If someone quits after only 5 minutes of playing they would receive 0 rewards regardless of when they bought the game.
Even if Anet were to assign some rewards to an account the person who created it, but has since quit, will not receive or benefit.
As an example, birthday gifts are a form of veteran reward. Those members of my guild who quit a month after launch and have not looked back have not received such rewards.
For all I know there are rewards assigned to the WoW account I purchased years ago. I certainly will never receive any benefit for a game that I have “moved on” from.
As I said before, By definition someone who doesnt play the game, who buys the expansion and then moves on gets zero reward. Its not a reward if it cant be used.
Someone who buys the expansion later, but who actually plays the game will get a reward that is greater than zero.
Amything greater than zero > 0 (again by definition)
To repeat, what was claimed was that someone who purchased the game at launch and then moved on after five minutes would be rewarded more. This is not possible since they would receive zero rewards. In order for someone who receives zero rewards to receive more than someone else it would need to be possible for someone to earn negative rewards.
But that’s not the OP’s suggestion!
The OP is saying that if you buy the base game or the EP on release, then for every pack afterward you get 1000 tokens. Not buy the game and play X hours. Just buy the game. He only ties the number of tokens you get to the time you purchased the game.
Therefore a person who bought the game on day 1 and played every day for three years would get the same number of tokens upon purchasing the next pack as someone who bought the game on day 1 and only played for 5 minutes between the purchase of the base game and the next pack.
Please, since you keep claiming that there’s something in the OP’s suggestion that ties it to hours played, quote where he ties it to hours played.
You are inaccurately representing my claim.
I responded specifically to a claim that someone who quit the game after 5 minutes of play would be rewarded more than someone who bought it later but stuck with it. This is physically impossible. Zero cannot be greater than any non negative number.
In real life terms, look at your clost/garage/whatever. If you fill it up it does not matter if it somehow gets bigger. You will fill it up again. What you need to do is get better at organization … “do I really need to carry xyz around with me all the time”.
Sure, there are plenty of things you MIGHT need once in a blue moon. Put them in your bank and use the ‘b’ or ‘y’ key when it looks like that situation is imminent.
What does this have to do with the fact that the cost of upgrading a single characters bag slots is too high and most people don’t buy this item on the whole because they feel its too expensive for what it gives you. (even taking into account the convenience of one character receiving additional bags).
Again if they lowered the price more people might buy it, it also might not be so annoying to buy something I feel is way overprice for what it gives you.
I also have no problems with inventory management even though everyone keeps suggesting to me that obviously I must if I want cheaper bag upgrades?
Ah yes, speaking for what most people do and feel. A sure sign that one’s argument has merit!
There is only one way that something can be overpriced. That is if its price prevents it from meeting or exceeding target sales/revenue. Currently only one group knows if bag slots are meeting or exceeding target sales numbers. Oddly enough it is the group that has, so far, chosen to maintain the current price.
FYI, lowering price does not always increase revenue and can very readily result in a reduction. Reducing price by fifty percent, for example, might result in a sales volume increase of only twenty.
(All the CDI topics being closed and all topics being started by an ANet staff member can be used as clues that you can’t post there).
As to your topic, basically you want people to get rewarded for being loyal and long term customers? Sounds interesting however I doubt that ANet will want to offer items for free they currently already sell to make money. Let’s say (picking a random number out of thin air) that 1 million people qualify for these veteran rewards and they all get one free substantial gem store item worth 800 gems/$10. That’s $10,000,000 in sales that just went out the window.
If ANet wanted to do something to reward loyal long term customers they probably are financially better off to give out something like a mini pet, only available once a year and only to the people who qualify.
The main problem with the OP’s suggestion is the lack of a monthly subscription. Since the game doesn’t have a subscription, someone that bought the game at release, played 5 minutes then uninstalled and never came back will be seen by this system as a “loyal and long-term customer” although he certainly isn’t. The age of an account in a game without a subscription is NOT an indicator of loyalty or of a long-term customer.
I think I need more coffee….
Where did he say that it’s only by age of account? I see where he was talking about consecutive purchases and being rewarded for that but nothing about people who logged on at launch and never buying anything else qualifying
It uses only the date of purchase as an indicator of veteran status. And I’d imagine there are only a very small handful of players who have the game, either bought or gifted, who haven’t loaded up the game at least once. So it’s not unrealistic to view purchase date as an indicator of the age of the account as recorded by the game.
Which doesn’t really cover loyalty. Just that they bought the game earlier than someone else.
Someone who bought the game at launch and only played for 5 minutes before moving on would be rewarded more than someone who bought the game a year later but has been playing non-stop ever since and buys gems when they can afford it. And I don’t think I can get behind a “loyalty” system that only looks at purchase date as the measure of loyalty.
Someone who moved on after five minutes would receive zero rewards. Someone who buys the game later and sticks with it would get greater than zero rewards.
Not according to the OP’s suggestion.
I didn’t see anything in the suggestion that factors in actual play time.
By definition someone who “walks away” from the game, doesnt play it, is not rewarded by any in game benefits.
Any in game benefits inherently include an actual play time factor because the more you play the more you benefit from any in game rewards. Someone with essentially zero play time receives essentially zero benefit or reward from veteran rewards.
Not according to the OP’s suggestion.
OP’s suggestion is that when you BUY the base game or an EP, you get set up with X amount of tokens based on how far past the release date you buy it.
Then, every time you buy an EP, you get that amount of tokens.
Nothing in the suggestion factors in hours played. Please, quote the place in the OP’s suggestion that factors in hours played.
As I said before, By definition someone who doesnt play the game, who buys the expansion and then moves on gets zero reward. Its not a reward if it cant be used.
Someone who buys the expansion later, but who actually plays the game will get a reward that is greater than zero.
Amything greater than zero > 0 (again by definition)
To repeat, what was claimed was that someone who purchased the game at launch and then moved on after five minutes would be rewarded more. This is not possible since they would receive zero rewards. In order for someone who receives zero rewards to receive more than someone else it would need to be possible for someone to earn negative rewards.
You won’t be saying that in 5 years when even FULLY accented names are gone and a higher percentage of the “inactives” are “dead irl”.
It was an unreasonable promise to make, and keeping names cycling is a good thing. Your account, skins etc are still there. If you wish to keep your name the least you can do is log in once per year to show you aren’t dead.
Nope.
I use things that I buy how and when I want to. I dont need to prove anything to anyone regarding how I use my purchases.
Feel free to cough up a sufficiently enticing offer and we will talk. You mentioned $300-$400 so we can start there.
Lol you actually Stalked other account names because you couldn’t come up with a name yourself ?
As I said, he only uses 3-6 letter unaccented names. He has been offering gold stacks, precursors, and probably full legendaries.
A legendary skin is like $300-400…
Hmm, Ive yet to see a legendary worth more than $0.
Perhaps he should consider just offering $300-$400?
If someone wanted me to give up a character name Ive been using since 2005, specifically made a point to reserve for GW2, and for which I would have to either delete the character or purchase a name change, I would want more than what you describe him as offering too.
Gold I can get. If you are going to offer something that I can get by playing the game it had better be a lot of it. If someone wanted my main’s name I might be willing to part with it for 100k gold.
(All the CDI topics being closed and all topics being started by an ANet staff member can be used as clues that you can’t post there).
As to your topic, basically you want people to get rewarded for being loyal and long term customers? Sounds interesting however I doubt that ANet will want to offer items for free they currently already sell to make money. Let’s say (picking a random number out of thin air) that 1 million people qualify for these veteran rewards and they all get one free substantial gem store item worth 800 gems/$10. That’s $10,000,000 in sales that just went out the window.
If ANet wanted to do something to reward loyal long term customers they probably are financially better off to give out something like a mini pet, only available once a year and only to the people who qualify.
The main problem with the OP’s suggestion is the lack of a monthly subscription. Since the game doesn’t have a subscription, someone that bought the game at release, played 5 minutes then uninstalled and never came back will be seen by this system as a “loyal and long-term customer” although he certainly isn’t. The age of an account in a game without a subscription is NOT an indicator of loyalty or of a long-term customer.
I think I need more coffee….
Where did he say that it’s only by age of account? I see where he was talking about consecutive purchases and being rewarded for that but nothing about people who logged on at launch and never buying anything else qualifying
It uses only the date of purchase as an indicator of veteran status. And I’d imagine there are only a very small handful of players who have the game, either bought or gifted, who haven’t loaded up the game at least once. So it’s not unrealistic to view purchase date as an indicator of the age of the account as recorded by the game.
Which doesn’t really cover loyalty. Just that they bought the game earlier than someone else.
Someone who bought the game at launch and only played for 5 minutes before moving on would be rewarded more than someone who bought the game a year later but has been playing non-stop ever since and buys gems when they can afford it. And I don’t think I can get behind a “loyalty” system that only looks at purchase date as the measure of loyalty.
Someone who moved on after five minutes would receive zero rewards. Someone who buys the game later and sticks with it would get greater than zero rewards.
Not according to the OP’s suggestion.
I didn’t see anything in the suggestion that factors in actual play time.
By definition someone who “walks away” from the game, doesnt play it, is not rewarded by any in game benefits.
Any in game benefits inherently include an actual play time factor because the more you play the more you benefit from any in game rewards. Someone with essentially zero play time receives essentially zero benefit or reward from veteran rewards.
Because the market goes up and down..just like the Black Lion Trader.
The gemstore cost does not go up and down. It is fixed. If you are charging more than the gemstore does then no one will buy from you.
If you mean the gold to gem conversion market then yes it fluctuates but allowing you to profit, in this fashion, from that fluctuation would undermine Anet’s income. Are you willing to donate, potentially, tens of thousands of dollars per month to Anet to make up the loss?
This game was sold as pay once and come and go as you like. In some cases those names were reserved for years through a GW1 system. They effectively bought those names for use when and as they see fit.
I agree with you about permabanned accounts though.
If anything, I’d love a cash purchase reward system, unlocking exclusive perks and convenience/fashion for purchasing (with cash, not gold) gems, gaining new rewards at different tiers of gem purchase, which can be redeemed on any character on the account unlimited times.
Many games offer cash shop incentives like this, and I’d love to see one in GW2.
Like the loyalty system in GW2 China?
No, more like Rift’s loyalty system, in which you gain tiers every time you buy or use the cash shop currency, each tier unlocking a new spender perk, item or the like.
Not just Rift, and not just gaming. Tiered loyalty rewards based on cumulative money spent are quite common elsewhere. Grocery stores, drug stores, electronics stores, airlines, car rentals, casinos, department stores, banks, restaurants, and so on.
Its gotten to the point that a lack of this kind of rewards is the exception rather than the rule. “Do you have one of our rewards cards,” is as likely to be heard at check out as, “thank you, have a nice day.”
(All the CDI topics being closed and all topics being started by an ANet staff member can be used as clues that you can’t post there).
As to your topic, basically you want people to get rewarded for being loyal and long term customers? Sounds interesting however I doubt that ANet will want to offer items for free they currently already sell to make money. Let’s say (picking a random number out of thin air) that 1 million people qualify for these veteran rewards and they all get one free substantial gem store item worth 800 gems/$10. That’s $10,000,000 in sales that just went out the window.
If ANet wanted to do something to reward loyal long term customers they probably are financially better off to give out something like a mini pet, only available once a year and only to the people who qualify.
The main problem with the OP’s suggestion is the lack of a monthly subscription. Since the game doesn’t have a subscription, someone that bought the game at release, played 5 minutes then uninstalled and never came back will be seen by this system as a “loyal and long-term customer” although he certainly isn’t. The age of an account in a game without a subscription is NOT an indicator of loyalty or of a long-term customer.
I think I need more coffee….
Where did he say that it’s only by age of account? I see where he was talking about consecutive purchases and being rewarded for that but nothing about people who logged on at launch and never buying anything else qualifying
It uses only the date of purchase as an indicator of veteran status. And I’d imagine there are only a very small handful of players who have the game, either bought or gifted, who haven’t loaded up the game at least once. So it’s not unrealistic to view purchase date as an indicator of the age of the account as recorded by the game.
Which doesn’t really cover loyalty. Just that they bought the game earlier than someone else.
Someone who bought the game at launch and only played for 5 minutes before moving on would be rewarded more than someone who bought the game a year later but has been playing non-stop ever since and buys gems when they can afford it. And I don’t think I can get behind a “loyalty” system that only looks at purchase date as the measure of loyalty.
Someone who moved on after five minutes would receive zero rewards. Someone who buys the game later and sticks with it would get greater than zero rewards.
What if someone bought the main game at release, stayed for a couple of days, left for 3 years and now comes back to buy the expansion? Then leaves again and comes back in 3 more years to buy the next expansion. He gets all the “Veteran Rewards” but is he really a Veteran? Why not reward true veterans that are actually offering something to the game or are being actually dedicated to the game.
Money spent is the quantifiable dedication.
Someone who doesnt stick around to play isnt really getting any rewards because those rewards are only useful to those who stick around to play the game.
So how many gems did the average GW2 dedicated player bought over these 3 years? Or buying gems (Which is how the game was supported all these 3 years) doesn’t mean “dedication”?
Someone might only buy expansions, play for a while then leave, he gets all those proposed “rewards” no matter how long he stays in the game, only needs to buy an expansion every 3 years.
On the other hand, another player who didn’t buy the expansion when it was released but over 3 years spent more money on gems than the cost of two full expansions will get less rewards by the proposed by the OP system. Who is the more loyal player?
I already answered that.
“Money spent is the quantifiable dedication.”
Imagine that you own an electronics store. Who is a more valuable customer:
Joe who buys a PC and then hangs around eight hours a day for three years.
Or
Sarah buys a PC and leaves, but comes back to buy upgrades as they are released?
Of course if Joe is also buying the upgrades, and perhaps the occasional candy bar and soda from the checkout displays, that changes the equation. But ultimately money talks and everything else walks.
No not limited items..everything. Everything that’s for sale in the gem store. Just like in EvE where you can buy in game currency then buy anything on the market (ship skins, ships ext) and then sell it.
You don’t think people would buy things in the gem store that they don’t buy for themselves, if they could sell them to other people huh? Obviously the market would have to go up and down on the items due to supply and demand.
Why would I use my in game gold to buy a gemstore item from you if I can use my in game gold to buy that gemstore item from Anet?
The only way for this to work for you would be for you to undersell Anet. This would increase the value of gold relative to gems which, in turn, would discourage gem sales.
(All the CDI topics being closed and all topics being started by an ANet staff member can be used as clues that you can’t post there).
As to your topic, basically you want people to get rewarded for being loyal and long term customers? Sounds interesting however I doubt that ANet will want to offer items for free they currently already sell to make money. Let’s say (picking a random number out of thin air) that 1 million people qualify for these veteran rewards and they all get one free substantial gem store item worth 800 gems/$10. That’s $10,000,000 in sales that just went out the window.
If ANet wanted to do something to reward loyal long term customers they probably are financially better off to give out something like a mini pet, only available once a year and only to the people who qualify.
The main problem with the OP’s suggestion is the lack of a monthly subscription. Since the game doesn’t have a subscription, someone that bought the game at release, played 5 minutes then uninstalled and never came back will be seen by this system as a “loyal and long-term customer” although he certainly isn’t. The age of an account in a game without a subscription is NOT an indicator of loyalty or of a long-term customer.
I think I need more coffee….
Where did he say that it’s only by age of account? I see where he was talking about consecutive purchases and being rewarded for that but nothing about people who logged on at launch and never buying anything else qualifying
It uses only the date of purchase as an indicator of veteran status. And I’d imagine there are only a very small handful of players who have the game, either bought or gifted, who haven’t loaded up the game at least once. So it’s not unrealistic to view purchase date as an indicator of the age of the account as recorded by the game.
Which doesn’t really cover loyalty. Just that they bought the game earlier than someone else.
Someone who bought the game at launch and only played for 5 minutes before moving on would be rewarded more than someone who bought the game a year later but has been playing non-stop ever since and buys gems when they can afford it. And I don’t think I can get behind a “loyalty” system that only looks at purchase date as the measure of loyalty.
Someone who moved on after five minutes would receive zero rewards. Someone who buys the game later and sticks with it would get greater than zero rewards.
What if someone bought the main game at release, stayed for a couple of days, left for 3 years and now comes back to buy the expansion? Then leaves again and comes back in 3 more years to buy the next expansion. He gets all the “Veteran Rewards” but is he really a Veteran? Why not reward true veterans that are actually offering something to the game or are being actually dedicated to the game.
Money spent is the quantifiable dedication.
Someone who doesnt stick around to play isnt really getting any rewards because those rewards are only useful to those who stick around to play the game.
(All the CDI topics being closed and all topics being started by an ANet staff member can be used as clues that you can’t post there).
As to your topic, basically you want people to get rewarded for being loyal and long term customers? Sounds interesting however I doubt that ANet will want to offer items for free they currently already sell to make money. Let’s say (picking a random number out of thin air) that 1 million people qualify for these veteran rewards and they all get one free substantial gem store item worth 800 gems/$10. That’s $10,000,000 in sales that just went out the window.
If ANet wanted to do something to reward loyal long term customers they probably are financially better off to give out something like a mini pet, only available once a year and only to the people who qualify.
The main problem with the OP’s suggestion is the lack of a monthly subscription. Since the game doesn’t have a subscription, someone that bought the game at release, played 5 minutes then uninstalled and never came back will be seen by this system as a “loyal and long-term customer” although he certainly isn’t. The age of an account in a game without a subscription is NOT an indicator of loyalty or of a long-term customer.
I think I need more coffee….
Where did he say that it’s only by age of account? I see where he was talking about consecutive purchases and being rewarded for that but nothing about people who logged on at launch and never buying anything else qualifying
It uses only the date of purchase as an indicator of veteran status. And I’d imagine there are only a very small handful of players who have the game, either bought or gifted, who haven’t loaded up the game at least once. So it’s not unrealistic to view purchase date as an indicator of the age of the account as recorded by the game.
Which doesn’t really cover loyalty. Just that they bought the game earlier than someone else.
Someone who bought the game at launch and only played for 5 minutes before moving on would be rewarded more than someone who bought the game a year later but has been playing non-stop ever since and buys gems when they can afford it. And I don’t think I can get behind a “loyalty” system that only looks at purchase date as the measure of loyalty.
Someone who moved on after five minutes would receive zero rewards. Someone who buys the game later and sticks with it would get greater than zero rewards.
(All the CDI topics being closed and all topics being started by an ANet staff member can be used as clues that you can’t post there).
As to your topic, basically you want people to get rewarded for being loyal and long term customers? Sounds interesting however I doubt that ANet will want to offer items for free they currently already sell to make money. Let’s say (picking a random number out of thin air) that 1 million people qualify for these veteran rewards and they all get one free substantial gem store item worth 800 gems/$10. That’s $10,000,000 in sales that just went out the window.
If ANet wanted to do something to reward loyal long term customers they probably are financially better off to give out something like a mini pet, only available once a year and only to the people who qualify.
The main problem with the OP’s suggestion is the lack of a monthly subscription. Since the game doesn’t have a subscription, someone that bought the game at release, played 5 minutes then uninstalled and never came back will be seen by this system as a “loyal and long-term customer” although he certainly isn’t. The age of an account in a game without a subscription is NOT an indicator of loyalty or of a long-term customer.
I think I need more coffee….
Where did he say that it’s only by age of account? I see where he was talking about consecutive purchases and being rewarded for that but nothing about people who logged on at launch and never buying anything else qualifying
True, he didn’t mention the age of an account. He wants to reward players based on their fast purchases, the faster you buy something the more rewards you get. But that still has the exact same problem. Why reward someone who buys the game then leaves?
They wouldnt have. If the player leaves then Anet has their money without giving a reward.
If the goal is to encourage players to buy expansions and stick with the game I think a better option than a veteran token system would be to ensure that the expansions are fun, good gaming values, and generally worth waiting for.
Anet, please dont bribe us to buy your prooduct. Instead make it so good that we cant wait to give you our money.
MMOs evolve over time. Most of the changes that have been implemented as part of GW2’s evolution have been neutral or actively negative for me. Still the base game was sufficiently solid that, despite three years of Anet actively working to ruin it (IMO), it remains a decent game.
As to the gems bit:
If one buys gems because at the time of their purchase they were being marketed as being able to serve a given purpose, for example purchasing mix and match outfits, then the removal of mix and match outfits means that the gems can no longer serve an advertised function. If the merchant strips a product of the advertised functionality which was the impetus for the customer’s purchase, then the customer is entitled to a refund.
The gems no longer serve the advertised purpose for which the customer bought them and so the customer is entitled to a refund.
i see hearts as a waste of time, quests are far better in every aspect.
you can have more quests in one place, it keeps you entertained and you have a way to expand the story for every area of the map.
hearts just are there, you finish them and the whole area becomes useless, depending solely on DE’s.
i wish they added quests, doesn’t have to be the boring “kill 5 rabbits” kind but quests nonetheless.
What is the difference between quests that you finish leaving the area useless or empty and the same situation with hearts?
There are often no dynamic events to make an area enjoyable once the quests are done, there often are with hearts.
Yeah, but the comparison was completed hearts to completed quests. Anet could, if they so desired, use quests in conjunction with dynamic events.
Personally I dont see a fundamental difference between hearts and quests. You can name, “gather 10 of X,” after any body organ you like, its still a quest.
Eh. Everyone has an opinion and they are certainly entitled to it. Like I stated above I’m just tossing my 2 cents in, but to answer a few of the post here-
No new weapon types- Which translates to passing off old animations and mechanics as new content for an upcoming expansion. A funny thing I’d like to point out is a mace and scepter are essentially the same thing (club) except the scepter is generally used as a ceremonial prop for monarchs. Yes this is a game and not RL, but its just one of those things that struck me as odd.
Deeper into defense- I mainly listed some of the more defensive aspects of polearms, but make no mistake it was a very lethal weapon that could breach shield walls and stop a cavalry charge.
Wannabe ranger- Except it will have serious heals and full plate defense.
Pure long range option- As I said the scepter could have fulfilled that role with a minor tweak to range and speed.
Again this would have been my “personal preference”, and I get that others may not agree and I’m ok with that. So thank you all for the replies
For what its worth they are using the word scepter in place of wand (which is one of the definitions of scepter).
i see hearts as a waste of time, quests are far better in every aspect.
you can have more quests in one place, it keeps you entertained and you have a way to expand the story for every area of the map.
hearts just are there, you finish them and the whole area becomes useless, depending solely on DE’s.
i wish they added quests, doesn’t have to be the boring “kill 5 rabbits” kind but quests nonetheless.
What is the difference between quests that you finish leaving the area useless or empty and the same situation with hearts?
Sometimes a producer fotgets to include a patch note.
Other times the company might decide that a change is sufficiently inconsequential to not merit a note.
Other times the company might want a change to be played before being noticed in order for it to have the possibility of avoiding preconception about its impact.
I think you would find that the vast majority of players believe that the bag upgrade is hardly a luxury purchase and in addition that the price of it is exorbitant compared to other gem purchases as it is one of the most mundane purchases you could make in the game and it is essentially a quality of life (in game) purchase (ie. its not cosmetic or fun).
I think you would find that you have not interacted with the vast majority of players sufficiently to establish an informed opinion as to what they believe and that implying or claiming otherwise renders your input on the matter questionable.
In gambling establishments the house wins. You don’t play slot machines for the possibility of winning, you do it for whatever entertainment value you find in giving someone else your money in return for flashing lights and sounds.
Passive 10% damage traits are boring as snot, both mechanically and balance-wise.
They don’t do anything. They don’t change your playstyle, they don’t give you new tools, they don’t add functionality to your existing tools. I would be overjoyed if every single major +x% damage trait vanished and was replaced with something that actually had impact or flair.
Juggernaut? Cool as hell. Suggests a solid theme, offers tons of interaction with other traits, prompts many X-men quotes. One of my favorite traits in all of GW2.
Symbolic Avenger? Powerful, but kinda meh. Has some interplay, but is mostly just a flat plus appended to your build. Doesn’t really offer interplay or enhance your tools – all it does is constrain you to a single build/weapon, with other traits taken to passively enhance this thing. Yes, the trait is the reason you’re playing Hammerguard, but the Hammerguard playstyle doesn’t change because of SA, nor does SA offer anything new to the Hammerguard beyond raw deeps.
Same for any other simple +x% trait. They don’t change anything, they don’t do anything. You just pick them because the Meta tells you to, and when a big guy in power armor is threatening you with a Brute Shot, you do whatever he wants.
This is like complaining that you are excluded from dungeon armor skins because you only feel like playing WvW.
Nope. There are two independent reliable sources of those. For ascended weapons and armour there is only crafting (RNGesus makes depending on drops highly unreliable).
It still doesn’t change the fact that a player that decides that he doesn’t want to pvp or run dungeons will never get dungeon skins. It’s the same exact argument. There is no meaningful difference.
Multiple reliable means of access is a meaningful difference.
One example is cosmetic only (and so completely subjective in terms of merit) while the other involves objective superiority. Another meaningful difference.
One involves a, “zero skill challenge,” task while the other requires some non zero skill challenge. Also a meaningful difference.
The original complaint was that the op doesn’t want to craft but wants ascended armor and feels that he should be able to obtain ascended armor by playing what he enjoys playing. This is the same as a player that doesn’t want to pvp or run dungeons saying he should be able to get dungeon skins from WvW. To say otherwise is trying to argue for the sake of arguing.
It is not the same. Do dungeon armors have the best stats in the game?
You made a claim about meaningful difference. Examples were provided. If you cannot support your position then feel free to argue about arguing for the sake of arguing instead of speaking to the facts.
I am not quitting but have yet to see anything announced for HoT that is of particular interest to me. Should we be encouraging people to quit because the are not intending to buy makeover kits too?
This is like complaining that you are excluded from dungeon armor skins because you only feel like playing WvW.
Nope. There are two independent reliable sources of those. For ascended weapons and armour there is only crafting (RNGesus makes depending on drops highly unreliable).
It still doesn’t change the fact that a player that decides that he doesn’t want to pvp or run dungeons will never get dungeon skins. It’s the same exact argument. There is no meaningful difference.
Multiple reliable means of access is a meaningful difference.
One example is cosmetic only (and so completely subjective in terms of merit) while the other involves objective superiority. Another meaningful difference.
One involves a, “zero skill challenge,” task while the other requires some non zero skill challenge. Also a meaningful difference.
Bottom line is that anyone should be able to have access to best gear without being forced to do something you don’t like (if i can buy it at TP, even expensive it is fine).
This here we call entitlement. The same argument could be used for anything – “I don’t like doing x content, but I want the reward for x content. This is not fair!”.
I’m not opposed to alternative methods of reliably getting ascended armor and weapons, though, and I feel those alternative methods could bring alternative skins with them. However, I can’t see not liking crafting as a valid reasoning.
Wanting different methods of getting stuff so you can engage in activities you enjoy in a game is hardly entitlement, which BTW is the most misused word on the internet these days.
It is when your baseline is lower then the lowest common denominator. As it pains me to say this, crafting is the lowest common denominator in the game- Because it funnels wealth and supplies from all aspects of the game toward its self-justifying purpose of being one of several interlinked money sinks in the game. As a result, it has a singular barrier for entry….. the ability to generate wealth and access to spirit shards; both of which are available in ALL game modes. Everything else you simply buy off the TP, causing you to participate in money sinks designed for PvE, and the supplies it can generate.
Its mechanically fair, as you’re not denied access for not participating in another game mode. Legendarys are also mechanically fair, because it involved all major content in version 1 of the game, or could bypass it entirely by simply trading for one.
So really the only forced requirement for max stat gear (ascended) is a zero skill challenge activity (crafting), whose purpose is a wealth sink, and gives only marginal bonuses to all but one game mode, and that one excluded game modes doesn’t even make use of it, but feel that the barrier needs to be lowered further because you’re questioning the efficiency of a system purposely designed to be anything but efficient- all because you want the slightly higher stat number then the rest of the system operates off of….. Yeah, qualifies as entitlement.
If your argument was simply “Ascended gear costs too much too produce”, I’d agree with you completely, and list reasons why. But of all the issues Ascended gear has, having crafting as a reliable method of producing them is NOT of one of those issues.
“a zero skill challenge activity,” meaning not actually playing? Should anything in a game be gated behind “not playing?”
Indeed. All Rangers should fight with one hand tied behind their backs and take their medium level armor right up where close where their weapons are less effective. Heaven forbid they should fight in the way their skills force them. And those annoying pets they are forced to drag around just get in the way. They are almost as annoying as those silly cosmetic wings some people insist on wearing that constantly block everyone’s view. Perhaps Anet should consider removing the Ranger profession from the game because it annoys the glass tanks and AoE bombers who bring a nuke to a knife fight.
Which weapons (plural) are less effective up close? Unless I am mistaken it is only longbow (singular).
It isnt the ranger profession that necessarily annoys others its bad ranger players. How would you feel if another class, warrior for example, had a skill, that many players spammed, which granted mobs temporary immunity to ranged attacks?
As a ranger main myself I think it is important that we not actively work to reduce the effectiveness of the group as a whole if we want to find greater acceptance in non solo play.
Kasmeer and Marjory are just shoehorned lesbians that constantly flaunt the fact that they are together in our face
Remember that the next time you see a heterosexual couple kissing in public, wearing rings, holding hands, referring to each other, and so on. For some reason it is only when non-straight couples make it obvious they are a couple that it is “flaunting it in your face”.
No, actually. It’s considered flaunting when straight people do it too.
Please direct me to all the posts with people complaining about straight people “flaunting it”.
Please provide an example of a straight couple among the core/main characters. Hard to complain about straight couples flaunting it when there aren’t any straight couples.
Taimi though being really cool isn’t all that unique and special, just another disgruntled Asura.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, because I don’t have an Asuran character, but isn’t she the only Asuran who has a physical disability that uses her golem to overcome this? He’ll, isn’t she about the only physically disabled character that we have in the game? Physically diasabled characters are so often depicted as weaker or depedent on others. In terms of MMOs, this is one of the most unique and strongest characters written. And I’m sure the physically disabled people who play GW2 love seeing themselves represented as independent and fully capable of living their lives. Disgruntled? She literally shrugs off her degenerative disease and is ready to fight an elder Dragon.
But sure…she’s not unique at all?
She, as a member of a small and physically weak race whose members use technomantic devices to overcome their physical handicaps relative to the larger more physically powerful races, uses a technomantic device in essentially the same way. According to the lore of the setting, as it relates to her race, she is a small, physically weak (relative to members of the other races) member of a small physically weak race. A norn might not even notice that she is physically different from any other asura.
Were she a norn her condition might have been noteworthy. Being a physically weak member of a race known for physical power might stand out. Being a physically weak member of a race known for being physically puny does not.
For those who came here and say this topic is brought every few weeks or months, I am truly sorry to bother as I am not that active in the forums and I didn’t know the existence of the topic but, if you’re so tired of it, why did you open the thread in the first place?
It seems as if their concern is not that they have to read this topic again (because they do not). Rather it seems that they want to prevent others from being able to read it.
I personally dont have a problem with the idea that my order might ask me to work with DE2 but having them assigned to be my friends and being designated as boss bothers me enough to impact my enjoyment of the story. Our characters were able to work along side a number of npc’s in the PS without having our friendship dictated to us, why not now?
I didnt join their guild. I dont care for them as characters. What I see in these characters is an example of the worst sort of character writing/design:
“I think my creations are so cute and adorable that everyone must just eat them up, [squeal].”
As a writer you should never tell the audience how they feel about your characters, you should strive to make them feel for your characters. What we have here is a step down from a lot of fan-fic.
It was used to market the game. It is still being used to market the game.
If it only represented intentions that did not survive the realities of going live then it should no longer be used to promote the game on the official site in my opinion. If GW2 is ever going to get past the manifesto it should be removed from current marketing use.
People complain about players continuing to bring up the manifesto but Anet has never stopped using it.
When people overwhelmingly look forward to the Chronomancer and Reaper, which share the same designer, and are overwhelmingly underwhelmed by the Tempest and Dragonhunter, which share the same designer, what does that say about their respective designers and e-specs?
It says that the sample size and selection are not currently sufficient to make any such correlation.
