You not having problems with laurels is not a reason to defend this major flaw. Try to be more altruistic on this matter. Would you be concerned to see Anet removing time gates on Laurels now to help other players because you have loged in more or less casually to get them?
I would have a problem with any currency that I was limited in acquiring and then it gets thrown at other players.
If you’re like Wanze and you would have a problem if a change affect the acquisition of something you worked hard for and make it more accessible for everyone… then brace yourself because it happened in the past and will most certainly happen again in the future in almost every MMO you’ll ever play. Like i said, take it the good way.
This is not progression since it dosent make your character stronger. But i just thought i could lvl up at least 1 character of every profession lvl 80 full exotic (since i cannot get ascended at the moment). Thats progression, im happy now.
Actually that IS progression though, vertical vs horizontal progression, vertical is what Guild wars 2 works under, Stop being ignorant just because you are not capable of understanding vertical progression
Do not call someone an ignorant because he has a different understanding of a gaming term than you. After reading the full thread it is absolutely clear that i refer the term “progression” to the fact that my character gets stronger stats/skills/gear wise. Suggest me a better term instead.
1) ignorant means lacking knowledge or understanding of something. If one does not know that horizontal progression exists, or does not understand it, then one is in fact ignorant of horizontal progression. I am not claiming that this apies to you, just trying to explain that ignorant is not necessarily an insult as it can be merely an objective description of facts at hand.
2) its not that getting stronger, as you mention, is not progression its that it is only one form of progression. There are several.
Why didnt people take a couple of minutes to explain what was about to happen before the encounter began ?
Kind of goes both ways. If you want or expect people to be informed while playing olen world content with you it seems like common sense to contribute to informing them.
I like how people try to use failed MMO as example of why raid is bad. I can play this game too. Look at games like WoW, FFXIV and Tera, all are very successful because of raids.
The problem there is that one could just as easily claim that those games are successful in spite of having raids.
That logic can be applied for all the fail MMO’s that you mentioned.
Honest question, what fail MMOs did I mention?
I am not saying that raiding is a bad thing. I am one of those on the side of the argument that a GW2 version of raiding that keeps to this game’s design philosophies could be a good thing.
Attempting to copy WoW or similar raiding here seems unlikely to succeed. Something like the Deep, Urgoz, DoA, UW, FoW from GW1, adapted to fit in here, perhaps designed to scale for varying part sizes, could be very fun.
I like how people try to use failed MMO as example of why raid is bad. I can play this game too. Look at games like WoW, FFXIV and Tera, all are very successful because of raids.
The problem there is that one could just as easily claim that those games are successful in spite of having raids.
Belief and proof are very different things. One does not need to believe in that whih can be proven, it just is.
If you are going to attempt to use math/statistics to prove the validity of something in the manner that you did, the burden is on you to show that your same is representative of the whole. If you cannot do so the your calculations are questionable at best.
Em, I’m not trying to prove anything. I’m trying to say that neither side has more validity than the other since there’s no data available for us about that issue.
My apologies then. I was responding to the post where it seemed you were attempting to prove mathematically.
If this were not the case then one making the statement that 80% of the playerbase dislike raids because 4 of his five raid disliking friends answered no would be considered as valid as a more scientifically/statistically sound poll with a large sample size.
Sorry, but this is not the issue of the sample size but that those forums aren’t representative enough of general population. Which no one except maybe anet has any concrete data. So both sides can pull out numbers from their kitten s as much as they like.
Ok, lets change the example to the 500 people in his open world only loving guild. A sample size larger than anything I have seen on these forums. I bet that if I were to poll a thousand players who dont PvP about whether or not dev resources should be spent on that game mode the reponse would indicate that, “a majority of GW2 players want development on PvP stopped.”
No offense sir but any poll which does not make an effort to produce a representative sample is by definition invalid as a source of proof of any point. The burden is placed on the poll to prove its validity, not on those who question it.
Then everyone should believe in a higher power because you cannot prove it doesn’t exist. As long as no one has any concrete data, this argumentations is moot.
Belief and proof are very different things. One does not need to believe in that whih can be proven, it just is.
If you are going to attempt to use math/statistics to prove the validity of something in the manner that you did, the burden is on you to show that your same is representative of the whole. If you cannot do so the your calculations are questionable at best.
You don’t. Fot it to work you’d need to pick a representative sample from the whole player population. This sample, however, is seriously skewed on at least 3 levels (wonder if you can guess what those 3 skews are), and as such is completely worthless, unless you can calculate those skews somehow (good luck with that).
I’m well aware of the limitations of polls like that. Which brings another point, that is, you have no data to prove otherwise and your arguments are as valid as everyone’s else.
Also, you completely missed my whole post beyond the first 3 sentences.\
True, I shouldn’t quoted your entire post. My bad.
No offense sir but any poll which does not make an effort to produce a representative sample is by definition invalid as a source of proof of any point. The burden is placed on the poll to prove its validity, not on those who question it. If this were not the case then one making the statement that 80% of the playerbase dislike raids because 4 of his five raid disliking friends answered no would be considered as valid as a more scientifically/statistically sound poll with a large sample size.
The Canthan New Year in Guild Wars 1 was one of the most popular events in that game. There are tons of holidays not celebrated in America. This is one of them.
I would think people would welcome a chance to grow their experience of the world they live in.
Agreed. Meanwhile, in modern day Tyria, our characters may not be able to visit Cantha, but some of them — a lot of them, I daresay — are of Canthan ancestry. So, party on, Cantha!
Solid point. From a lore perspective, even if intermarriage might lead to dution of heritage over a couple of centuries, the significant Canthan presence in Tyria wouldiky have led to some adoption of Canthan customs in Thria. Particularly one that provides an excuse to get drunk and blow things up with fireworks.
As mentioned previously I am happy with the inclusion of the Lunar New Year holiday.
My contention was with the argument(s), yours in particular to be honest, made to oppose the OP’s opinion.
As you say, Halloween is largely a NA/EU holiday….and we are playing on NA/EU servers of a game that cannot be accessed in the nation in which the Lunar New Year holidY originates. I disagree with the OP’s opinion but it is not unreasonable to question the inclusion of a Chinese holiday in a game not available in China and in which frequently requested asian content has been excluded.
You are mistaken on one point. It was taken into account how the NPE would affect veterans. Anet decided that the benefits for potential new players outweighed the negative impact on existing paying customers. Companies make this sort of decision all of the time.
But we still get the same releases.
There have, as far as I am aware, never been any release since launch in China that wasn’t applied to both clients.
As for the mini dragon I believe that is for getting a certain VIP rank, rather than as a reward for this specific festival.
Ahh, well if it is part of their monetization system that is different.
What relevant context ? China does not have access to this version of the game. What is the context for including a national holiday for a nation that cannot play this game in this game ?
The context is that China is celebrating the new year soon. And that is rather relevant to a in-game celebration of the new year. Thus the context is relevant.
China have access to the exact same content as us. The clients are basically the same (with some extra stuff (such as VIP system) and some extra restrictions unlocked in the Chinese version).
They are essentially two separate games. We cannot play with them nor they with us. They even have different reward possibilities than we for this event as I recall (correct me if I am wrong but isnt that dragon mini exclusive to their version?)
Like I said before, I like the event, I love the connection to a GW1 tradition, and (for what its worth) I am from the San Francisco area where Chinese New Year is a very popular (and one of the more interesting) holidays. But some of the PC arguments being made to support inclusion are a bit off. not the inclusion of the holiday, just the arguments.
Of course they were meant to ruin the early game for some players. The only alternative would be to assume complete idiocy on the part of the developers. I may not agree with everything they do but I have more faith in their intelligence than that.
There is no way that designers and decision makers at Anet could have not known that the changes would negatively impact, even severely so, some portion of their playerbase’s enjoyment of the early levels. Essentially ruining it for them. Knowing the inevitable consequences of an action and knowingly choosing to go forward with that action means intending the consequence.
Thats not something to be faulted for, it is inevitably part of changing and growing the game. Its natural. It shouldnt be ignored however. It should be openly acknowledged rather than hand waved away.
And everyone was a target. If something is purposefully aimed to affect someone the. They were a target of that effect.
But it is not Canthan New Year.
It is Lunar New Year. It has no ties to Cantha so I really don’t see why it would be better if we did have Cantha.
I am fully aware that there is a country called China. I am also fully aware that they have their New Year on February 19th this year. And I don’t even know any Chinese people, but clearly I can see the context.
Being ignorant of the world outside your own country does not mean things are without context.
What relevant context ? China does not have access to this version of the game. What is the context for including a national holiday for a nation that cannot play this game in this game ?
Except that they were. They were specifically implemented in such a way as to affect all players with a new character, not just those who struggle with certain concpets due to inexperience or limited capacity. Everyone creating and playing a new character has the new experience rather than the old. That was Anet’s decision. The ability to skip past or speed through a zone/level range rather than play through the experience as it previously existed doesn’t change the FACT that Anet opted to include veteran players as well as novices in the target for the changes.
I dont personally care for the NPE. Hate is too strong of a word but dislike works just fine here. I think that certain aspects go a bit too far (dancing for cows ?) but others seem like a great idea (dodge tutorial).
When I say the NPE wasn’t meant for you, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t affect you. Changes to the game in the NPE were meant to increase the rate at which new players remained with the game. That doesn’t have that much to do with you.
If 1000 old people really don’t like it but 2000 new people stay and play longer, Anet did what they intended to do with it.
If they make it so that you like it, it’s entirely possible it will lose its original meaning.
I’m not saying I wouldn’t be happier having more skills faster. I’m simply saying that to me it doesn’t much matter. It doesn’t change the game for me.
However, if it keeps people in the game longer that is good for me, so I don’t see it as a big deal.
I particularly don’t see it as a big deal because the first fifteen levels pretty much fly (and I still have 20th level scrolls anyway if I find it really bad which I don’t).
It was meant to affect veterans. It was not meant to benefit them. It took aspects of the game away from them.
I get that Anet had a reason for the changes. I think that this is another example of good concept, less good implementation. I think that Anet has some of the best idea guys/gals around. I dont think that their implementation is always on the same level as their vision though. This is an example ofthat IMO.
The changes were meant to help new players, they were meant to ruin the early game for others, they were meant to encourage some to just skip creating/playing alts, and they were meant to be ignored as relatively inconsequential by yet others.
Except that they were. They were specifically implemented in such a way as to affect all players with a new character, not just those who struggle with certain concpets due to inexperience or limited capacity. Everyone creating and playing a new character has the new experience rather than the old. That was Anet’s decision. The ability to skip past or speed through a zone/level range rather than play through the experience as it previously existed doesn’t change the FACT that Anet opted to include veteran players as well as novices in the target for the changes.
I dont personally care for the NPE. Hate is too strong of a word but dislike works just fine here. I think that certain aspects go a bit too far (dancing for cows ?) but others seem like a great idea (dodge tutorial).
On behalf of the rest of the World, I want to apologise that we have events on a yearly basis, that do not exist within the United States.
We do hope you will find it within your heart to understand, that there is more outside the borders of the United States. Please allow us to enjoy our regional celebrations and that Arena.net wish to share in those celebrations with the rest of the community based all over the World.
However; I do find it difficult to understand why you would say that the Lunar New Year was possibly from Afghanistan, when the Lunar New Year is a Chinese celebration.
Afghanistan has Islamic holidays, as I’m sure you know that they are located within the Middle East and not Asian.
I’m 33 and we were educated to understand the different cultures/religions/national holidays around the WHOLE WORLD and not just the country we were born/live/educated/work.
So it is a holiday for a region which does not play this version of the game ? How does that justify the inclusion of a Chinese holiday in the non-Chinese version of the game ? Do games that are released only in China include fourth of July festivals or something ?
I am glad to see the holiday included as it is a continuation of a tradition started in GW1.
Well if it’s any consolation they didn’t spend much development resources on this particular festival.
Dont get me wrong, I am happy to see the holiday included. Always have enjoyed it. Just didnt like the argument made by the player I quoted.
On behalf of the rest of the World, I want to apologise that we have events on a yearly basis, that do not exist within the United States.
We do hope you will find it within your heart to understand, that there is more outside the borders of the United States. Please allow us to enjoy our regional celebrations and that Arena.net wish to share in those celebrations with the rest of the community based all over the World.
However; I do find it difficult to understand why you would say that the Lunar New Year was possibly from Afghanistan, when the Lunar New Year is a Chinese celebration.
Afghanistan has Islamic holidays, as I’m sure you know that they are located within the Middle East and not Asian.
I’m 33 and we were educated to understand the different cultures/religions/national holidays around the WHOLE WORLD and not just the country we were born/live/educated/work.
So it is a holiday for a region which does not play this version of the game ? How does that justify the inclusion of a Chinese holiday in the non-Chinese version of the game ? Do games that are released only in China include fourth of July festivals or something ?
I am glad to see the holiday included as it is a continuation of a tradition started in GW1.
As to why, because purposefully deceiving the community (and to be clear I am not suggesting that this is what is happening) in this manner seems unlikely to have a motive beyond deflection or misdirection while creating an illusion of community engagement rather than the reality. Kind of on par with employees of a company posting anonymous user reviews of the company/product on sites like Yelp.
There’s pretty much zero reason for ANet to do this. Why would they spend all this time devising and implementing a plan to get one person to pretend to be a regular forum member with elevated responsibilities, alongside others who (I think?) have been verified as ordinary players, rather than just assigning someone at the company to work with Gaile to increase community involvement? It’s obviously just somebody who hadn’t used the forums before. Pretty unsurprising, since most MMO’s show statistics in the realm of 5% of players ever using the forums.
Just to clarify, I was responding to a question about why it would be a bad idea, hypothetically, for devs to pretend to be customers in the role of a player specialist.
That’s why i suggested strict toggle able pvp circumstances to avoid griefing etc.
someone has brought up the point of “jumping around in your face”, but i don’t know how big of a problem that would actually become.
I’m not a lore junky either, so i dont see that viewpoint, but i could see how it wouldn’t “fit in”.
Maybe a Colliseum style area in each map? where people can just jump in and go at it?
I’m trying to get away from “confining” to ultra specific areas as much as possible, since that already exists in wvw and spvp, and am open to other innovative suggestions
But the griefing would be there, the day it was added it would be there, its why so many people would leave the game.
As for the lore, thats the biggest reason why open world pvp is not a thing in this game~
The coliseum would be neat and having one in each map would be cool too, and its sort of going along with what i was getting at.
i was even thinking of a gem store item, infinite use, could be 2000 gems or something i dont know. but it creates a ring around the person who uses it and turns that into a “dueling zone” where that player can send out invites(there would be an auto decline option for those who never want to duel) and if you accept you duel them! Only 1 Dual can happen at a time, and upon acceptance, a 2000 foot radius(whatever GW2 uses for its distance would be create, and if either of the duelists leaves that ring they lose instantly and the winner teleports to them and does a finishing move on their knocked down body(doesnt kill them if they ring out). if either of the duelists dies inside the ring they do die, but as soon as the winner finishes the finishing move, they get resurrected and armor does not get broken.
Griefing would happen with that idea too i know, but it would be far less than with open world pvp, and you could use that wherever you wanted to!
Griefing wouldnt happen if you had to toggle PvP. games like aeon do not allow “accidental flagging” so you cant aoe a mob, someone run in, flag you and kill you.
That’s not a problem.
Also 2000gems? so you want people to pay 40$(as much as they paid for the game) just to get a small dueling arena? that’s horrible lol.
You might as well just go buy another game and give them your money.
The lore could be a point, i just don’t do lore. I just like to enjoy content(cinematic and storyline is ok)
Grief would happen.
Player 1 wants to PvP with Player 2. Player 1 has his toggle on. Player 2 does not.
Player 1: Whisper to Player 2 – Hey, want to dual?
Player 2: Whisper to Player 1 – No.
Player 1: Whisper to Player 2 – Come on, it’ll be fun.
Player 2: Whisper to Player 1 – See my lack of a toggle? It means I do not wish to PvP.
Player 1: Map chat – Player 2 is a chicken! He won’t turn on his toggle to fight me! He must be scared.
See, griefing occurred even with the toggle in place. And you can’t say that the provided example would never happen.
And lore is important for a number of players of this game. Maybe equal to those who wish to have open world PvP.
Pming grief is easily stopped by 2 click. rclick name- report+or block. The whole jumping and blocking view is a valid concern, but a pm is not to me. You can easily stop that as much as you could before.
But you said there wouldn’t be any griefing with a toggle system. Even easy to deal with griefing is still griefing.
Isnt the implication there that adding something that could potentially provide an avenue for griefing should not be added to the game ? This wod mean that nothing should be added to the game.
Game lore does not oppose PvP in the open world. The game makes a point of establishing that members of the same race kill eachother in the world. By including humans as a playable race at all Anet establishes the fact that individuals fight and kill eachother. That is an undeniable fact of the human condition. We kill eachother.
Well I see the WvW forum has welcomed their specialist. Kind of a rude response if you ask me.
I went over there and read the responses. I would say, he got burniated.
The “welcome” he got was one of the reasons I suggested that they not have a title and that ANet not post their Display names. Imo, the forum specialist would do just as good a job working incognito (since their job is to collect and forward ideas and post responsibly) and wouldn’t have the ire of angry posters focused on them for simply existing.
the low post count and the fact that the posts read exactly the same as an Anet dev isn’t helping to ease the worry over there.
O.o
If he was a Dev, wouldn’t that make him more valuable, not less?
You would be speaking directly to a Dev.
He can easily relay messages and ideas to the right people
He would undoubtably know a great deal about WvW and why things work or don’t work.
He would have easy access to official statements.
It would mean that WvW is getting direct and immediate Dev attention each time he posts.
So, tell me. Why would he being a Dev be a bad idea (especially from what I read, no Dev attention in WvW is their main gripe).
Having their own dev would be a very good thing. Having a dev masquerading as just another engaged player trying to help out as best he can would not.
Why?
Dev incognito or not, he’s still a Dev and has more knowledge and access than a regular player.
(Not that I think this guy is a Dev. I just don’t understand your objection)
First, it has been my experience that individual devs do not always, and often dont, have more knowledge than the community.
As to why, because purposefully deceiving the community (and to be clear I am not suggesting that this is what is happening) in this manner seems unlikely to have a motive beyond deflection or misdirection while creating an illusion of community engagement rather than the reality. Kind of on par with employees of a company posting anonymous user reviews of the company/product on sites like Yelp.
Hmm, cant get the second link to take me to a thread at all. Maybe my phone.
I Support the idea of consensual dueling (though I would be unlikely to use such a system) but very much oppose general open world, non-consensual, PvP (which is what is referenced as being avoided in the first link/quote) The two are very different things. They are different on the order of discussing mounts and capes IMO.
Well I see the WvW forum has welcomed their specialist. Kind of a rude response if you ask me.
I went over there and read the responses. I would say, he got burniated.
The “welcome” he got was one of the reasons I suggested that they not have a title and that ANet not post their Display names. Imo, the forum specialist would do just as good a job working incognito (since their job is to collect and forward ideas and post responsibly) and wouldn’t have the ire of angry posters focused on them for simply existing.
the low post count and the fact that the posts read exactly the same as an Anet dev isn’t helping to ease the worry over there.
O.o
If he was a Dev, wouldn’t that make him more valuable, not less?
You would be speaking directly to a Dev.
He can easily relay messages and ideas to the right people
He would undoubtably know a great deal about WvW and why things work or don’t work.
He would have easy access to official statements.
It would mean that WvW is getting direct and immediate Dev attention each time he posts.
So, tell me. Why would he being a Dev be a bad idea (especially from what I read, no Dev attention in WvW is their main gripe).
Having their own dev would be a very good thing. Having a dev masquerading as just another engaged player trying to help out as best he can would not.
I love how everyone is *****ing their pants when the topic open world PvP comes up.
Obviously if you were to intergrate something like this, which is never going to happen simply because of the way the map is designed alone, you would not just enable PvP and be it.
EDIT: I Forgot something…
Remove AOE skill.. A lot of them. They are boring and encourage blobbing. And could cause flagging problems.
Simply allowying it would create distrust, fear, griefing, spawnkilling and a lot more like PK farming, groups of players dominating enitre maps etc.
THIS is not the kind of PvP I would see working.
If you ever were to enable a PvP/Pk system in Guild wars a lot of things would have to change beforehand:
- Larger areas: Group up all areas in a region, for example: Ascalon. Get rid of the gates (loading screens) or just make the entire map open world entirely because in a world full of segments and instances and server-channels there can never be real PvP.
- Karma-sytem: Get flagged (attack someone) and you are open to being killed. Kill an unflagged player and you go red.
If you go red you drop items (Inventory and equipped with a radnom chance) upon death by another player.
This is a must have to prevent griefing and mindless Pking. Nobody wants thousands of karma points by killing a low level and being afraid to drop ascended stuff.
To get rid of your karma you’d have to kill mobs or do events. A ton of them!
So aslong as you dont fight back, you most likely wont get killed all the time.
- Implement Guild-Wars (lol). What I mean by that is to have a system that allows players to pk memebers of other guilds without penalty/karma.
Now implement some meaningful spots to Pvp for. Cities to capture, castels to take over, farm spots to protect. Maybe a boss to fight over.
Remove the WvW map and you have an actual “guild wars”.
The concept of server vs server is old and outdated and it never works…!
Its always going to be unbalanced etc.
It’d be a lot more meaningful to have guilds fight against each other over territory in the overworld. You’d also create a much larger number of enemies.
Obviously we’d need a maximum member count to prevent guild-stacking and dominating.
As someone stated before this was corrected in AIOn, so most of this can be ignored. There are ways to make Pvp toggleable and to not allow you to accidentally flag yourself.
also
What about actual GUILD WARS. Not structured PvP, not WvW but Guild Vs Guild wars in open pvp combined with the above toggle, but as an entire guild.
In other games there are faction/guild/clan wars in the sense that you would be enabled to attack a person from X clan/guild at anytime, anywhere, if both parties agreed to the “guild war”. This would make pvp specific guilds a bit more interesting too IMO
It’d be great on it’s own map designated for open world PvP.
Which we already have, it’s called WvW.
Yeah but that’s TONS of players. A lot of times i just like a good 1v1 or 1v2 or a1v3 etc. I like the randomness of open world pvp. WvW and structured are different
Dont run with the zerg, avoid the opposing zerg. There is lots of 1v1 or small group PvP in WvW.
Even if it were in the open world you would face the possibility of running into a group of flagged players.
But then i have to wait for a que. And hope for that situation. And i can’t quest while doing it. Or explore.
A toggleable world pvp would allow this.
Is queueing still a concern? I havent had to in over a year. I do events in WvW. I cant really say that I explore there anymore as I have do e so in the past, then again that is largely true of the PvE wod too.
WvW is a series of open wod zones much like the PvE zones. There is exploration, there are events, there is gathering, there are mobs, etc.
You can take the thread as it is, making people aware of a seach option, and that such topics have been discussed at length many times. Or you can choose to focus on a particular point, which I personally find to be relevant. The choice is up to you, and to anyone else who chooses to read this thread.
P.S. I will continue searching (for your sake) but regardless, the main point still stands. Also dev comments on any additonal features (such as dueling or mounts) are generally met with “it’s not off the table, it’s something we would like to do, maybe in the future” but never with any sort of commitment.
Understood. I feel that counterpoint to the effort to discourage players with an interest in certain features by attributing negative commentary, that Ive not seen, to devs is important in the context of this subject. Of course if you can find a dev quote that states what you claim I will retract my concern.
until then you are providing unsupported supposed dev quotes for one side of a debate. This creates the impression of an agenda as regards to the debate itself. This could be avoided by sticking to the advice on searching the forums and perhaps linking existing threads.
Honest question here:
How beneficial for the forums do you think it wod be for someone to invent a dev quote claiming that Anet has claimed that they will add open world PvP if enough pro threads are posted ? That poster would be doing essenty what you are, for the pro side of the debate.
I love how everyone is *****ing their pants when the topic open world PvP comes up.
Obviously if you were to intergrate something like this, which is never going to happen simply because of the way the map is designed alone, you would not just enable PvP and be it.
EDIT: I Forgot something…
Remove AOE skill.. A lot of them. They are boring and encourage blobbing. And could cause flagging problems.
Simply allowying it would create distrust, fear, griefing, spawnkilling and a lot more like PK farming, groups of players dominating enitre maps etc.
THIS is not the kind of PvP I would see working.
If you ever were to enable a PvP/Pk system in Guild wars a lot of things would have to change beforehand:
- Larger areas: Group up all areas in a region, for example: Ascalon. Get rid of the gates (loading screens) or just make the entire map open world entirely because in a world full of segments and instances and server-channels there can never be real PvP.
- Karma-sytem: Get flagged (attack someone) and you are open to being killed. Kill an unflagged player and you go red.
If you go red you drop items (Inventory and equipped with a radnom chance) upon death by another player.
This is a must have to prevent griefing and mindless Pking. Nobody wants thousands of karma points by killing a low level and being afraid to drop ascended stuff.
To get rid of your karma you’d have to kill mobs or do events. A ton of them!
So aslong as you dont fight back, you most likely wont get killed all the time.
- Implement Guild-Wars (lol). What I mean by that is to have a system that allows players to pk memebers of other guilds without penalty/karma.
Now implement some meaningful spots to Pvp for. Cities to capture, castels to take over, farm spots to protect. Maybe a boss to fight over.
Remove the WvW map and you have an actual “guild wars”.
The concept of server vs server is old and outdated and it never works…!
Its always going to be unbalanced etc.
It’d be a lot more meaningful to have guilds fight against each other over territory in the overworld. You’d also create a much larger number of enemies.
Obviously we’d need a maximum member count to prevent guild-stacking and dominating.
As someone stated before this was corrected in AIOn, so most of this can be ignored. There are ways to make Pvp toggleable and to not allow you to accidentally flag yourself.
also
What about actual GUILD WARS. Not structured PvP, not WvW but Guild Vs Guild wars in open pvp combined with the above toggle, but as an entire guild.
In other games there are faction/guild/clan wars in the sense that you would be enabled to attack a person from X clan/guild at anytime, anywhere, if both parties agreed to the “guild war”. This would make pvp specific guilds a bit more interesting too IMO
It’d be great on it’s own map designated for open world PvP.
Which we already have, it’s called WvW.
Yeah but that’s TONS of players. A lot of times i just like a good 1v1 or 1v2 or a1v3 etc. I like the randomness of open world pvp. WvW and structured are different
Dont run with the zerg, avoid the opposing zerg. There is lots of 1v1 or small group PvP in WvW.
Even if it were in the open world you would face the possibility of running into a group of flagged players.
I found this, I’ll keep looking, but I know I’ve read other devs comments that are very similar.
They won’t outright say yea or nay, but its usually along the lines of “Its possible in the future” or “It’s not off the table” but usually followed by “but it’s not something that we are looking into right now.”
That post wasnt about dueling and wasnt made by a dev.
The post was about open world PvP servers. (which can incorporate dueling, even if kept seperate for “normal” PvE servers.) The devs comment CAN be interpreted to encompass any form of open world PvP/Dueling.
I suppose it all how you look at it.
In any event, this is just a heads up to newer players coming in and starting threads about these topics and encouraging them to search before posting yet another thread on the same topic that has been discussed at length. Nothing more.
The linked thread is a request for adding PvP servers. That is not at all the same as adding dueling as an option.
You made a claim quoting devs as making statements about dueling. Not community managers commenting about creating PvP servers. Can you support that claim?
You say that your goal was not to discourage pro-duel posters but you create a dev quote that gives the impression that the option is off the table.
Why exactly aren’t people allowed to post new suggestions considering mounts and/or dueling but other kinds of posts like “we want new dungeons”, “we want raids”, etc. come up at least once a week?
I’d love to create a thread to suggest ground-mounts in the new HoT-maps only as a new mastery to travel faster in the mid- and lower biome.
It’s not to discourage or prevent people for posting such topics, but to encourage people to search and see all the discussions already made on the subjects.
Everytime a new thread with these topics comes up, its met with “This has been discussed a bunch of times”, “is it that time again?” and the .gif of a man beating a horse, usually for about the first 2 pages, before a discussion actually begins.
I am sure your motives are good but by posting a supposed dev quote your thread implies otherwise. It does come across as intended to discourage people from requesting things that devs have supposedly stated are not on the table for the forseeable future. Had you focused just on the search workaround, and perhaps links to existing threads on these topics it would be different.
I found this, I’ll keep looking, but I know I’ve read other devs comments that are very similar.
They won’t outright say yea or nay, but its usually along the lines of “Its possible in the future” or “It’s not off the table” but usually followed by “but it’s not something that we are looking into right now.”
That post wasnt about dueling and wasnt made by a dev.
@Beldin
And wouldn’t it be a glorious day if you defeated that bully and sent him packing instead of cowering in your parallel universe. Nothing against you personally, but strongly against your attitude. There’s a worse things out there than dieing in a video game.
I’m bad at PvP and i never win if i’m already half on my life and the characters that
are 15 level higher jump on me .. mostly in a horde of 5+ ..
That was what i encountered all day in AION when the game was over 6 months out
and after i was ganked the last time 3 times in 40 minutes i just logged out and
never logged in again. And i will never ever set a foot in any game that forces me
into PvP.
I like the concept and the fun it create, i also understand it creates camping and unfun “questing” etc.
The fun is only on side of the school bullys that like to grief other players and jump
in their back when they are already nearly dead from fighting against mobs.
So NO .. for the 10.000th time.
These games may work in Korea, but not in the west.
And here is an example that makes me wonder if the toxicity ad griefing might be not on the side of the PvPers after all. Calling the OP a school bully for expressing an opinion and asking a question ?
You should learn to read correctly. I have NOT called the OP a school bully, but
only people who like to grief and gank other players.
So all you wrote is just a strawman argument.
But good to know that in your world it is more evil to say : That guy beat me in the face
as to actual beat someone into the face.
The OP said that it would be fun for him. You said that it would only be fun for school bullies. This is the same as equating the OP with school bullies.
If that was not your intent, understood. But any time you say that only <insert pejorative here> people like something after someone else has said they like it you are labeling that someone else with that penorative.
Odd, the only dev comment on dueling that I have seen has been something more like, “it is something we would like to implement.”
That’s true, there were a couple of comments to that effect, but open world dueling (or PvP in general) is not something they plan on doing afaik. They might introduce some sort of official 1v1 mode in sPvP or maybe even just some sort of practice duel inside the Heart of the Mists staging area, but it’s highly unlikely we’ll ever see something like that in PvE. Nor do most of us want to.
I dont really expect dueling at this point either, but the OP claims that the devs have made specific comments about it. I am very curious to see if he has a source or is making it up (for whatever reason).
I suppose that a pro-duel player could make an answering thread claiming that Anet has stated that they very much want to add dueling to the game and will act if enough pro-dueling threads are created. They wouldnt have less support for their claim than the OP provides.
I like the concept and the fun it create, i also understand it creates camping and unfun “questing” etc.
The fun is only on side of the school bullys that like to grief other players and jump
in their back when they are already nearly dead from fighting against mobs.
So NO .. for the 10.000th time.
These games may work in Korea, but not in the west.
And here is an example that makes me wonder if the toxicity ad griefing might be not on the side of the PvPers after all. Calling the OP a school bully for expressing an opinion and asking a question ?
Now that you bring the subject up – when that opinion is wanting to be able to attack other players who aren’t interested in PvP? Wanting to fight other people who don’t want to fight other people seems to fit the description of a bully quite well.
The OP didnt state that he was looking for non-consensual PvP, and specifically stated that negatively impacting people trying to work on normal PvE content would e a problem.
Odd, the only dev comment on dueling that I have seen has been something more like, “it is something we would like to implement,” without much if any indication of timeframe (or solid commitment).
You have anything to support that claim about a dev comment on dueling?
I like the concept and the fun it create, i also understand it creates camping and unfun “questing” etc.
The fun is only on side of the school bullys that like to grief other players and jump
in their back when they are already nearly dead from fighting against mobs.
So NO .. for the 10.000th time.
These games may work in Korea, but not in the west.
And here is an example that makes me wonder if the toxicity ad griefing might be not on the side of the PvPers after all. Calling the OP a school bully for expressing an opinion and asking a question ?
Traits were not inherently tied to the post 80 XP bar before. Focusing on masteries, skill points, etc as part of a discussion specifically about traits implies a connection. The strength of the connection may be up in the air, but the connection has been implied.
Of course the other option is that the decision to suggest masteries as a focus point in a discussion about traits could, in theory at least, have been an attempt to change the subject (which would be odd since the attempt to change the subject would then have been made in the very post where the subject was defined) or an attempt to troll. I do not believe wither of these alternate options.
Note that this thread is not titled, “Future Progression Systems,” it is titled to be about traits and specifically to make reference to a previous thread on the topic of the current trait system.
And Gaile said she was sorry to imply a connection.
Colin recently shared some information related to the Traits system. In addition our article on Masteries provided other early info that could be part of any conversation about traits or character progression. (Edit: I don’t mean to suggest that the two topics are intertwined, only to point you to two discussion about character progression that have been released in recent days.)
Here’s a sparkly new thread to discuss the subject. Please read the post and article linked above. We’d also encourage you to keep up on future information releases so that this thread can be of the greatest value and relevance to other forum members and, of course, to the dev team as well.
Thank you.
Thank you for the quote which supports my point. “discuss the subject,” not, “subjects.” And points to trait and non trait related commentary.
Saying that you dont mean to do something while continuing to do it renders the disclaimer null.
Note that this is not a complaint. I think that linking the various progression systems could work out. I am just commenting based on the limited information available. I admit that I would rather be discussing details of the new system, or even just its generalities, but those are not yet available.
I just wanted to provide an update since it’s been a while.
We are currently working to restore the Greatest Fear storyline to the live game. I can’t provide a release date at this point.
In addition to restoring the Personal Story steps to their original order we’re making some minor improvements where possible (e.g. recording new VO or updating certain conversations, etc.).
We’ll provide additional details closer to release. Thanks much for your patience.
Thank you very much for the update. It is greatly appreciated.
Gaile linked the only new information we have on traits. Which is that we no longer get skill points at level 80,
Perhaps I missed something then because I do not see how not getting skill points at level 80 (particularly since we have been told that we actually will continue to get skill points) says anything about the traits unless the implication is that those two elements are linked.
Yes you could but it wasn’t effective thereby making it pointless.
A choice is only a choice if it has an equal chance of being selected. Guild wars 1 was jacked pack of worthless choices, just like the weapons. Yes you could equip all of them but they were no effective and nobody would choose or equipment it, if it did not work with their class.
Not really.
An option does not have to be equally effective in all situations to be a good choice in certain situations. A ranger set on a BM or trapping build might very well use a staff to greater effect than a bow as an example.
@Ashen: Thank you. i was running out of ways to point out that this has been a cumulative message from Anet. Fact is, if traits or rather the new simplified system had nothing to do with how skills, specializations and masteries were set to work then they would not speak of them in the same category. If the link is simply “they are in the same game and have something to do with customizing your toons”, then they need to stop lumping them together and just give us info about the new traits system. Period. My stance still holds that if they have enough in the bag to start talking about it, then they have enough details to share with us, and if they don’t then they need to say as much now and not continue this carrot on a stick game that they’ve been pushing since last April.
Barring any details about this new simplified system they should at least be able to tell us (based on where they are now and where they see themselves going on this project) if their projected release of this new simple trait system is going to be before or after the release of HoT. Seriously, this is project management basics.
I think they lumped them together because changing the level 80 mechanic to no longer gain normal xp, levels, and skill points and to instead be a mastery bar with mastery xp is a change that affects all systems in the game(skills, traits, and the new masteries). So when talking about their new system they gave us a small idea of how it will work. Which is at level 80 we will be able to start gaining xp for masteries and that the mastery xp bar will replace the level xp bar. This doesn’t imply anything except 2 things.
That a way to get skill points is gone.
That we start the grind for masteries at level 80.
There is no other implications and everything else is speculation. I have tons of ideas in my own head and even posted in the original trait thread what I thought when I read the new information. But even that is just speculation as there just isn’t enough information yet.
There are some big questions that have come up from the announcement that we no longer get skill points for leveling after level 80.
Are skill points still going to be in the game?
Will skill tomes still be in the game?
What will skill points be used for?
Are Skills going to stay the same and still require skill points?
Are crafting recipes and mystic forge recipes still going to require skill points?
Will Crafting and mystic forge recipes get updated to better reflect the new state of skill points?
Is everything with skill points staying the same except for the removal of gaining skill points past level 80?
Traits were not inherently tied to the post 80 XP bar before. Focusing on masteries, skill points, etc as part of a discussion specifically about traits implies a connection. The strength of the connection may be up in the air, but the connection has been implied.
Of course the other option is that the decision to suggest masteries as a focus point in a discussion about traits could, in theory at least, have been an attempt to change the subject (which would be odd since the attempt to change the subject would then have been made in the very post where the subject was defined) or an attempt to troll. I do not believe wither of these alternate options.
Note that this thread is not titled, “Future Progression Systems,” it is titled to be about traits and specifically to make reference to a previous thread on the topic of the current trait system.
Oh yes, my ranger/ritualist was utterly fearsome with a scythe.
I ran a Ranger/Rit with a staff in kitten riodically. By the time the enemy team realized that our time had a healer it was generally too late.
I think it went over your head
Ranger/Ritualist with a scythe.
. . . look, at that point I was doing FA simply for the Faction. Then turning it into amber. And then selling the amber.
I was also bored, and tired of seeing the same people all the time losing at 2am. I decided “eh, whatever”. Frankly, it looked pretty nice. Did . . . not . . . really work out.
I got that.
I imagine it would not work well. Kind of like building exclusively for condition damage in GW2 but equipping a weapon that doesn’t inflict damaging conditions.
