Yeah, like much “difficult” MMO content UW/FoW were difficult at one point. Years later it was more a matter of, “hey, I want a new set of elite armor, guess I will go solo UW for half an hour.”
By PvE standards tags already cost nothing (very little). There is already little to no prestige to be found in them. Reducing the cost does not seem likely to provide an incentive for people who have had a tag turned on since a month after launch (when 100g might have been considered a significant amount of in game money) to turn them off now.
… lacking of real change as the first one?
Stop writing your review, it’s horribly biased. You would do yourself a disservice to publish it.
Gotta agree with this.
Take a step back. Take a deep breath. Spend some time away from the game. Play some other games. Then come back and attempt to be a bit more objective.
Charr were in Lore. After the Guild Wars, the Charr attacked the Humans because Humans were weakened due to the in-fighting. Hence why GW1, started with the Charr/Human war.
I did not claim that Charr were not present in GW1.
Asurans were chased up from the depths by the Destroyers. If they would not have come to the surface, they would surely have died as a race (see The World Summit).
In other words, as I said, they were added to the game after the setting and original lore were created.
Fire arms were a development of the Charr as a race of heavy industrialization. Guns, tanks, etc were their product..
In other words, as I said, they were added to the game after the setting and original lore were created.
Even the Sylvari were in GW1, well The Pale Tree was..
In other words, as I said, they were added to the game after the setting and original lore were created.
They were all fit into the lore or were part of the Lore from GW1.
Every element I mentioned was added after the setting launched. They were all added to the lore of the setting after the fact.
Saying they were just plunked in and invented outright is laughable.
I did not say that.
For what its worth, now that you mention it, how do you think Sylvari, Charr as a playable race, etc came into existence if no one invented them ? Pretty sure that some guy at Anet (current or past) was paid to do so.
Take this with a grain of salt (I know that I do).
I have not, as of yet, ever gotten a drop that was of use to me with the exception of dyes (which have been subsequently removed from drop tables).
Edit to clarify: By, “of use to me,” I am not referring to the ability to vendor or TP something.
Even if mounts did not already exist in game (keep in mind that the term mount in the context of an MMO need not refer to a living creature) their current absence would not indicate a lore reason for future exclusion. If it did then:
We would not have Charr as a playable race.
We would not have Asurans as a playable race.
We would not have tanks, helicopters, auto-fire firearms, etc in game.
We would not have Asurans in the world at all.
Fractals of the Mist would not exist.
and so on.
All of these things did not exist in the game at one point and were added in, within the context of the lore of the setting.
Simply put, “X does not currently exist,” is not a lore reason for X to never exist. If it were then no game could ever add anything.
I will really always remember her primarily as the annoying girl who turned into a bitter mesmer witch.
Is it a bad thing that this is part of why I liked her ?
First of all I am not interested in mounts and would rather see development resources put into other aspects of the game.
But as paying (or at least paid) customers others should feel welcome to express their desires for the direction of the game…ideally without comparisons to kitten .
1) Anet said that there were not mounts at launch. That does not mean that there will never be mounts.
2) Anet, post launch, has changed directions on statements made pre-launch, based on customer feedback/complaints/requests, regarding other aspects of the game. This indicates that Anet is not above reversing course. As has been very eloquently stated by another poster on these forums:
…Many will say " this is not the game for you." And maybe they may be right. But Anet has shown that they are not above changing direction…
…It may be the execution may be off, but if i remember something about Anet it is, they do not have a problem saying to themselves." Maybe we can do this in a new way, a better way."
So is the game as it is, the game I might wish it to be? No. But does that means I have given up
3) Anet has added mount/mount-like options to the game after saying no to mounts being in the game at launch.
We are not discussing " Change for the sake of change" we are discussing Mounts. Another distraction.
Secondly… Just because Anet has provided toys that appear mount-like, they are not mounts. That is why people are still asking for mounts, because they are not mounts.
Lastly, There is nothing wrong with asking for mounts. But You need to provide compelling reasons for mounts In the game.
Not reasons for “change” but compelling reasons for why mounts specifically are a beneficial or a necessary change to the game.
When your side provides these compelling reasons then a rational discourse may begin.
1. I think they would be cool.
2. I want them.
3. why not?These are not compelling.
Although I can see why you seek to distract from the fact that you aren’t offering compelling reasons for Mounts specifically. Aside from the above, it seems you lack them.
You say Anet has reversed their direction In the past, and quote me. But you still fail to address a very important issue. " Anet has changed their mind before." is Not a compelling reason for Including Mounts.
" Anet is smart enough to try to do new things…" is also Not a compelling reason for the Inclusion of Mounts.
Give compelling reasons for why mounts specifically are either necessary, or beneficial, and that these benefits cannot or are not already in the game, and therefore would require a redesign of the game, and a breaking of existing lore to provide?
I don’t want mounts. I have no interest in them. I feel that the world is not designed to make good use of them and that they would siphon resources away from development that I DO want.
Perhaps those are the reasons why I am not providing compelling reasons for the inclusion of mounts. Note that you are not providing compelling reasons for their inclusion either.
I never commented on, “change for the sake of change.” I commented on a change to meet the desires of a portion of the paying (or at least paid) customer base.
People are asking for more mount options because they do not like the ones that already exist in the game (either for reasons of aesthetics or functionality) in much the way that those asking for more weapon options are doing so because they want more options than already exist in game.
The game setting has included riders since GW1.
but just give pve some exclusive prestige reward too because atm they have none…
You cannot give prestige, it has to be earned. Currently there is not much, if anything, achievable in the PvE aspect of GW2 with prestige attached. Without something to do which merits prestige there is no possibility of a reward to show that you have done something worthy of prestige.
I think that 300g is appropriate, but that color changing should be inherent to the new tags.
Not sure that rewards as mentioned in the OP are appropriately gated behind getting a lucky drop (precursor).
2 years later. A lengthy CDI post over 8 months ago. Countless suggestions, which were constructive. People have been reasonable, and patient all this time, so no, i don’t think the playerbase is being unreasonable at all. There isn’t any hyperbole at all.
No amount of time passing, no amount of discussion, no number of suggestions alters the fact that a claim that alternate colors of tags are needed, necessary, or basic functionality for WvW is hyperbole.
If they were basic functionality, necessary, or needed then the game mode would not function without them. As was stated by the OP the existing functionality has been used with great success. That would not be possible if the claim I pointed out was not exaggeration/hyperbole.
Do the colored tag options have the possibility to be very useful ?
Do they have the potential to revolutionize large group play ?
Do they have the potential to make commanding an easier task ?
Are they a requested feature ?
Yes to all of the above. None of those points make them a necessity or a basic function of the game or its game modes.
First of all I am not interested in mounts and would rather see development resources put into other aspects of the game.
But as paying (or at least paid) customers others should feel welcome to express their desires for the direction of the game…ideally without comparisons to kitten .
1) Anet said that there were not mounts at launch. That does not mean that there will never be mounts.
2) Anet, post launch, has changed directions on statements made pre-launch, based on customer feedback/complaints/requests, regarding other aspects of the game. This indicates that Anet is not above reversing course. As has been very eloquently stated by another poster on these forums:
…Many will say " this is not the game for you." And maybe they may be right. But Anet has shown that they are not above changing direction…
…It may be the execution may be off, but if i remember something about Anet it is, they do not have a problem saying to themselves." Maybe we can do this in a new way, a better way."
So is the game as it is, the game I might wish it to be? No. But does that means I have given up
3) Anet has added mount/mount-like options to the game after saying no to mounts being in the game at launch.
Step 1)
On the first of the month, when you indicate that the money would be available to purchase GW2 at the sale price, your friend(s) put the $25 in an envelope and put the envelope in a safe place.
Step 2)
Don’t touch the envelope before the next GW2 sale.
Step 3)
Watch for a GW2 sale.
Step 4)
Open the envelope when a sale begins.
Step 5)
Buy GW2.
With these 5 steps you have spent no more money than if the sales were actually scheduled to meet your (or your friends’) personal financial needs.
Wow, that is a seriously ugly outfit (IMO of course).
This is basic functionality.
No it isn’t. It is optional, or even advanced, functionality. If it were basic functionality we would not be able to play the game without it…and yet we have been doing so for two years now.
You entirely misunderstand the situation and I think you have never actually been a commander before to organize anything. Just because we have been making do with the system as it is for two years doesn’t mean it is “good enough”. Ask pretty much any commander who regularly tags in WvW and they will tell you the system is woefully under-developed and has been needing a proper rework since the games release. I argue that it’s lack of functionality is a core problem with WvW and why WvW pug commanders cannot do anything more ambitious than lead massive map blobs to every point. The instant a second blue tag pops on the map the cohesion of the strategy the commanders are attempting is muddied. Having multiple coloured tags with established ‘metaroles’ would alleviate this. Red = Offensive. Blue = Defensive, Purple = Guildraid and so on. Whatever, this may never happen and is wishful thinking. But my point is that the current system is not good enough in the eyes of most WvW commanders and even PvE commanders (of which i am included).
As a commander for a large EU worldboss community that regularly kills Wurm and Tequatl, I can tell you that the idea we could designate different coloured tags to different roles within the strategy fills me with untold excitement. The hardest job for a commander is getting his/her followers to understand the strategy. Having visual cues such as ingame, seperately coloured tags would help massively. Yes, we make do for now with the same coloured tags and have great successes. But that is not to say that we would not welcome expanded commander tag functionality..
I don’t misunderstand at all. There is a rather large difference between something for which there is a use, something which would be helpful, something which would be nice to have, and something that is needed.
Similarly there is a huge difference between basic functionality and optional or advanced functionality. People have played without multicolored commander tags since the game launched. This demonstrates that they are not a need or inherent to the basic function of WvW/large event PvE.
I tend to think that raising the price for the one tag is reasonable but that the ability to change colors would better serve the intended function of the tag by being doable at will without additional cost.
Even so, hyperbole does not serve the argument. Claiming something that is clearly and demonstrably not the case, something that is obviously an overblown exaggeration, rather than a calm and reasoned presentation of one’s position makes the entire position seem unreasonable.
The lore of the historical Guild Wars was written to justify the intended game mode of guild vs guild. So yes the name refers to a period in the setting’s history, but the period in the setting’s history was written to give context for a previously conceived game mode.
This is basic functionality.
No it isn’t. It is optional, or even advanced, functionality. If it were basic functionality we would not be able to play the game without it…and yet we have been doing so for two years now.
Thus, why would we be asking if there wasn’t a NEED for them?
People ask for things they do not need all of the time.
So an armor set awarded to the five players with the fastest Arah solo runs, or something like that ?
If the issue was too many people guesting I think it would have been easier, cheaper, and more effective for Anet to throttle the guesting in some way than to add an entirely new system, something that seems to have involved a lot of work over some significant period time.
I am much more inclined to think that Anet realized that they had large amounts of playable content not living up to its potential because there is so much to do in the game that people were spread out to the point that some significant portion of this content was unplayable due to an insufficiency of players on site.. This does not necessarily indicate a problem with population but rather the freedom of what to do/where to go inherent in GW2’s open world leads to player dispersion (or concentration in the most profitable farming areas).
PvE gets new content twice a month, no one bats an eye.
PvP gets a single armour set and everyone loses their minds.
Yeahhhh idk what your talking about considering pvp had a MASSIVE update in April along with tracks and rank changes.
Massive update? Let’s see what happened:
1. PvP’ers now have to use transmutations charges, previously it was free.
2. Ranks were nerfed to oblivion – suddenly everyone is rank 60+.
3. Armours are no longer locked behind ranks, which removes all prestique.
4. Raid On The Capricorn was removed.
5. You no longer have ALL skills in PvP, which means it is no longer 100% fair game to newcomers.
6. They stripped EVERYONE off their PvP gear, forcing them to use PvE gear and use transmutation charges to get back their previous looks in PvP.
7. You cannot have a fully equipped character at level 1 anymore, because you now need to be level 15 to get a helm and shoulderpads.The reward tracks was the ONLY good addidion to PvP in the April Feature Pack. Everything else was a big middle finger to PvP’ers.
This is of course just my opinion.
Ooookay let’s take this one at a time shall we…
1. PvEers NEVER had it free to transmute. Now you in pvp you get like 5 trans stones per day which is not possible to do anywhere else in game.
2. There are no rankings in Pve so this doesn’t really apply or mean anything if ur not a pvper. The fact that 1.5 years in and no one was rank 80 yet just says something about how it was implemented from the start.
3. That very well may be but pvpers now can get arah armor which is an end game armor. I wonder if wvwers can get arah gear hmmm?
4. Just stop… that map sucked and everyone agrees.
5. To make it more balanced…. cus you know… it’s pvp.
6. And all skins you had before were unlocked in the wardrobe, what’s your point? And with the constant supply pvpers get of trans stones it’s kind of a joke.
7. Armor doesn’t mean anything in pvp AND you get tons of tomes of knowledge if you want to lvl up.
1) As a PvEer (occasional WvW) I have received hundreds of free skin transmutations.
2) You portrayed the patch as pro PvP. This element shows that it was not necessarily so.
3) PvP is endgame to many people as well.
4) Everyone ? Making stuff up is easy !
5) Except that it produces less balance not more
7) If armor doesn’t matter in PvP people would be wining tournaments without wearing any. You do not have tons of tomes at level one when starting.
How much content does PvE have compared to PvP ? When you have to go back four months to find a PvP patch compared to bi-weekly PvE content additions you might want to reconsider.
And you know this how?
Because Newton’s first law says so.
In order to effect a change on the current state of the game (adding SAB back in for example) some effort (effort equates to resources, time, money in a business endeavor) is required.
Now the amount of time, effort, or money involved is something else. It may be a matter of moments. It may be a matter of hours, we do not know.
You say in your first post “so their big project is on display”. In any English I know, that means this is their one big project. You may not have meant it, but you certainly said it.
If you think there might be more, it might have been better to say this was one of their big projects (which might or might not be the case).
\
The company could have many projects, but only one considered to be, “big.”
Today, at work, I finished my big project. The one I have been prepping for and working towards for months. Throughout the period I have worked on my big project I have begun and completed dozens of other, lesser, projects.
I certainly hope that is what is happening in GW2.
No company just abandons their most popular product.
Is GW2 their most popular product ?
Considering that ANet only has two products, I’d say yes. If you’re talking about NCSoft, that’s another matter.
Vayne referred tp NCSoft. I am curious as to whether or not GW2 has become NCSoft’s most popular product.
You say in your first post “so their big project is on display”. In any English I know, that means this is their one big project. You may not have meant it, but you certainly said it.
If you think there might be more, it might have been better to say this was one of their big projects (which might or might not be the case).
\
The company could have many projects, but only one considered to be, “big.”
Today, at work, I finished my big project. The one I have been prepping for and working towards for months. Throughout the period I have worked on my big project I have begun and completed dozens of other, lesser, projects.
I certainly hope that is what is happening in GW2.
No company just abandons their most popular product.
Is GW2 their most popular product ?
Hmm, for the most part I prefer the image without the SweetFX mod.
Katanas are not one-handed swords.
And the last thing I want to see is some idiot dual wielding katanas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hy%C5%8Dh%C5%8D_Niten_Ichi-ry%C5%AB
They can be.
I think that GW2’s business model will contribute to its placement in programs/sites like Raptr. I am not at all surprised that Raptr shows it doing well.
But population is an indirect measure of financial health for a game without a sub fee. I am curious as to the average monthly cash expenditure of a GW2 player. From what I’ve read the game is doing well financially. Kinda curious about the actual per player income though.
- Let us assign names to all of our Ranger pets. Not to our pet slots.
Am I not remembering correctly or did they already state why we don’t have this? Wasn’t it having something to do with having to store a name string for all of the ranger pets for every player would get incredibly costly or something along those lines?
Isn’t that something that could be stored client side and then loaded when the pet loads ?
I dunno, just wouldnt mind being able to name my pets. Might resent having to carry one around less if it had a name.
They are ugly as heck (IMO) and can be bought with real world money. So (IMO) they don’t really work as trophies or as status symbols.
Decide for yourself whether or not you want to carry around a weapon that others (some/many ?) think looks atrocious and makes some (many ?) think that you spend a lot in the gem store.
Your call.
But stat swapping !
Ashen, let me put it another way. Every day every person says thousands of things, some very serious and some very casual. Even in an interview, they’re addressing a question. They’re not making THE selling point of the game. It’s like a side show.
As I said, it is PART of the marketing campaign. I do not claim that it was the only selling point.
If I told my wife in a conversation that I was going to stop by the shop on the way home and I didn’t get to it, it wouldn’t be a big deal. Even if she expected me to. Reasonable people just think, okay he forget, he didn’t get to it, he got delayed, the shop was closed. And she might say, you know you didn’t go to the shop. And I say well yeah, I didn’t. Life happens. I got distracted. It wasn’t like this great major promise.
How would she take it if you told her that you never intended to stop at the shop?.
The words they said about it WERE casual. They were talking about an ideal. That’s a goal. It’s not an official blog post. Even if it were, if someone mentions something once in an official blogpost (ie dyes being account bound), it’s not lying to change it.
In an interview with outside media an authority figure representing the game made a statement as part of the marketing campaign for the game. That is not casual.
And no, it is not lying to make changes at a later point because those changes were not present at the time the statement was made (for example dyes). That is not my point. That is not what I am saying.
The idea or concept that it was easier to get exotics than they’d planned is not mutually exclusive with what was said earlier.
Yes it is.
You’re holding the devs to an impossible standard if you think they can parse every word and every sentence. It’s not possible for any human. If you honestly look at your own life, you can easily see how those sorts of things can get misinterpreted.
I am not involved in the marketing campaign for a product. In my work environment there are some pretty strict regulations regarding how I and my subordinates are allowed to interact with the public regarding my company’s products.
From your posts it’s obvious you’re a smart guy. When you really look at it, how can you believe this was some core point of such importance to Anet that they didn’t dare change it?
My assumption is that they changed their direction in that regard in an attempt to increase player retention. Understandably so as the appearance of a dead game is likely to lead to a dead game. But then again that is not my point. I may not like the change, I altered my spending on the game in its aftermath, but I can understand it. I have never made a claim that this element was something of such importance that they didn’t dare change it. obviously they did dare change it. In my opinion nothing in the game is above change, no matter how important, if change is necessary to save the game. I pretty much assume that such is the case with any business.
It was VERY important to fans who feel the way you do. So important that extra weight got applied to the statement. I did the same thing. Exactly the same thing. I believed the very same stuff you believed from that statement.
But I’m guessing less than 5% of the fan base ever saw or heard that statement when it was made. And I’m guessing Anet didn’t have the same importance associated with it that we did.
Which is perfectly fine. They needed to make a change in order to preserve the game, perhaps the change was mandated by the parent company. We do not know. But the change is not, and hasn’t been my point.
They were just going to stop on the shop on the way home.
And then told their wife that they never intended to stop at the shop on the way home.
PS: I know that we argue quite a bit but I do want to make clear that I agree with much of what you have to say and usually respect your point even when I disagree.
Cloud there are plenty of nice people in game. You should try hanging with them> Because there are ZERO online games that don’t have idiots playing. If you quit every game because it idiots you’ll never play an online game.
Pretty much what he said…
…and not just about online games. There are rude and hateful people in all aspects of life. Don’t let them get you down.
You just reworded exactly what you said in the previous post you made.
Isn’t that essentially what you are doing ?
I am suggesting it be made more varied for the good of the game.
You are not suggesting anything that adds variety. Anyone desiring to do any given specific activity in game can do so now. What you are suggesting is reducing rewards for people who are playing whatever content they enjoy now.
I am merely suggesting something to get people coming back
Reducing rewards for content people playing as they want in the content they want seems likely to keep people coming back to you ? If I told you right now that the game code was being changed so that you personally would have your drops reduced by some amount, lets say 75%, that would increase your inclination to play ?
They may as well just say “If you actively play for 1 hour a day you get a daily!” Would that be good for the game? That’s how I see the achievements at the moment. I see them as a lame everyday grind where most people (not me) go to a low level area and just smash them out real quick.
I can get my daily reward with an hour of play doing what I want in the zone(s) where I prefer to play. No special effort is needed to get them at all. How is something that requires no effort above what you were going to do anyway a, “grind ?”
A few of my friends are becoming more and more bored with the game just doing the same thing everyday.
Then why are they doing the same thing every day ? They can do essentially anything they like in game and still get the daily. No one is forcing them to do the same thing every day.
My point in all of this is not that changing the game is in any way dishonest or a lie. As I said before, saying something to the effect of, “we tried X, wanted it to work, it didn’t, so we had to change it,” is one thing. I may not be happy that X, a huge part of why I bought the game, didn’t work (may even feel that they didn’t give it enough of a chance) but I run a business and know that not everything works out how you originally planned.
Denying that X was ever intended/expected is something else entirely in my opinion.
You’re still not getting what I’m saying. People tend to talk casually. They talk about intentions all the time. Even WHILE talking about that, there’s more than one person that works at and designs a game and not everyone is always going to be on the same page. Anet had an IDEA of what they wanted to do and discussed that idea.
Now months and months later (I’m pretty sure it was more than a year) after countless conversations, Colin doesn’t remember that interview specifically. It was ten minutes of his time at a convention during which he talked about what he was going to do, what he aimed for. And sure, that’s the general idea.
What he said later wasn’t denying that was the idea. He was saying if you listen, that the idea really didn’t work. There’s a very fine line between saying that it was too easy and we didn’t realize it would be that easy and saying and MEANING that it was too easy for players to do that.
This isn’t Colin coming out and insisting I never said that. It’s not what happened here. You’re taking a casual conversation during a single interview and a defensive posture at another interview and trying to make them directly contradictory. This isn’t a court. He’s not self-editing very well.
What I got from watching that video was that getting exotics was even easier than they thought it would be, and they didn’t want it to be quite that easy. I believe that, as with many things, Anet overcompensated with ascended weapons, but they simply wanted to make sure they didn’t make the same mistake again.
Essentially what was a hot button topic for you and others like you was a side thing for Colin. It was an idea he may have liked when he said it during that interview, but that doesn’t mean it was so vitally important to him, like it was to you. You’re taking a single line from an interview as gospel. It probably wasn’t.
That’s on you, not anyone else. It’s very likely that Colin when he said that had every single intention of doing that. But it’s not unlikely that that intention wasn’t a major factor in driving the game forward. You’re assuming he did everything with that goal in mind. I’m not. I think fans were far more vested in that line than Anet ever was. I was one of those fans. I believed it would be like Guild Wars 1. That’s the real issue here.
Now a year after he says the first thing, without the great emotional attachment to it, someone asks him a different question and he answers it. He’s not denying he ever said that. Indeed he hasn’t said anything about denying it.
But if this thing is said in one interview at a convention was a major gaming point you’d think it would have appeared in other places like, I don’t know, their website? Their FAQ? Something other than a single interview.
This isn’t something they based their game around, even though that one line was something fans based their expectations around. That’s how I read this. He wasn’t talking like someone who was contradicting himself. I’m sure he doesn’t even remember saying that first bit. That’s how projects like this tend to work.
I dont’ remember old versions of novels I edited a year ago. I don’t have room in my head for what I originally intended. Not unless it was a major plot issue. Side points that I changed…three, four months later, it’s as if they never happened.
A media interview used as part of the marketing campaign for a product is not a casual conversation.
The game launched with essentially (for the most part) what was discussed in the interview. Not a casual conversation about what they might like to do, a description of what they did. A description of a very important part of the game design, a fundamental philosophy of the game.
But if this thing is said in one interview at a convention was a major gaming point you’d think it would have appeared in other places like, I don’t know, their website? Their FAQ? Something other than a single interview.
Hmm, the supposed clarification of the manifesto isn’t on their website, FAQ, etc. Does that it isn’t relevant ?
Do you not think that dailies should be something you go out of you’re way to do though?
Not really. Look at how they are implemented. Seems pretty obvious to me that it is specifically intended that you not have to go out of your way to do them.
They are designed to make you’re time in the game more interesting.
I think that the fact that you can complete them without even realizing it makes it pretty clear that they are not intended to make your time in game more interesting, just more rewarding.
What fun is it if you just get them whilst playing?
If you are playing are you not then, by definition, having fun ?
Dailies in GW2 seem intended to get people to log in no matter what aspect of the game they prefer (PvE side at least).
Ranger is the red-headed stepchild of the professions. Despite the sword auto being hopelessly broken, we’re going to have to live with it. It had an interesting progression though.
Players: Ranger sword auto roots us in place!
Devs: No, it doesn’t.
Players: Really, sword auto roots us in place.
Devs: Well, it shouldn’t, and if it does, we’ll look into fixing it.
Players: Sword auto STILL roots us!
Devs: We’re working on a solution.
Players: Sword auto is Still causing issues!
Devs: It’s a feature.
Now that is funny.
It seems odd to me that someone would go from words of wisdom such as these…
…Many will say " this is not the game for you." And maybe they may be right. But Anet has shown that they are not above changing direction…
…It may be the execution may be off, but if i remember something about Anet it is, they do not have a problem saying to themselves." Maybe we can do this in a new way, a better way."
So is the game as it is, the game I might wish it to be? No. But does that means I have given up
But Just because you are happy with the way it is now, doesn’t mean that those of us that expect better, should stop advocating for changes we would like to see…
…Now since I paid for this game as much as you, I feel i have a right to advocate for what i would like the game to become, so no..I won’t Just " let the door hit me on the way out." :-)
I do not care what you do or do not have a problem with. Your opinion isn’t that important to me.
As a buyer of the game I will express Myself as I see fit, if you like it great, if not, well, not much to be said about that. It just seems to me that you seem to feel that you need to defend the game
…To telling people that if they don’t like the current implementation of something in game they should look into going elsewhere.
Also:
Whether or not an argument is compelling is subjective. The fact that one person does not find something compelling does not mean that it is not compelling to someone else.
Personally I do not think that there is a much more compelling reason to supply something than demand for that thing. People want to buy a product, the company wants their money. Of course that must be balanced against cost of production, opportunity costs, etc. Only Anet has those numbers and they have added mounts/mount-like options to the game over the course of its lifespan. They have never, that I am aware of, said that mounts are not an option. So there is tangible evidence of their willingness but none of unwillingness (again that I have seen, if someone can provide a quote or link I will stand corrected).
You have commented on the lack of balance in this game previously, don’t you think it might be a bit off to claim that speed buffs inherent to classes,which you have stated are not balanced properly, make the addition of mount based speed buffs inappropriate?
To pro-mount posters: Nerelith has a point. You might want to consider posting about how much you would be willing to pay. A Decision to include more mounts is likely going to be made based on predictions on revenue generation vs cost. “I want X and am willing to pay Y,” seems much more likely to benefit your position than, “I want X.”
If the Devs change the acquisition of Crafted items, then they must change the acquisition of Dungeon items, as well, for all those that don’t care to run Dungeons. And every other type of content-specific item.
Not sure that I agree that they, “must,” do anything of the sort.
Also not arguing against it.
I do think that there is a difference between a skin and the statistically best gear in the game. Personal opinion only of course.
Seems like a technical limitation of the way megaserver works. nothing is perfect and this seems like a reasonable workaround to me.
I sort of agree that there should be more concrete ways of getting ascended gear than just crafting. This seems like an oversight to me. I’m not really sure of the reason for it.
Originally they said that they would look into alternate means of acquiring ascended gear. I know that they have a lot on their plate so it is possible that they forgot or that it is just not a particularly high priority.
I am hopeful.
My point in all of this is not that changing the game is in any way dishonest or a lie. As I said before, saying something to the effect of, “we tried X, wanted it to work, it didn’t, so we had to change it,” is one thing. I may not be happy that X, a huge part of why I bought the game, didn’t work (may even feel that they didn’t give it enough of a chance) but I run a business and know that not everything works out how you originally planned.
Denying that X was ever intended/expected is something else entirely in my opinion.
That is an interesting take:
Making things harder, or perhaps even impossible, is a solution to complaints or concerns that something is too hard (such as being able to play with your server community.
I guess that making Teq completely immune to all harm, or reducing the event timer to perhaps 1 minute, would be solutions to complaints that his event was too hard*.
Making money in GW2 is too hard*? Solution: reduce drops by 99%.
*I’m not saying that I agree with these complaints, merely pointing out the silliness of making something harder as a solution to something that people have complained is already too hard.
Then again, I think that the megaserver, for me at least, is a net improvement. It created, or at least exacerbated, some problems, but I think that most of those can be addressed over time. In theory MS is great (IMO) but needs some work.
Excellent post! That actually makes alot of sense. Although I can’t see Marvel, or anyone else, getting up in arms about a player name in an RPG, I would think doing so would cast them in a very bad light.
Marvel has actually sued an MMO company based on character names/likenesses. This was before Disney, known to be aggressive in protecting trademarked characters, came into the picture.
Having policies forbidding IP infringement demonstrates a form of due diligence. It allows them, in court, to say, “we actively discourage infringement,” lowering the chance of a painfully large settlement.
My question:
Are there any intentions of increasing the in game options for getting Ascended gear ?
Nothing wrong, in my opinion, with a customer expressing a desire for an addition to a product they use. The fact that the company has already expressed a willingness to add similar elements to the game (for a price) seems to encourage the requests. There is no reason more appropriate, again in my opinion, for making a request of a service provider than, “this is something that I as a customer am willing to pay for.” Of course any company has the right to say no.
Nothing wrong, in my opinion, with other customers saying that they would not like to see the requested addition made. They don’t need any more reason than, “This is something that would bother me as a paying customer.” Of course any company has the right to say yes to the request despite these protests.
And they also have the right to either say no…. or ignore it.
They seem to be ignoring it.
I completely agree that they have the right to say no. I said as much in the post you quoted.
As to ignoring it, of course such would be their right, are they doing so ?…that remains to be seen. Anet has added mount-like (mechanically) things to the game in the past.
Anything that is not added to the game until next month, or the month after, or the month after that is something that is not in the game right now. That doesn’t mean that it is being ignored now or that it is purposefully being excluded from the game.
Of course One can ay that about anything, but is it likely? I can speculate, and say that Anet is planning and working On having Pokemon type battle pets, and Rideable Tank type mecha-warriors in open word for Open world PvP.
And Just because they haven’t said that they aren’t doesn’t mean they aren’t. Just because it’s not in this month, or next, or the month after that, doesn’t mean it won’t be added.
Like Mounts.
It just seems to me that 2 years after launch, 3 cosmetics only mounts…. How likely is it?
The only reason I pick a bone here is, that while you appear to present both sides, you really are pushing for mounts In a subtle way.
Instead of saying " they can choose to say yes, or no." you subtly finish with with
Of course any company has the right to say yes to the request despite these protests.
Just feels as if you want to focus on the possibility however remote, however unlikely, that Anet would say yes, in-spite of player objections, when Anet has done nothing to encourage these thoughts.
For what it is worth, I have no personal interest in adding mounts to the game. I would not use them. I do not think that they are needed. I do not think that there would be much, if any, use for them beyond, “wow, you got a horse.”
I phrased my previous post to present the idea that there is nothing wrong with a customer asking for additions to a product….and that the company would be within its rights to say no.
I then presented the idea that there was nothing wrong with other players opposing requested additions…and that the company would be within its rights to make the additions anyway.
If you feel that telling pro-mount people that the company would be acting appropriately by saying no to their requests and, of course, the anti-mount crew that the opposite was also true to be a pro-mount statement of some sort, you are entitled to your opinion.
The sole reason for the post was that entirely too many people (I am not calling out any individual with this comment) on both sides of the issue seem to take the matter very personally and seem to be spending a lot of effort demonizing those with whom they disagree.
Pro-mount posters, some of them at least, seem to be taking opposition to their suggestions as some form of personal affront. Similarly, anti-mount posters, some of them at least, seem to be taking the request as some form of personal affront.
As to this line:
when Anet has done nothing to encourage these thoughts.
I disagree. By adding mounts, just not the ones that people want, Anet has encouraged these thoughts. By changing the direction of the game and going against years of statements regarding game design because people complained on the forum about a lack of vertical progression Anet encouraged anyone with a desire to keep asking. By not saying no Anet encourages these thoughts.
(edited by Ashen.2907)
Nothing wrong, in my opinion, with a customer expressing a desire for an addition to a product they use. The fact that the company has already expressed a willingness to add similar elements to the game (for a price) seems to encourage the requests. There is no reason more appropriate, again in my opinion, for making a request of a service provider than, “this is something that I as a customer am willing to pay for.” Of course any company has the right to say no.
Nothing wrong, in my opinion, with other customers saying that they would not like to see the requested addition made. They don’t need any more reason than, “This is something that would bother me as a paying customer.” Of course any company has the right to say yes to the request despite these protests.
And they also have the right to either say no…. or ignore it.
They seem to be ignoring it.
I completely agree that they have the right to say no. I said as much in the post you quoted.
As to ignoring it, of course such would be their right, are they doing so ?…that remains to be seen. Anet has added mount-like (mechanically) things to the game in the past.
Anything that is not added to the game until next month, or the month after, or the month after that is something that is not in the game right now. That doesn’t mean that it is being ignored now or that it is purposefully being excluded from the game.
I just want to say that for new comers unlocking traits is great fun,
Can you accurately make this claim or would it be more accurate for you to say that your girlfriend found unlocking traits to be great fun.
The difference is rather significant. You played with one person and are now attempting to portray that one individual’s subjective experience as representative of all new players.
How is convenience and looks any better then selling something else? Especially in a game focused on cosmetics?
Because they are subjective.
Right now, in my opinion, the cash shop is filled with the ugliest cosmetic options in the game. One hundred percent of the best looking, again IMO, options are only acquired in game through game play.
Nothing wrong, in my opinion, with a customer expressing a desire for an addition to a product they use. The fact that the company has already expressed a willingness to add similar elements to the game (for a price) seems to encourage the requests. There is no reason more appropriate, again in my opinion, for making a request of a service provider than, “this is something that I as a customer am willing to pay for.” Of course any company has the right to say no.
Nothing wrong, in my opinion, with other customers saying that they would not like to see the requested addition made. They don’t need any more reason than, “This is something that would bother me as a paying customer.” Of course any company has the right to say yes to the request despite these protests.
1. Either they are totally cosmetic, or they take a utility slot that mimics the speed boost of a skill that class already has.
I must admit I find the idea of mounts being a utility skill interesting.