No, they are not. A group of players going for a champion won’t use CCs effectively.
They’ll go for DPS. CC is pointless against them because they will get Defiance all the time.
Try to time your skills to interrupt the champion, it won’t work, because someone else will definitely spam CCs, and they will get Defiance.
Maybe you should coordinate a bit more? There are also trash mobs who are not immune to cc.
How do you coordinate the behavior of someone you never even see in a zerg ?
I don’t think it has to be instead/either/or. Having both GM traits and new Elite Skills be unlocked as outlined in the blog post seems reasonable to me.
As I see it:
For new players the early levels of the game were pretty engaging. The scenery, learning the game play, unlocking weapon skills, learning utility skills, exploring, and so on seem likely to keep things interesting even with traits held off until level 30.
For a veteran looking to level an alt he may find the points mentioned in my reference to new players sufficient to keep him interested, or he may opt to instant level to 20 at which point he is ten levels away from traits, much as he would have been in the current system.
Overall I see the change as positive.
Queendale champ train? Too much zerging, champ farming, world boss looting?
Easy fix. Make the Shadow Behemoth actually require as much coordination as Tequatl. Draw everyone in the Queensdale map away from the champ farms.
Yes i realize it’s a starter area but the Behemoth is already towards the end of the zone. If you make it a once every 2 hour spawn there will be plenty of casuals around anyway most of the time to help out newcomers.
If the Behemoth requires a full zone’s (or nearly so) participation, but is in the same zone as a rewarding champ train, it seems likely that drawing sufficient players for the boss might be problematic.
My concern for GW2’s future is based on the fact that I take breaks from various games from time to time while waiting for content additions. I know others who do the same. This is the first game I’ve seen where little is added to draw a player back if/when they take a break.
JPs are despised by many people (including me-especially when forced inside a Dungeon, ala CoE laser room). Are they thus a failure?
In short, Devata, we’ll never agree because we see things differently, and that’s fine.
For instance, you don’t like the gem shop, and the way Living Story for you represents more of it vs “the expansion model”, yet I would bet that many people would still rather have said shop than paying an additional sum on top of it to get access to new content and features. I don’t care who is “most players” (I bet you have no proof your opinion is representative of the majority), but the game is ultimately more than what we wish it was for only ourselves.
So, your whole argument boils down to “I don’t want to spend more money on this game”.
Great, so we’re in agreement that the content ANet released so far is not worth paying for. Thanks for undermining your own argument.
He did not say anything of the sort there. In fact he pointed out that (some) people prefer a means of spending money on the game that does not involve buying an expansion.
Perhaps you’d like to read his quote again? You, where he said " I would bet that many people would still rather have said shop than paying an additional sum on top of it to get access to new content and features." You know, where he implies that new content and features developed by ANet aren’t worth paying for.
Paying an additional sum on top of it, where “it” is paying in the cash shop, means that those people are already paying.
If one is already choosing to pay then one is not likely to consider that which is being funded by his paying to be not worth the payment.
And that argument falls apart when you take into account the many people who spend 0 money in the gem store.
Not really. We were discussing Star Ace’s comment about people who DO spend money in the gem store. If you want to change topics that is fine of course.
No, we’re discussing the playerbase as a whole. If you want to create a strawman to argue against because you have no actual point, by all means go for it.
Since when ?
We both commented on one post specifically, the one in which Star Ace commented on people who do spend money.
Create a business.
Focus only on the people who have already purchased your product.
File for bankruptcy.
You’re a business genius, sir.
You mentioned Strawman ?
JPs are despised by many people (including me-especially when forced inside a Dungeon, ala CoE laser room). Are they thus a failure?
In short, Devata, we’ll never agree because we see things differently, and that’s fine.
For instance, you don’t like the gem shop, and the way Living Story for you represents more of it vs “the expansion model”, yet I would bet that many people would still rather have said shop than paying an additional sum on top of it to get access to new content and features. I don’t care who is “most players” (I bet you have no proof your opinion is representative of the majority), but the game is ultimately more than what we wish it was for only ourselves.
So, your whole argument boils down to “I don’t want to spend more money on this game”.
Great, so we’re in agreement that the content ANet released so far is not worth paying for. Thanks for undermining your own argument.
He did not say anything of the sort there. In fact he pointed out that (some) people prefer a means of spending money on the game that does not involve buying an expansion.
Perhaps you’d like to read his quote again? You, where he said " I would bet that many people would still rather have said shop than paying an additional sum on top of it to get access to new content and features." You know, where he implies that new content and features developed by ANet aren’t worth paying for.
Paying an additional sum on top of it, where “it” is paying in the cash shop, means that those people are already paying.
If one is already choosing to pay then one is not likely to consider that which is being funded by his paying to be not worth the payment.
And that argument falls apart when you take into account the many people who spend 0 money in the gem store.
Not really. We were discussing Star Ace’s comment about people who DO spend money in the gem store. If you want to change topics that is fine of course.
No, we’re discussing the playerbase as a whole. If you want to create a strawman to argue against because you have no actual point, by all means go for it.
Since when ?
We both commented on one post specifically, the one in which Star Ace commented on people who do spend money.
JPs are despised by many people (including me-especially when forced inside a Dungeon, ala CoE laser room). Are they thus a failure?
In short, Devata, we’ll never agree because we see things differently, and that’s fine.
For instance, you don’t like the gem shop, and the way Living Story for you represents more of it vs “the expansion model”, yet I would bet that many people would still rather have said shop than paying an additional sum on top of it to get access to new content and features. I don’t care who is “most players” (I bet you have no proof your opinion is representative of the majority), but the game is ultimately more than what we wish it was for only ourselves.
So, your whole argument boils down to “I don’t want to spend more money on this game”.
Great, so we’re in agreement that the content ANet released so far is not worth paying for. Thanks for undermining your own argument.
He did not say anything of the sort there. In fact he pointed out that (some) people prefer a means of spending money on the game that does not involve buying an expansion.
Perhaps you’d like to read his quote again? You, where he said " I would bet that many people would still rather have said shop than paying an additional sum on top of it to get access to new content and features." You know, where he implies that new content and features developed by ANet aren’t worth paying for.
Paying an additional sum on top of it, where “it” is paying in the cash shop, means that those people are already paying.
If one is already choosing to pay then one is not likely to consider that which is being funded by his paying to be not worth the payment.
And that argument falls apart when you take into account the many people who spend 0 money in the gem store.
Not really. We were discussing Star Ace’s comment about people who DO spend money in the gem store. If you want to change topics that is fine of course.
1) It is already possible for your character to get married
Well help from Anet would be nice.
There are no clothing that you could use as a wedding dress/ suit
There’s no two person animations (like holding hands or kissing)
and then there’s no visible accessory/ title/ head gear/ anything that could show that you’ve done in.
Sure, put some formal/wedding clothing in the gemshop.
Animations ? We are talking about an RP situation here. RP centers around imagination.
A title or anything of the sort would be very bad RP. With the exception of a ring there is no physical accessory, in the real world, to indicate that the man and woman walking down the street together are married rather than just friends or BF/GF.
Asking for a title is not asking for the ability to have characters get married in game, it is asking to be given the tools to announce it to other people who may not (probably dont) care or want to know.
The only people that are going to care about your character’s attachment to another player’s character are the two of you and your friends. I met my RL wife in GW1. After our honeymoon we hosted a large party for guild/alliance members in our guild hall/vent server. We had fun with our in game friends and family, had contests, gave out prizes, and generally celebrated with those who had any reason to give a kitten . Everyone that mattered knew without needing titles to announce it to random strangers in the game.
1) It is already possible for your character to get married in game without any additional development by Anet. A title for it would be very bad RP.
on the other hand
2) Those claiming that this game has, “nothing to do with romance,” are mistaken.
JPs are despised by many people (including me-especially when forced inside a Dungeon, ala CoE laser room). Are they thus a failure?
In short, Devata, we’ll never agree because we see things differently, and that’s fine.
For instance, you don’t like the gem shop, and the way Living Story for you represents more of it vs “the expansion model”, yet I would bet that many people would still rather have said shop than paying an additional sum on top of it to get access to new content and features. I don’t care who is “most players” (I bet you have no proof your opinion is representative of the majority), but the game is ultimately more than what we wish it was for only ourselves.
So, your whole argument boils down to “I don’t want to spend more money on this game”.
Great, so we’re in agreement that the content ANet released so far is not worth paying for. Thanks for undermining your own argument.
He did not say anything of the sort there. In fact he pointed out that (some) people prefer a means of spending money on the game that does not involve buying an expansion.
Perhaps you’d like to read his quote again? You, where he said " I would bet that many people would still rather have said shop than paying an additional sum on top of it to get access to new content and features." You know, where he implies that new content and features developed by ANet aren’t worth paying for.
Paying an additional sum on top of it, where “it” is paying in the cash shop, means that those people are already paying.
If one is already choosing to pay then one is not likely to consider that which is being funded by his paying to be not worth the payment.
This renders the thief completely useless until he can relearn this ingrained timing to work with the new revealed timing.
Learning the necessary timing of your class skills in a variety of situations is pretty much the norm for any class in any game.
JPs are despised by many people (including me-especially when forced inside a Dungeon, ala CoE laser room). Are they thus a failure?
In short, Devata, we’ll never agree because we see things differently, and that’s fine.
For instance, you don’t like the gem shop, and the way Living Story for you represents more of it vs “the expansion model”, yet I would bet that many people would still rather have said shop than paying an additional sum on top of it to get access to new content and features. I don’t care who is “most players” (I bet you have no proof your opinion is representative of the majority), but the game is ultimately more than what we wish it was for only ourselves.
So, your whole argument boils down to “I don’t want to spend more money on this game”.
Great, so we’re in agreement that the content ANet released so far is not worth paying for. Thanks for undermining your own argument.
He did not say anything of the sort there. In fact he pointed out that (some) people prefer a means of spending money on the game that does not involve buying an expansion.
The problem with persistent content is while it allows new players to play events that long time players have already experience months or years ago, to those long time players that content in stale.
How is fighting largely the same foes, surrounded by the same scenery, using the same classes, using the same skills, using the same game play as you’ve been doing for months or years less stale to long time players than having exactly those options plus new zones, classes, skills, game play options as well ?
(edited by Ashen.2907)
Those arguing that people who would want an auto-decline toggle if open world dueling is implemented are “lazy”, or telling those people that if they are being harassed by duel spamming griefers that it is their own problem and that it is their responsibility to figure out how to not be griefed, are not doing their position much good.
To be honest the individual making such statements really comes across more as a duel hater who is attempting to torpedo the suggestion by acting in a manner consistent with some of the concerns expressed by those who are doubtful about the suggestion.
I know that I, even though I support open world dueling as an option (but only if an auto-decline option exists as well), have had momentary second thoughts based on some of the comments in this thread.
Now could you stop derailing this thread into an off topic discussion?
I cannot stop doing something that I have not done.
To the OP,
Anet have said that they want to implement open world dueling. They have shared no timeline regarding such with us. It is entirely possible that they might change their mind if people who desire the feature stop asking, so don’t stop.
It is an attractive hairstyle. Hope you get your wish.
For the 10219231 times, you have custom arena for duels. Read scramblers post, he gets it.
The purpose of this post is to show that there are benefits to having duels in the open-world.
Broadly speaking, I think duels and duelers fall into one of two categories: “competitive” and “just-for-fun”. The “competitive” dueler has worked out a dueling build, wears his dueling gear, and seeks competitive matches against skilled opponents. Dueling is what he logged on for. Custom Arenas as implemented aren’t great at all for this purpose, but I think instanced dueling or dueling arenas could work fine for the competitive dueler in theory (unless I’m missing something).
But all my dueling in the past has been of the “just-for-fun” variety. And for this, convenience is paramount. I’m not here to duel, I’m here for some other purpose, perhaps leveling up. But how about a change of pace… want to duel, person I know or don’t? Sure! Ha ha, you got me. Back to the game. Want to duel while we wait for everyone to arrive? Sure, let’s kill some time! Later that day, I’m at a guild party on Southsun Beach. Everyone look and clear channel! SlayerDude is fighting WolfLady! Ah ha ha! Don’t we have wacky and fun times you guys!? It’s a huge “flavor” feature. Hide dueling away in an instance or arena and this never happens.
I’m talking about custom arena in general. You can always make one “just-for-fun”. Nothing is stopping you. For instance, I made one 3 months ago, and It worked just fine. Test it.
Does the custom arena take one out of the zone ?
I have played so many mmo, and there has been always a “hub” where duelers met. Gw2 hub happens to be:
1. Custom Arena in spvp.
2. Obsidian Sanctum in wvw
It’s enough to not consider it a priority. If you dislike changing zones that much, than I’m afraid it’s not ArenaNet problem.Never claimed it was a priority.
Anet has stated that they want to incorporate open world dueling.
Anet has described the options you mention in negative terms.If two friends are sitting somewhere waiting for an event to start, using a system that requires them to leave the zone in order to kill time with a duel is counter productive.
So,
Does the custom arena take one out of the zone ?
I offered you an alternative, if you don’t like it, it’s not ArenaNet problem. Your rhetorical question won’t speed things up.
I didn’t ask for an alternative.
I also did not ask a rhetorical question.
I did point out that Anet describes your alternative in a negative light.
You are in the wrong thread. If you want to have a discussion, at least have the decency to stay on topic. Again, for the 1021382112 w/e times, you can duel in guild wars 2 via custom arena or obsidian sanctum against other servers.
I am discussing dueling, and commenting on options for same presented by others, in a thread about dueling.
You are quoting me, asking you a question about your post, and claiming that it is off topic. If speaking about your suggestion is off topic, would that not make you off topic for being the one to make the suggestion in the first place ? I do not think that you are being off topic by making your suggestion, and if the suggestion is not off topic then discussing it is not off topic either.
Again, Anet decribes your suggested alternative in negative terms and wants to implement open world dueling.
Does the custom arena take one out of the zone ?
Wonders if there are a few hundred variations on Legolas!…
With the recent movie I would not be surprised to see a character named Lego Lass
For the 10219231 times, you have custom arena for duels. Read scramblers post, he gets it.
The purpose of this post is to show that there are benefits to having duels in the open-world.
Broadly speaking, I think duels and duelers fall into one of two categories: “competitive” and “just-for-fun”. The “competitive” dueler has worked out a dueling build, wears his dueling gear, and seeks competitive matches against skilled opponents. Dueling is what he logged on for. Custom Arenas as implemented aren’t great at all for this purpose, but I think instanced dueling or dueling arenas could work fine for the competitive dueler in theory (unless I’m missing something).
But all my dueling in the past has been of the “just-for-fun” variety. And for this, convenience is paramount. I’m not here to duel, I’m here for some other purpose, perhaps leveling up. But how about a change of pace… want to duel, person I know or don’t? Sure! Ha ha, you got me. Back to the game. Want to duel while we wait for everyone to arrive? Sure, let’s kill some time! Later that day, I’m at a guild party on Southsun Beach. Everyone look and clear channel! SlayerDude is fighting WolfLady! Ah ha ha! Don’t we have wacky and fun times you guys!? It’s a huge “flavor” feature. Hide dueling away in an instance or arena and this never happens.
I’m talking about custom arena in general. You can always make one “just-for-fun”. Nothing is stopping you. For instance, I made one 3 months ago, and It worked just fine. Test it.
Does the custom arena take one out of the zone ?
I have played so many mmo, and there has been always a “hub” where duelers met. Gw2 hub happens to be:
1. Custom Arena in spvp.
2. Obsidian Sanctum in wvw
It’s enough to not consider it a priority. If you dislike changing zones that much, than I’m afraid it’s not ArenaNet problem.Never claimed it was a priority.
Anet has stated that they want to incorporate open world dueling.
Anet has described the options you mention in negative terms.If two friends are sitting somewhere waiting for an event to start, using a system that requires them to leave the zone in order to kill time with a duel is counter productive.
So,
Does the custom arena take one out of the zone ?
I offered you an alternative, if you don’t like it, it’s not ArenaNet problem. Your rhetorical question won’t speed things up.
I didn’t ask for an alternative.
I also did not ask a rhetorical question.
I did point out that Anet describes your alternative in a negative light.
For the 10219231 times, you have custom arena for duels. Read scramblers post, he gets it.
The purpose of this post is to show that there are benefits to having duels in the open-world.
Broadly speaking, I think duels and duelers fall into one of two categories: “competitive” and “just-for-fun”. The “competitive” dueler has worked out a dueling build, wears his dueling gear, and seeks competitive matches against skilled opponents. Dueling is what he logged on for. Custom Arenas as implemented aren’t great at all for this purpose, but I think instanced dueling or dueling arenas could work fine for the competitive dueler in theory (unless I’m missing something).
But all my dueling in the past has been of the “just-for-fun” variety. And for this, convenience is paramount. I’m not here to duel, I’m here for some other purpose, perhaps leveling up. But how about a change of pace… want to duel, person I know or don’t? Sure! Ha ha, you got me. Back to the game. Want to duel while we wait for everyone to arrive? Sure, let’s kill some time! Later that day, I’m at a guild party on Southsun Beach. Everyone look and clear channel! SlayerDude is fighting WolfLady! Ah ha ha! Don’t we have wacky and fun times you guys!? It’s a huge “flavor” feature. Hide dueling away in an instance or arena and this never happens.
I’m talking about custom arena in general. You can always make one “just-for-fun”. Nothing is stopping you. For instance, I made one 3 months ago, and It worked just fine. Test it.
Does the custom arena take one out of the zone ?
I have played so many mmo, and there has been always a “hub” where duelers met. Gw2 hub happens to be:
1. Custom Arena in spvp.
2. Obsidian Sanctum in wvw
It’s enough to not consider it a priority. If you dislike changing zones that much, than I’m afraid it’s not ArenaNet problem.
Never claimed it was a priority.
Anet has stated that they want to incorporate open world dueling.
Anet has described the options you mention in negative terms.
If two friends are sitting somewhere waiting for an event to start, using a system that requires them to leave the zone in order to kill time with a duel is counter productive.
So,
Does the custom arena take one out of the zone ?
My CPU couldn’t handle it
Do you now have a computer that can handle GW2 ?
If not, then you will run into the same situation as before.
Add a grandmaster trait that gives us 100% of the power for our class and this issue goes away.
I don’t think that we should have to spend trait points to get to 100% of our base power.
(edited by Ashen.2907)
For the 10219231 times, you have custom arena for duels. Read scramblers post, he gets it.
The purpose of this post is to show that there are benefits to having duels in the open-world.
Broadly speaking, I think duels and duelers fall into one of two categories: “competitive” and “just-for-fun”. The “competitive” dueler has worked out a dueling build, wears his dueling gear, and seeks competitive matches against skilled opponents. Dueling is what he logged on for. Custom Arenas as implemented aren’t great at all for this purpose, but I think instanced dueling or dueling arenas could work fine for the competitive dueler in theory (unless I’m missing something).
But all my dueling in the past has been of the “just-for-fun” variety. And for this, convenience is paramount. I’m not here to duel, I’m here for some other purpose, perhaps leveling up. But how about a change of pace… want to duel, person I know or don’t? Sure! Ha ha, you got me. Back to the game. Want to duel while we wait for everyone to arrive? Sure, let’s kill some time! Later that day, I’m at a guild party on Southsun Beach. Everyone look and clear channel! SlayerDude is fighting WolfLady! Ah ha ha! Don’t we have wacky and fun times you guys!? It’s a huge “flavor” feature. Hide dueling away in an instance or arena and this never happens.
I’m talking about custom arena in general. You can always make one “just-for-fun”. Nothing is stopping you. For instance, I made one 3 months ago, and It worked just fine. Test it.
Does the custom arena take one out of the zone ?
Set them on fire. Keeps them from being cold, and deals with the possibility of them being agents of Scarlet.
There is a discussion about dueling in GW2 on the front page of this forum right now:https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Dueling-in-gw2-Remember/page/2#post3733915
“An exploit is taking advantage of something that is not working as intended.” I highly doubt that Anet, when they made the dungeons that currently exist, intended for players to be playing through dungeons the way they do now.
Anet designed the mob AI.
Anet designed the short range of boons.We are not talking about some sort of complex interaction of skills and abilities that could not have been forseen by the developers. Team buffs require that characters be close together. That is intended.
We know that the developers designed the game this way.
We know that the developers have chosen to not change this aspect of the game despite many calls for revision.
Do you have any evidence to support your position ?
Nothing you said really supports the fact that Anet is ok or intended gameplay to end up this way.
Anet purposefully introduced mechanics that require stacking for characters to receive maximum benefit from their skills.
Telling players, “you must do X in order to get benefit Y,” demonstrates an intent for players to do X.
Now Anet might not have realized that X would turn out to be a bad thing, but that is something else entirely.
People don’t stack in a corner to gain buffs though, you dont even need to be that tight, I dont understand why people keep using this argument. People stack in a corner so they can pull the boss there and then the boss will pretty much sit in that corner the entire time like a kitten, missing half his attacks because his arm is in the wall, while the players use this time to burst all damage on him because they can’t miss.
I just reread your OP. If your concern is about bosses not being able to attack due to environmental clipping or something of the sort you might want to alter the thread title and the OP to include that concern. I responded to what you wrote and stand by my posts.
For what it is worth I dislike the current stacking mechanic and would love to see it changed.
But that does not mean that the current system was not intended.
“An exploit is taking advantage of something that is not working as intended.” I highly doubt that Anet, when they made the dungeons that currently exist, intended for players to be playing through dungeons the way they do now.
Anet designed the mob AI.
Anet designed the short range of boons.We are not talking about some sort of complex interaction of skills and abilities that could not have been forseen by the developers. Team buffs require that characters be close together. That is intended.
We know that the developers designed the game this way.
We know that the developers have chosen to not change this aspect of the game despite many calls for revision.
Do you have any evidence to support your position ?
Nothing you said really supports the fact that Anet is ok or intended gameplay to end up this way.
Anet purposefully introduced mechanics that require stacking for characters to receive maximum benefit from their skills.
Telling players, “you must do X in order to get benefit Y,” demonstrates an intent for players to do X.
Now Anet might not have realized that X would turn out to be a bad thing, but that is something else entirely.
“An exploit is taking advantage of something that is not working as intended.” I highly doubt that Anet, when they made the dungeons that currently exist, intended for players to be playing through dungeons the way they do now.
Anet designed the mob AI.
Anet designed the short range of boons.
We are not talking about some sort of complex interaction of skills and abilities that could not have been forseen by the developers. Team buffs require that characters be close together. That is intended.
We know that the developers designed the game this way.
We know that the developers have chosen to not change this aspect of the game despite many calls for revision.
Do you have any evidence to support your position ?
I don’t particularly care for the legendary weapon skins. The method acquisition does not grant the weapons anything resembling prestige in my opinion. Between those two points I am unlikely to ever bother pursuing legendary weapons (barring new skins that do interest me).
Then why are you still here? If you keep complaining about how bad the content is distributed, with the game being free whats your purpose for complaining? They’re not going to change their 2 week release schedule. Unless the entire community decides to go back to 1 month living story schedules, which I doubt that will happen.
If you really want to change the game, then simply quit. They will then have numbers to go off of in meetings at work to really change how the games content is distributed. But if they are getting more and more players every month and a high concurrency rate, then why change?
Ah, the age-old “if you’re critical of the game, then why are you still playing?” card. It sure didn’t take you long to play that gem, did it?
That was my first thought as well, but if you look at his second paragraph it seems that what he is saying is that forum complaints will do nothing while game concurrency is high. He seems to be advocating a, “vote with your wallet,” if you want change approach.
The flaw there of course is that a lack of complaints along with dwindling player numbers does a poor job of communicating to the devs what is needed to turn things around.
I’m not saying this isn’t possible, but I want you to understand exactly what that suggestion means. It would mean completely rebalancing the Ranger.
The Ranger is designed to have a pet. If the pet was taken away or didn’t do damage, then it wouldn’t be a Ranger anymore. Does that make sense?
The only reason Rangers lose damage is because the AI is not currently what it ought to be. That doesn’t necessarily mean that we should completely redesign the Ranger and get rid of the pet.
Think of it this way: You’re building a house and a 2×4 breaks while you’re trying to screw it in to something. Do you scrap the house and completely rebuild it because that one piece broke, or do you grab a new 2×4 and use that instead? Which do you think would be more efficient?
What I’ve been seeing a lot of is that you guys don’t necessarily dislike pets. What you dislike is how they act and how they are controlled. It seems to me that these are feelings that have been built up over time, and have culminated into “pets have to go” because you guys haven’t seen the improvements that should be made to pets to make them desirable. I certainly don’t blame you for getting to this point, but I do want to know the core of the problem before we start talking about rebalancing an entire class.
Actually some of us disliked pets from the get go but had no option for playing a ranger effectively without one.
Taking the pet away, or providing an option to not use it, does not make the character a non-ranger. It makes the character a ranger without a pet. There is something inherently wrong with defining a character as someone who is inherently and by design weaker, in and of himself, than every other profession in the game.
The Ranger loses damage because a significant portion of his damage is tied up outside of himself, without an option to build around this limitation. Other profession specific mechanics are not so limiting. No amount of AI improvement will give that damage back to my character. All such a change will do is allow another entity (cat, bird, whatever) use my damage differently. My character will still be weaker than others, still be reliant on help from another being to a degree that is not the case for any other profession.
Other professions get some degree of utility that adds to their overall viability from their class mechanic. Rangers have their viability tied to theirs.
You mean the crap they already do? Seriously go look around the forums it’s already riddled with x>y and a always beats b.
Exactly. Except that if they added 1v1 mode it would most likely increase massively, simply due to the fact that the game now “supports a 1v1 mode and thus should be balanced around it”.
So very many people have argued that players can already participate in 1 v 1 through private queues, WvW, etc, and yet what you describe has not occurred to the degree you claim.
I am not saying that there won’t be complaints, but the possibility that someone might complain about something in a new bit of content/game mode/whatever seems like a questionable reason for not implementing it. By that logic we should not have any new development.
You enjoy watching “aspects”? No problem, but the “aspects” you watched would be the only thing you carry out of the event areas. No AP, no loot for you, sorry. If it’s fine with you – it’s fine with me; but please be considerate enough not to do it in the main server as I and other 149 players come to play there and it is really hard to get in during LS releases.
Exactly what I said, people not participating should not receive the rewards. When Anet includes code to require participation in a zone event in order to be allowed there (not enough people for Teq because there are others in the zone enjoying other aspects of the game ?) I agree that events such as the battle of LA should be included.
Sarcasm aside, people participating in zergs should either be (properly) made a part of the global event or excluded from the global event reward altogether. As long as people are encouraged by both fight mechanics and rewards to zerg everything, people will keep coming to the forum to protect zergers because that is the path of least resistance and highest reward.
No sarcasm. If people zerging are providing no (or little) more benefit for the global event than spectators, idlers, or true AFKers, they should be considered no better in terms of reward or punishment.
Is that a Robo-Vulture from the new Spiderman Movie ? Yes ? No ?
Either way, very cool !
Duels aren’t about competitive PvP, we have sPvP for that. Duels are like the costume brawl; fun between friends while waiting in PvE.
And we all wait in PvE.. wait for Teq to show up.. wait for a friend to reach us in a JP, wait for someone to login for our dungeon run, etc etc.
I’m no PvP mongul, but even I dueled in other games for kittens and giggles.
Exactly.
That’s not how the industry works. Players are not willing to see crappy content as active beta testers for something that maybe won’t work.
And yet that is how it works in every other game (that I’ve encountered). Players actively play through content that maybe won’t work. Most of those games, or at least the ones released recently, have ended up failing with their original presentation and ended up having to revise in order to survive.
There are players out there right now that have enjoyed the LS since its inception.
It can work, with some reworking and refocus on actually expanding on the game and/or altering things so it actually has impact.
Which, notably, the last third of this ‘season’ did.
This is a really good point in my opinion. LS has a lot of potential. It is something new. Learning how to use any tool (and LS is a storytelling tool) well takes some practice. Some trial and error. This is an area where I think Anet gets too much flack. They should be allowed the time to either make it work, or to decide that they cannot make it work and to switch gears to something else.
The problem then with this event, at least from my 2-3 day observations, was that people preferred to lump together in a giant mass around the gate entrance rather than spread throughout the zone. Couple that with the events trying to scale to this massive hoard and you have a recipe for lag, routinely failed events, and routinely failed civilian quotas.
But trying to get the hoard from mindlessly following each other is like trying to get AFKers to return to their seat.
If each person participating was responsible for saving 40 civilians, and I consider that a modest number given my level and what I was actually capable of doing, you would only ever need, at minimum, 37.5 players in the entire zone.
This is an interesting point. Perhaps people participating in zergs should be reported for AFKing because they are in zone in a manner likely to cause event failure.
If the people you are seeking to report for being AFK are saying anything at all in chat, including the message you quote, then they are, by definition, not AFK. You cannot type, “You can’t report me, there’s not an AFK option, you’ll get in trouble instead for a false report,” while, “Away From Keyboard.”
So technically they would be right. You would be sending a false report because you would be accusing them of something they have not done.
People call it “AFK” because it’s short. To be precise, it’s “idling” – which is actually abusing a game flaw for personal profit, thus exploiting.
Raising the participation requirements for event rewards should address any concern about, “idling,” players without labeling those who enjoy watching aspects of online games as exploiters.
All content should be doable by everyone, that’s like one of the pillars of gw2.
Can you provide anything to support this ?
I cannot recall seeing anything from the Anet indicating that everyone should be able to complete every piece of content regardless of player ability or effort.
I know people who would be hard pressed to beat AC story mode. Heck they have demonstrated difficulty in overcoming single, non veteran/champion, foes of their actual level.
In order for all content to be doable by everyone the content would have to be nerfed to the point that looking at foes would drop them while their attacks could not hurt the character at all.
Would taking down a weaker version of a Tequatl(you could even scale it down in size!) considered Elite by you? I would guess not. But many people would still enjoy doing that.
If a great jungle wurm only had 1 head? Probably not. But it would still be enjoyable to actually beat it, now wouldn’t it(well, you still get something for beating a single head, but it doesn’t feel like you’ve completed the mission). Or perhaps you’d need only 5 barrels of gunpowder for him to eat it up instead of 20, if less people are around?)
And if Tequatl summoned more dragons(but of course, smaller ones) to help him out?
If Great Jungle Wurm would have had 5 heads and not 3(or just that you would need more barrels, more colours, etc.)? That would probably be considered awesome and elite content.
I made no comment about what, “many people,” would enjoy.
I commented to the fact that lowering standards so that everyone succeeds is the antithesis of elite.
I’m proposing the idea to have more elite content
If your proposal is:
That way, everyone should be capable to take down Tequatl, on any server.
Then you are not proposing, “more elite content.” By definition if everyone can do it without a requirement that everyone’s effort and ability be raised to the current standards required, it is not elite.
ArenaNet: PLEASE at least add an option for Leeching to the report menu so we can correctly identify why we are reporting a player. The AFKers try to scare people away from reporting them by saying “You can’t report me, there’s not an AFK option, you’ll get in trouble instead for a false report” which keeps a lot of people from filing the report.
If the people you are seeking to report for being AFK are saying anything at all in chat, including the message you quote, then they are, by definition, not AFK. You cannot type, “You can’t report me, there’s not an AFK option, you’ll get in trouble instead for a false report,” while, “Away From Keyboard.”
So technically they would be right. You would be sending a false report because you would be accusing them of something they have not done.
Isolating a portion of our damage onto a separate entity that can be killed is counter productive in PvE and WvW where aoe and instagib are too rampant to expect the pet to live long enough to make any impact.
Giving the player all the damage and downgrading the pet to a walking CC/Boon Dispenser is the best option. Changing BM to a system that increases pet damage in exchange for player damage is all that is needed.
^^^^ This right here.
Whelp… wild guess… if it has been brought up multiple times, and each time it isn’t even deemed worthy of a response by the powers that be… what do you think that should tell you?
Oh… that tells you to bring it up AGAIN? Oh. Okay then. Makes sense…
Colin Johanson mentions adding open world duels in this interview…it really couldn’t be a more straightforward answer either, haha. He says it at 14:11, the link wont start at that time for some reason.
Thank You for that.
Pretty solid indication that it is something on ANet’s to do list, even if not at the top of the list. People who are interested in open world dueling should maintain some degree of presence, through forum posts and the like, to show that desire for the feature has not faded.
(edited by Ashen.2907)
Tactics will always win over equipment and numbers. Sure better equipment and numbers would help but if your outplayed your just plain outplayed.
Tell that to the Lakota, or the Confederacy.
The grind in GW1 was horrendous
What grind again?
HoM.
Various title tracks to fuel associated skills.
Those were the only sources of grind I encountered, but others might have more.
Since all content can be done without ascended than Ascended is a want not a need. You do not need Ascended to complete content X, but you want Ascended to complete content X cooler (horizontal progression) or better (vertical progression).
Technically even if Ascended gear was needed to play half of the content in the game it would be a want rather than a need because there is no need to play the game. That said, using the looser definition of need necessary to describe a situation where participation of any sort is a want, ascended gear is a need for some.
I wont deny that Ascended is the better stat wise than exotic cause that would be a pointless argument.
Vertical Progression is not dreadful unless its a gear treadmill which by the way this isn’t for they stated it will be the final tier.
I’ve seen a statement to the effect that they would like this to be the final tier, but nothing definitive that this would be the final tier. Do you happen to have a link saying that this will definitely be the last tier ?
I have seen statements saying that this tier would not exist so any claim that it is the last must be taken with a grain of salt in my opinion.
As well to the comments about Anet lying. Anet is in a similar situation to when an individual person has to make a hard choice between what they said but have to do. Ascended was added because of the high demand from people complaining about the grind to Legendary from Exotic. Legendary at that time was meant to take years to achieve to get (Long term goal). People were trying to get their legendary in just a few months after release. Ascended was a rushed release at the same time of the failed Karka invasion event (lag fest). So when it first appeared it was in limited locations and the person who did it made an official apology on the forums for it.
A big part of why I would consider the matter to be questionable is that Anet stated that a character would have access to max level gear by level 80. Then they switched their approach by adding ascended and claimed that the “max gear by level 80” was never intended. Feeling a financial pressure, or having a change of heart, about a game design element of this sort is one thing. Claiming that the statement used as part of the game’s marketing, used to sell people on the game in the first place, was never intended to be followed through is something else entirely.
There is a huge difference between, “we couldn’t fulfill our design intentions,” and, “we never intended to follow through on our marketing claims.” Unfortunately the latter, paraphrased, describes anet’s actions/words in this case.
characters will have BiS gear by level 80
vs
we never intended characters to have BiS gear this quickly.