid that I disagree that a lack of Godzilla attacks on NYC for every month since its founding qualifies as a trend of 0 Godzilla attacks per month.

Mkalafut.1273:

Another edit, because 2 weren’t enough, I’m not here to nit pick line graphs with you. I’m here to point out how we have amazing weapon skins in game, and arguably the coolest weapon sets (not dungeon related) are the Fused and Jade set of weapons. They are locked to RNG boxes. Read the OP. This is not a thread about line graphs or what you may or may not consider a trend. This is about problems in the game.

For whakittens worth I really disliked the Fused weapon skins to the point that I never pursued them. I am honestly unsure of their method of acquisition. My only issue with the Jade weapons skins, which I think are amazing, is the inability to trade them (or the token). The token drops from mobs in normal game play, with a drop rate low enough (at least from my personal experience where I didnt get a token until I had opened more than 2600 coffers and guild mates/friends reported similarly poor results) for any given weapon to be fairly rare. That drop rate, in terms of time requirement to get the desired item, was no worse than trying to farm a Q9 Silverwing Recurve or something of the sort in GW1. Perhaps even better.

Every farm is about RNG, whether boxes are involved or not.

Mkalafut.1273:

Let’s not derail the thread too much. How do you feel about all future weapon skins hypothetically being locked to RNG boxes and released every month relative to having them available as drops or rewards? How do you feel about making 30s total from doing Arah and having a slightly less than 0% chance of acquiring even one rare drop out of the dungeon? How do those aspects of the game make you feel?

I’ve never made that little from a dungeon, but it would annoy me if I had. It does annoy me than close to 100% of all loot is salvage or merch trash. To date I have not gotten a single usable drop for my level 80 character with the exception of my Jade Dagger.

I dont know about the Fused weapons, but as mentioned above the Jade weapons essentially are drops. Having the mob drop a box which might have the item inside is not functionally (other than pressing a mouse button to open the boxes) different than having the rare item lying on the ground, actually rare items show up on the ground as boxes as is.

Essentially it is all an RNG based on an assigned chance to get the item. A 50% box drop rate combined with a 1% chance of the box having the item is functionally no different than having a .5% direct drop rate for the item (note that these numbers are completely fabricated for the purpose of demonstration).

Again, my concern, in this particular situation, is not being able to trade the item. Otherwise there is no functional difference between having a half percent chance to get a cool dagger and having a half percent chance to get a token that can be used to get that dagger from a vendor. In both cases the reaction is, “nice drop.”

maddoctor.2738:

Ashen.2907:

2) You don’t have to neglect to do something more than once in order for it to have been forgotten. The very first time you failed to remember to send in the rent check, even if you never made that mistake again, it was an example of having forgotten something.

So you mean just because a 10min (it’s not even 10min, it’s even shorter) instance was a solo one, suddenly Anet forgot the “Multiplayer” aspect of MMO? How tragic.

I said nothing of the sort. Did you mean to quote someone else ?

All I said on the matter of forgetting something was that Vayne was mistaken in his claim that the word forget only applies to repeated instances of forgetfulness.

wolfie.7296:

yes, there is a surplus of multiplayer only content in these game (that even forces it upon the player, rather than making it a choice). solo play is usually ignored.

There is more content that can be soloed than content that is multiplayer only.

Zelyhn.8069:

So you agree that not changing a statement because of potential interpretations is not wrong

Actually it is wrong. It is also not wrong. The situation you describe can only be described as wrong or not wrong in terms of the current social environment. It could be absolutely wrong to not change a statement based on potential interpretation in one instance, and completely not wrong at all in another.

Mkalafut.1273:

Right. Which is why I called it a trend. I have no doubt that sooner or later we’ll see additional weapon and armor sets in game as general acquisition items that become part of the game’s regular loot rotation or something.

But in general, things are looking grim on that front until those updates do happen. It doesn’t help that we get almost 0 communication with ArenaNet on what they are planning or have in store – which certainly doesn’t help. Because right now people aren’t spending within their comfort zone, they’re being pressured into spending more (because they likely won’t get what they want within their comfort zone) and that’s the wrong way to do it.

As far as we know, with no indication or word from the devs, if we didn’t know any better some may assume that every month there’d be another update with another set of awesome weapons locked to chance boxes.

If you were a player who started around Flame and Frost and saw every set of cool weapons pass you by in RNG tickets, and then the next two months saw the same thing, would you be very optimistic for a change to take place without any word from the devs?

To go off topic a sec, I fully support a cash shop. I’d love to support Anet any way I can and buy things from the shop to support their development, but to LOCK items to that avenue of acquisition and force people to do it is not the right way to earn money.

I’d gladly support them if it felt optional like it did in GW1. (inb4 "everything in the gem store is optional) – it feels like if you want anything out of an event or any NEW item or new content, you gotta get it from the gem store.

A trend is an expectation of the continuation of the same occurrences.

I do think that there is a trend, as I said in the previous post, regarding event gambleboxes.

I do not think that a scarcity of mob drop skin additions qualifies as a trend because there have not been sufficient occurrences to measure. “Nothing,” is not a trend. Now, if we see a mob drop skin added once every couple of years (which would disappoint me greatly) over a period of several occurrences we could measure it as a trend (a bad one IMO). Essentially, in this specific regard, we are at that point where there are just not enough points on the line graph to call anything a trend or pattern IMO.

Vayne.8563:

The OP said, and I quote:

“Looks like they forgot about the “Multiplayer” aspect of MMO.”

In order for Anet to have forgotten about it, they have to not done it more than once. Surely this is an overstatement of how often they forget about the multiplayer aspect, since they’ve had the muliplayer aspect in both of the living stories before this.

1) he then went on to explain what that statement meant. Taking him out of context doesn’t make your argument less of a strawman. You are either purposefully putting words into his mouth, or are unintentionally reading more into what was said than is actually there.

2) You don’t have to neglect to do something more than once in order for it to have been forgotten. The very first time you failed to remember to send in the rent check, even if you never made that mistake again, it was an example of having forgotten something.

Ele Lady.6103:

And why do bosses in gw2 have unshakable/defiant? You could pretty much interrupt anyone in gw1 if you wanted to.

It would reduce the need to use the dodge/evade mechanic pretty drastically really.

lover.8351:

Ashen.2907:

I’m not sure that making accusations based on a test sample of 100 is valid.

What’s a valid sample then? 1000? 100,000? Lulz. Go waste your own money.

Nope. Don’t need to.

I also know better than to salvage one item and complain that not getting an ecto means that there has been a nerf. One, and one hundred are similarly insignificant samples for something of this sort.

Mkalafut.1273:

But if all the desirable skins are going to be added to the RNG boxes every month, what skins would be available to the general game? Why put them in if they can just make money off of them with RNG boxes in the next month?

Product diversification can often, usually if handled properly, increase one’s customer base. Different skins, atainable in different ways, increases the pool of players willing to spend money on the game. Just as there are players who would never spend $10 on a digital weapon skin but who would spend $1 ten times for a chance to win that skin, there are those who will never gamble for a digital weapon skin.

The goal is to get money from both groups. Providing each with a means of spending money, within their financial comfort zone, is good business if handled well.

Also keep in mind that, in most FtP games (and GW2 is essentially FtP going on a year after buying the box), a significant portion of the financial model is dependent on players logging in and being exposed to various temptations to spend money in the cash shop. Adding something to be farmed, a form of grind really, in game fits that aspect of the financial model quite well.

We don’t know that all of the desirable skins are going to be added to the RNG boxes every month. We do know that they have been so far.

Mkalafut.1273:

Ashen.2907:

Mkalafut.1273:

You bring up good points, but once again, if this trend continues, how would you feel if the only way to obtain any new weapon or armor skin was RNG boxes and weapon tickets from said boxes? Even gem purchases, which don’t even support GW2 but instead support Aion and Lineage, should not be the only way to acquire new weapon skins.

It’s been almost a year and the only significant permanent weapon additions were guild weapons (shiny, silver weapons without a guild logo) and Fractal weapons available to like Fractal 30+ as rare drops. Aside from those two, there are no permanent weapon skin avenues that have been added since launch almost a year ago.

Well, no I don’t think I would be completely happy with RNG/Ticket only weapon skin additions. As I said, I prefer to be able to trade gear and I do like the option to get that exciting drop off of a mob.

That said, I really do not think that what we have seen so far is sufficient to call a trend (yet). Thinking purely in terms of what was available in GW1 ten months after launch compared to what we have here at the same point, I think that we have some breathing room.

I completely support your decision to start this conversation as it is better to be early than late in something like this. Letting ANet know how some of us feel on the subject, early enough to address our concern(s) before they have alter our perception of the game in a negative way is a good thing.

Thanks, I’m glad to see more support in this. The reason I call it a trend is because we started seeing it every living story update – minor additions that keep players busy for a few hours before the next mini content patch, but tons of gem store additions and themed weapons that are locked to RNG boxes.

Fused Weapons in Flame and Frost, Sclerite Weapons in Secret of Southsun, and Jade Weapons now. All locked to RNG boxes. Granted, they are taking steps in the right direction with the RNG boxes (making farmable for ones who don’t want to buy but also keeping the paid ones in the gem store is WAY better than locking them to gem store only) – but that’s still making part of the problem only slightly better.

With the past 3 months (including this current month) being any indication of things to come, we will see another random addition to the living story that adds more weapon skins themed to whatever that event is.

Oh, that ! I don’t expect event themed gambleboxes to go away. I do expect that to be an ongoing trend for the life of the game.

What I don’t think qualifies as a trend, yet, is not getting much in the way of skins added as mob drops.

My hope is for those to be in addition to the gambleboxes (which are pretty much a fact of life in the current age of MMO monetization IMO).

Lightning.8397:

Ashen.2907:

Vayne.8563:

Okay let’s look at this realistically. The OP is claiming this as if it’s something that happens ALL THE TIME. They had a single player instance and a multi player instance just last month in Southsun. Before that, they had a multiplayer dungeon that took an hour while IGNORING the single player guys.

Now they’ve given single players something to do. A short instance that in no way does anything to really further the game. Even scaled it would be relatively meaningless.

If they hadn’t included multi-player instances in the last two living story chapters, MAYBE, the OP would have a point.

As it stands, it’s a pointless complaint about something that seems to be a one off.

No, actually the complaint has a point. You may not like the point but it is a very important one. A paying customer (customers actually as he mentioned others in his OP) has become annoyed with an aspect of the product.

Also, a strawman, or putting words into others’ mouths is not a particularly honest way to support your position.

Claiming that this happens, “all of the time,” really ? Did he edit that part out perhaps ?

And for whakittens worth the solo player has never been ignored in GW2. The vast majority of the game is soloable.

Going by that logic then outside of the 2 single player instances recently introduced, the multiplayer has never been ignored either. What’s your point?

I responded to someone who claimed that single players have been ignored. They have not. I explained this fact. I never claimed that multiplayer has been ignored. What is your point in bringing up that extraneous tangent ?

Lightning.8397:

It’s two tiny instances that take 10-15 min to complete. I really feel your pain that you can’t complete this ONE thing with your friends, family and guild. The pain of not being able to play together for 15 minutes. Really. This one (two if you want to include Southsun) instance. Anet should all commit seppuku to atone for this.

Umm, I soloed the instance. Said so earlier in the thread. Also said that I didnt mind having done so. What the heck are you talking about feeling my pain ?

Personally I rather enjoyed the vibe of the instance. Solo and all. Doesnt meant that dismissing someone else’s concerns, simply because I dont share them, is good form.

Its a great game.

Has its faults.

But a truly great game.

Mkalafut.1273:

You bring up good points, but once again, if this trend continues, how would you feel if the only way to obtain any new weapon or armor skin was RNG boxes and weapon tickets from said boxes? Even gem purchases, which don’t even support GW2 but instead support Aion and Lineage, should not be the only way to acquire new weapon skins.

It’s been almost a year and the only significant permanent weapon additions were guild weapons (shiny, silver weapons without a guild logo) and Fractal weapons available to like Fractal 30+ as rare drops. Aside from those two, there are no permanent weapon skin avenues that have been added since launch almost a year ago.

Well, no I don’t think I would be completely happy with RNG/Ticket only weapon skin additions. As I said, I prefer to be able to trade gear and I do like the option to get that exciting drop off of a mob.

That said, I really do not think that what we have seen so far is sufficient to call a trend (yet). Thinking purely in terms of what was available in GW1 ten months after launch compared to what we have here at the same point, I think that we have some breathing room.

I completely support your decision to start this conversation as it is better to be early than late in something like this. Letting ANet know how some of us feel on the subject, early enough to address our concern(s) before they have alter our perception of the game in a negative way is a good thing.

Vayne.8563:

Okay let’s look at this realistically. The OP is claiming this as if it’s something that happens ALL THE TIME. They had a single player instance and a multi player instance just last month in Southsun. Before that, they had a multiplayer dungeon that took an hour while IGNORING the single player guys.

Now they’ve given single players something to do. A short instance that in no way does anything to really further the game. Even scaled it would be relatively meaningless.

If they hadn’t included multi-player instances in the last two living story chapters, MAYBE, the OP would have a point.

As it stands, it’s a pointless complaint about something that seems to be a one off.

No, actually the complaint has a point. You may not like the point but it is a very important one. A paying customer (customers actually as he mentioned others in his OP) has become annoyed with an aspect of the product.

Also, a strawman, or putting words into others’ mouths is not a particularly honest way to support your position.

Claiming that this happens, “all of the time,” really ? Did he edit that part out perhaps ?

And for whakittens worth the solo player has never been ignored in GW2. The vast majority of the game is soloable.

I didnt mind the fact that the instance was solo.

But for the first, and only so far, storytelling, non grind farming, aspect of the community event to prevent you from playing with other members of the community seems odd to me.

No one here is trying to say that this is a game breaking problem, that this ruined the game, or anything of the sort.

The worst the OP said was that it was annoying to not be able to play with others….you know feedback. Kind of constructive in that he expressed what it was that bothered him and what would address his concern…all without being obnoxious or insulting.

I don’t generally throw terms like fanboy or white knight around casually, but come on Vayne, do you realize how you come across when you post in such a dismissive or deprecating manner about someone giving simple, straightforward, not at all insulting, without flaiming, just basic feedback about their, valid, concerns and desires as a customer ?

Mkalafut.1273:

Agreed. I said what I said in the quote you posted because that was in regards to tickets. If tickets exist, it should be from just events like what’s happening now. But the thread is more about the big picture. General lack of overall weapons / skins of weapons.

Having rare weapons from specific bosses (refer to what I said about profession bosses dropping weapons related to their profession) similar to GW1, from vendors, etc. is definitely needed. It was fun being able to farm UW for a chance at seeing a Soul Reaper – fun running Fissure of Woe for a chance to get an Obsidian Edge. RARE weapons that required WORK to obtain – not money bags.

A problem is that NCSoft doesn’t care about anything except their Korean customers (who make up something like 60%+ of the games players). Korean players reportedly love buying RNG boxes – and considering our gem money is going to fund expansions for games like Aion and Lineage (arguably the worst RNG / grindy MMOs currently still active), it’s obvious what the priorities are.

Keep in mind that with an official real money to in game currency conversion system anything farmable will be available to moneybags as well as to those who work for it. I guess that isnt such a bad thing. The guy who only has a couple of hours a week to play can buy his Golden Phoenix Blade (please add this) from you with Gold gotten through the gem store (I am sure that we both know that plenty of people got their rare skins in GW1 through illicitly purchased platinum).

In fact that is why I have hope for rare, farmable, weapon (or even armor) skin additions. Your rare drop of the newest shiney is an incentive for someone else to buy gems to trade for gold. I think that there are plenty of people willing to spend money on the game to get what they want who just are not that into gambling for it. I think that there is room for both RNG boxes and farmable skins.

Bright.9160:

Amazed no one has said this yet: spectator mode when you’re dead.

That feature saw so many good uses… Teaching people how to do certain things, skill rotations, etc. Not being bored to death when you get defeated and your party is stuck in combat for a couple of minutes etc…
.

I loved this.

Also:

1) The ability for a Ranger to not have a pet (without being penalized) if so desired.

2) The ability to arrange my skill bar as I saw fit (not talking about choosing skills here, just the ability to move the skills I do have)

3) The ability to create my own skill build from the ground up.

4) The dual class system.

5) The ability to dye weapons.

Vayne.8563:

Who even cares?

Perhaps the people who want to play through community events with members of the community ?

Mkalafut.1273:

Ashen.2907:

I agree with much, perhaps even most, of what the OP has to say, but I do wonder why the account bound ticket aspect is an issue if the OP, as he says, is interested in, “something to WORK towards.” The ticket system fits that desire.

Are you really looking for the opportunity , “to work towards,” a cool new weapon skin that you want, or are you looking for a new means of income in game via selling low drop rate desirable weapon skins (as was popular in GW1) ?

Not at all. Glad you brought that up. That’s not even something I thought about. Now that you mention it, I’m glad they’re account bound. Only exception to this I can see is a guildy of mine bought 1000 RNG boxes this event to test out the chances (from the TP – no the gem store) and got 3 weapon skins. He used 1 for his Bow then the other two he would have loved to give to guildies who wanted them rather then using them for weapons for alts.

I have 4g on my account, I had a precursor that I got from the mystic toilet and I gave it to a guildy of mine who’s been with me for years who actually planned on making that legendary (the axe). I am not interested in playing this game to monetize on it, I just want to have fun.

To clarify,

I do not think there is anything wrong with the idea of players being able to trade their rare weapon skin drops to other players. I very much prefer the GW1 approach where the more desirable weapon skins could be traded (or gifted for that matter) to other players.

I tend to enjoy having sufficient in game funds to be able to buy anything I like (or perhaps more importantly anything my wife likes) and wouldn’t hold it against another player who got the drop for asking me if I wanted to buy it.

I dislike the fact that so much in GW2 cannot be traded. I would love to be able to give my various transformation potions to friends/guildies/family members that enjoy that sort of thing. I would love to be able to give my crafting buff potions to friends that actually enjoy crafting.

And so on.

I believe that adding weapon skin drops to the game, not as bound ticket purchases, would be a good thing. Tying them to events, or bosses, creature types, or something to get people out into the open world working on finding that new cool skin, for their own use, to trade, or as a gift would add to the things to do in game.

All of that said, I do think that there are a decent number of dropped weapon skins in game considering how long the game has been around. I hope that more will be added just as was done with GW1.