It uninstalled itself?
On february 18th 2013, Guild Wars 2 becomes self aware…
LoL,
Hmm, Terminator would have been a much shorter story if Skynet became self aware and suicidal at the same time.
Thats how they design the game, pay to have fun. And you fall for it.
Paying for what you want and receive is not something to, “fall for.”
Its pretty sad when paying for something you want is portrayed as some sort of trick that you fall for. But hey, why should I fall for that whole, “pay to have,” a roof over my head, or, “pay to have,” food on the table, or, “pay to,” have a car to drive. Falling for that trick of not getting what I want for free is lame !
By the way, the only games out there that are not, “pay to have fun,” are those where the fun of the non payers is being subsidized by those who do pay.
Do you really expect a boss that 10 players can fight will scale up to be an equivalent challenge for 50? The creature would have to have different mechanics, essentially making a different boss entirely for a certain threshold of players.
Sounds cool to me.
This boon how calculating? I read on wiki but i dont understood…
“Damage dealt depends on the level and power of the Retaliation’s source (i.e. whoever gave Retaliation to the entity being attacked). At level 80 this is:
198.45 + (0.075 * Power)"
what is 198.45? this is Power? or what?
In that formula the 198.45 is the constant added to (.075 * Power).
so if power is 2000 the result would be:
198.45 + (.075 * 2000) = 198.45 + 150 = 348.45
Welcome to GW2 !
Practice your dodging and remember to move in combat.
funny
I don’t think that word means what you think it does. : )
What do you think it means then exactly?
Sorry the post was meant as both a joke (Princess Bride paraphrase) and a comment that racism and threats of murder are not something that I consider funny.
Didn’t mean it as a jab at you. My apologies.
It would be better recognised if it were accurate.
“You keep on using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means.”
Had to paraphrase as he only said it once.
I wouldn’t call it the biggest strength, but definitely a very nice feature that future games should consider.
funny
I don’t think that word means what you think it does. : )
What do you think it means then exactly?
Sorry the post was meant as both a joke (Princess Bride paraphrase) and a comment that racism and threats of murder are not something that I consider funny.
Didn’t mean it as a jab at you. My apologies.
funny
I don’t think that word means what you think it does. : )
And to point out why it encourages diversity in phase 1 its because its uncrittable in phase 1
That doesn’t encourage diversity.
Ashen. - it’s easy to quote bits of text out of context in a long post.
I will have to take your word for that as it is not something I have done.
English understanding may also be different – being respectful = don’t be abusive.
If a commander is doing something wrong and you know more – help them out and explain what they need to know.
I do this also !Help people understand what needs to happen – that person is taking a big risk by pinning up. I have often helped along side new commanders (such as Balthazar chain) to get people to follow a pin (that may not know how to do the final push and keep NPCs alive).
I would rather help train a commander who may be doing something wrong and help them out rather than take an attitude they need to earn my respect.
Not following a commander’s orders or instructions =/= being abusive or disrespectful (unless of course you have previously agreed to do so).
Giving orders to someone over whom you have no rightful authority = disrespectful.
If
being respectful = don’t be abusive.
then
Being disrespectful = being abusive.
Therefore
Giving orders to someone over whom you have no rightful authority = abusive ?
This is an an example of what I call an uneducated response.
Really ? And people wonder why some players are not inclined to follow those who purchase their symbols of leadership.
I can give so many examples of where people have hurt various events as they don’t understand what the mechanisms of the event are.
I, and others I am sure, can give so many examples where commanders have hurt event success. Remember that getting a Commander tag did not require any knowledge of a given event or of the game, just a credit card. “Do as I say because I have a Visa card (or can borrow my father’s),” is a ludicrous demand. Respect as a leader is earned.
Don’t be abusive towards the commander he is trying to bring you success.
I would rephrase that as, “don’t be abusive towards anyone,” followed by, “he might be trying to bring you success, but who knows, could be attempting a mass troll.” It has happened. Again, respect as a leader is earned.
A commander can:
Act as a focal point for people to rally around
Act as an information base for players to ask questions or learn more about the event
Sometimes be very short with instructions (Don’t do XYZ) during an event – just follow it. Ask after the event why ! (Commanders often don’t have time to type long explanations during an event).
This has nothing specifically to do with having a Commander tag in GW2. Having spent a few bucks on a Commander tag does not make one’s instructions any better than anyone else’s.
A player should be respectful of all others including players, commanders etc.
Having an attitude problem of not wanting to respect a commander
There is a huge difference between respecting someone and following their orders. One who defines respect as subservience deserves any subsequent disrespect.
(edited by Ashen.2907)
Ascended gear.
Ranger archery implementation.
Ranger pet mechanics.
Don’t know whats everyone complaining about, new flamekissed looks much better. Plus it was ridiculous to have a CULTURAL ARMOR, available for every race in the first place. There’s really no before and after here, I never bothered to buy the original one because I simply didn’t liked it. Now I love the new and improved flamekissed.
Really ?
Gotta agree with the other guy. The new version looks much better to me.
What do you mean ignore orders ?
They followed my instructions to pick up the kegs and to melee the warden perfectly.
That’s why there is no right or wrong answer to this question.
You are mistaken. You quoted me as regards to whether or not I find a sub fee for a game I enjoy to be worthwhile. There is absolutely a right answer to that, and I gave it.
For me a $15 sub fee is worthwhile for a game I enjoy. Period. Do note that I made no comment whatsoever as to whether or not that same sub fee for any given game is a good value for you or anyone else. I do not presume to decide for you what is a good value for you.
Wasn’t saying that you did, or that Nike did. I was just countering your statement.
And then added on that this was a thread that will go on for ages and ages because of the fact that that the answer isn’t a definite. But a question was asked by the OP and it does not have a right or wrong answer. Just like what’s your favorite color doesn’t have a right or wrong answer. The OP can’t come in and say: nope, you’re wrong or even yep, you’re right, and the OP hasn’t. That’s what I meant by there isn’t a right or wrong answer.
Ahh, ok then. My apologies. I read that as a comment on my own post about my personal preferences.
Personally I don’t mind either way for myself, but like the option for those who cannot justify or afford a sub fee to be able to play the game.
And how many people in the US go: that’s too much to pay to see a movie, I’ll just wait until it’s on tv or I can buy it, etc.
My wife and I will often look at each other after seeing a movie trailer and say, “Redbox.” We generally only make a point of seeing a movie in the theater if it seems likely to benefit from the huge screen.
That’s why there is no right or wrong answer to this question.
You are mistaken. You quoted me as regards to whether or not I find a sub fee for a game I enjoy to be worthwhile. There is absolutely a right answer to that, and I gave it.
For me a $15 sub fee is worthwhile for a game I enjoy. Period. Do note that I made no comment whatsoever as to whether or not that same sub fee for any given game is a good value for you or anyone else. I do not presume to decide for you what is a good value for you.
Also,
There were three paid content expansions to GW1 (note that I am not counting Prophecies because it was the base game).
1) Factions
2) Nightfall
3) Eye of the North
4) Bonus Mission Pack (it was paid content addition, even if smaller than the other additions)
So the cash shop was added before 3/4 of the paid content expansions.
1 I agree but we where comparing the cash-shops by itself. You now say “it’s worse because you are paying a sub” and while I agree that does not change anything about the cash-shop itself.
Not sure you can argue that we were comparing the cash shop, “by itself,” while also speaking about the cash shop’s impact on the game.
For me the sub fee does change something about the cash shop. It makes the cash shop look like a means of squeezing extra cash out of players who are already paying for the game’s future development as opposed to a means of allowing people, who are not required to fund ongoing development, to do so if they wish as we see in GW2.
The whole point of the discussion I was having was that the fact that GW2 uses the cash-shop to generate income does make the shop different from WoW’s cash-shop where they generate money with subs.
I agree, to an extent. The two cash shops are different in that one’s existence allows people to continue playing a game that they potentially love without requiring additional payment that they may not be able to afford. The other asks people already paying for the development of the contents of the cash shop to pay for them again.
I say, “to an extent,” because the differences exist on the micro level. On the macro level they are essentially identical. They produce revenue by enticing funds from those with the ability to pay more than the minimum requirement to play the game.
2 (that are 2 in in one) So the fact that you can buy gems with gold. Yes it’s worse in WoW that you can’t do so, I agree. But at the same time it does not make it much better in GW2 because it has so many things and temporary that it’s almost impossible to get all the stuff buy transferring gems to gold and it really has turned the whole game into a gold-grind. So in a way it made it worse in GW2.
This is why that whole agree/disagree thing is so important to discussions of this sort. That, “almost impossible,” to get everything (without spending real money) you mention about GW2 applies double to WoW because you cannot get any cash shop items there without spending real money. You think that not being able to get everything in the cash shop readily in GW2 without spending money makes its shop worse than a game where you cannot get ANYTHING without spending real money, on top of a sub fee.
I personally do not find it better to have to pay for the contents of the cash shop twice, as in WoW, than to pay once, and potentially not have to pay at all, as in GW2.
So if you take the WoW shop do not change anything ingame or in the cash-shop and then allow to transfer ingame gold to buy the cash-shop items it would make that shop better.
It would make it better than it is now, but not better than GW2’s shop because currently a subscriber is already paying for the development of those cash shop items. Asking him to pay a second time is not better than the GW2 approach IMO.
About that your purchase makes the game better. Sorry to say but no. It makes the game worse. If nobody would buy gems they would not focus on it to make money. It’s the fact that people buy gems that they can focus on the cash-shop and that has turned GW2 in a terrible big grind. So you help to destroy it (at least for some peoples game-play) not to make it better.
Again that agree to disagree thing. Completely subjective. I don’t find the game to have been made worse by the cash shop. I know others that feel the same. It is unfortunate that some feel that the game has been lessened or even ruined for themselves by the existence of the cash shop, but the reality of the matter is that there would be people for whom the game would be ruined by the addition of a sub fee or the addition of paid expansions, etc.
Since the game was advertised and sold as having a cash shop, and lacking a sub fee…
how bad WoW cash-shop is. That one for example is not even close to as bad as GW2’s cash-shop. But that makes sense because they don’t need to generate there money with it.
And this is why its a matter of agree/disagree not right/wrong. I find WoW’s cash shop to be much worse than GW2’s.
If it’s bad or not yes. Not if it effects the game in different ways.
btw please explain why you think WoW’s cash-shop is worse? Only thing I see worse in a way is that you can only buy from it with real cash. But the way it effects the game is nearly non-existing while in GW2 that is huge.
1) WoW requires that I pay a sub fee. If I am paying an ongoing sub fee to support servers and fund future development I consider charging extra for cash shop items to be worse than a game that does not charge a sub fee but has a cash shop. Note that this does not mean that I find the sub plus cash shop to be some great evil that must be destroyed or anything, just that I find it to be “worse” than no sub plus cash shop.
2) GW2 allows one to trade time for currency to purchase cash shop items. I rather like the fact that my purchase of gems is somehow making the game better for someone else. I like the win/win/win (gold buyer, gem buyer, ANet) aspect of gem/gold conversion. In WoW if some kid doesn’t have the cash to buy the mount that would totally make the character for him….tough luck.
I go and see movies in the theater 1-2 times a month and come out satisfied at my purchase. As long as an MMO entertains me completely for a couple hours each month I’ve never had an issue with the concept of paying the sub.
But I am much more critical of sub-based games when they falter. If you are going to charge me the equivalent of a whole new game every 4 months, you have better (&^*&#$ing deliver something impressive no less than twice a year. Three times a year preferably.
Agreed.
A single ticket for a two hour movie generally runs $13.50 to $15.50 in my area. $15 per month for two hours a day (or more) of a game that I enjoy is a bargain.
:P You’re just trying to justify the spending… Not really asking yourself if the game itself deserves it, or what gets you the from the subscription vs a game without a subscription… What’s the $15 worth? Kind of hard to explain…
You might want to reread what you quoted. I said, “a game that I enjoy.” The primary thing that a game can provide to “deserve” any payment is enjoyment. So, by definition, the game in question (as I specified one that I enjoy) is providing what is desired/expected of it.
Beyond the, “was it fun,” factor an entertainment expense, assuming a limited budget, can be measured in terms of how else the entertainment budget could have been spent. The possibility of (for some dedicated players) eight hours a day thirty days a month for a total of two hundred and forty hours…for $15, compared to two hours for the same cost, assuming that one finds the game to be enjoyable, is a reasonable comparison.
That argument is almost on, or nearing, the lines of… what you can’t afford to spend $15? People typically say that too… sure $15 is not much, but… why should i pay it? what do i get from it? It’s a bit more than just affording $15 worth of something… If $15 is nothing, give it to me, i will tell you some random fact… What you can’t afford to spend $15?
Both just trying to justify the spending, or the ability to spend…
Nothing personally against you.
Actually what I said was nothing even close to what you are claiming.
I made no comment about what others can or cannot spend. I made a very specific comment about agreeing that I (note: I, not you, not other people) do not have any inherent problem with paying $15 per month for a game that I enjoy so long as it provides at least as much entertainment value as I would receive from spending that money on another form of entertainment.
how bad WoW cash-shop is. That one for example is not even close to as bad as GW2’s cash-shop. But that makes sense because they don’t need to generate there money with it.
And this is why its a matter of agree/disagree not right/wrong. I find WoW’s cash shop to be much worse than GW2’s.
For those interested in what it looks like this is what commanders now see everywhere they turn. A big blob over their head.
Isnt a big blob over your head what you paid for in the first place?
Sort of.
He paid for the ability to use a blob over his head, that other people could see, as a tool in organizing tactical play. Not for a visual distraction from his own perception of his character.
For a game that prides itself on beautiful graphics I am not a fan of having more stuff on my screen that distracts me from that.
I completely agree, but have never had the option to turn off other people’s commander tags.
I would support an option to turn the tag off for oneself when such an option is added to allow players to turn off the visibility of others’ tags as well.
I agree there should be an option for toggling them off for everyone. However, you see me with my tag say 50 units away it is by my name and doesn’t sit in the middle of your screen when you turn. Me, I have a big blob in the middle of my screen now everywhere I go. Once again, a toggle on/off for everyone would be optimal.
Agreed.
Really my point wasnt directed at someone using the tags for their intended purpose. Its the people that sit on way points, hang out in town, etc that tend to bug me. If you are actually using them as a tactical tool in tactical play….good show.
Just because there are shops that sell used video games doesn’t make it legal to do, the GW2 EULA says you can’t.
Law trumps EULA every time. This is why most (if not all) EULA will include the, “applicable law,” clause. Any contract clause that violates local law is not applicable in areas covered by said law.
Just because there are shops that sell used video games doesn’t make it legal to do, the GW2 EULA says you can’t.
Here in the UK it is perfectly legal to sell any commodity you own, including games. EULAs have no legal standing over here because 1) You cannot legally sign away your statutory rights (which many EULAs actually require you to do if you read the small print) and 2) you are never presented with an EULA until after you have purchased your game, which means the end user is perfectly entitled to ignore it. Licensing terms have to be presented prior to money changing hands, not after.
Its very similar in California. An EULA that is not present at the time of purchase is not enforceable.
I go and see movies in the theater 1-2 times a month and come out satisfied at my purchase. As long as an MMO entertains me completely for a couple hours each month I’ve never had an issue with the concept of paying the sub.
But I am much more critical of sub-based games when they falter. If you are going to charge me the equivalent of a whole new game every 4 months, you have better (&^*&#$ing deliver something impressive no less than twice a year. Three times a year preferably.
Agreed.
A single ticket for a two hour movie generally runs $13.50 to $15.50 in my area. $15 per month for two hours a day (or more) of a game that I enjoy is a bargain.
(edited by Ashen.2907)
For a game that prides itself on beautiful graphics I am not a fan of having more stuff on my screen that distracts me from that.
I completely agree, but have never had the option to turn off other people’s commander tags.
I would support an option to turn the tag off for oneself when such an option is added to allow players to turn off the visibility of others’ tags as well.
I don’t rent games.
Yes, you do.
No, you don’t. You can buy it, use it and then sell it. You can not do that when you rent.
Read the Guild Wars 2 EULA “again”, you rented an account until Anet says so.
And no explanations will be given upon termination.
Do read them, I am sure there’s something about applicable law in most, if not all EULA’s. I can sell my copy of a game no matter what you think about it. We have shops buying and reselling used games and software.
A service account is generally not a game or software in that sense. Even if your local laws allow you to sell the disc that your game came on, or the hard drive holding your copy of the game, the buyer will end up needing to buy an account to be able to use the software.
Now if your local law allows you to sell a non transferable service account, that is something different entirely. If so, congratulations.
I’d rather have acquisition like it is now but unlocking them is account bound.
As would I.
I just wanted to point out that the system that existed prior to the current one was actually worse. What we have now is an improvement, changed because of beta player feedback, than what was originally designed.
Players complained about the similarity to Human T3 light and they changed it. They did exactly what you said.
Exactly so.
This is not the first time that they have demonstrated that if enough people complain about something it will be changed regardless of the importance of the something.
Once that perception is created…
You knew ANet wasn’t going to reverse their ruling.
Actually ANet has made it very clear that they are willing to change their stance on decisions made regarding the direction of specific aspects of the game and of the game as a whole if people complain enough.
Really. Seems pretty straight forward to me.
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/info/news/Flamekissed-Armor-Skin/first#post3275229
Yes, that post is quite straightforward, which does not at all conflict with my previous post.
Ok so what are your guesses on gw2 population. This means how many people do u thing are online at prime hours. I don’t need to hear anet is the only ones that knows that. I know anet is the only people who know exactly but what are your guesses.
42
GW2 = the meaning of life, the universe, and everything.
Serious as a heart attack: What set would you change to?
Post-Ferocity Berserker will be as Best-in-Slot for Power-based Damage builds as it is now.
The essential difference is the gap between Berserker damage and all other gear types that don’t have Ferocity will be smaller.
Even so, if the amount of DPS is being reduced compared to the amount of utility or defense given up by going full berzerker in order to maximize that DPS it might no longer be desirable for some players.
Please note: This is a devil’s advocate position. I personally prefer glass cannon builds and so would not be inclined to switch gear based on this change.
You knew ANet wasn’t going to reverse their ruling.
Actually ANet has made it very clear that they are willing to change their stance on decisions made regarding the direction of specific aspects of the game and of the game as a whole if people complain enough.
So you actually like having to get your favorite dye numerous times if you have alts and want to use it on them?
Having to spend time to “grow” each dye that I might want individually, one at a time, could mean spending months to be able to properly outfit a single character. Having those dyes then be available for alts is only beneficial if I intend to use the same exact colors on multiple characters.
Why would I be interested in pursuing color options for multiple characters if the system was so completely obnoxious for one ?
Once you unlock a dye on one character, it’s only unlocked for that character. You have to get lucky or buy the dye again to unlock it on another character and again and again and again.
Spending a few copper or silver, perhaps even a gold, to buy colors for an alt is much less restrictive than having to spend days.
The previous iteration of the dye system time gated dye access to the point that the current system, with character bound dyes, is much more alt friendly than the old system despite it being account bound.
(edited by Ashen.2907)
It has taken a lot of items out of the game.. You can’t go on the hunt for mini’s, dyes (specific colors) skins and so on.
Which specific dye colors, skins, and minis were in the game world but were removed to be put into the gem shop ?
Do you have anything at all to show that they would have existed at all if not tied directly to a source of funding such as the gem shop ?
No dyes were specifically taken out, but the decision to turn them from account to character when used was a cash shop decision.
I personally would have hated the growing one dye at a time, process that preceded the current implementation.
If you’re really asking why…
This move is being made to revert the WvW participation for a Legendary back to where it was before badges were put into Achievement chests. It’s possible to earn map completion without ever fighting a player. It was (is?) also possible to get badges from the JP. The requirement was put in originally to give people a chance to experience the game mode. ANet has decided their intent was not being served and changed the game so their intent is being served.
Feel free to disagree with their intent, but the “why” is readily apparent.
Bumping this, because within will you find the truth.
Yes, they want PvE players to participate in WvW because they want PvE players to participate in WvW. Hard to disagree with it. [/sarcasm]Still doesn’t answer anything and is completely irrelevant to the problem at hand.
We know it was not accidental. We question whether it was wise.
The people you are quoting were answering someone whose question was, “why,” not whether the reason was wise.
I would argue that the merchant only did what it’s customer’s wanted in the first place. The removal of the flamekissed armor. They did not cause the issue, we did. They were simply trying to keep us happy. This is a prime example of being kitten ed if they do, kitten ed if they don’t.
No player produced nor introduced the armor skin in question. Anet chose to remove something for which people had paid. No player had the power to remove the armor skin, nor to replace it with another. Anet introduced the armor, charged people for it, and then removed it. They should be the ones to bear any burden involved in addressing player concerns regarding the matter.
You say, " we," caused the problem, but I think you will be hard pressed to find a single person who willingly paid for the first iteration of the armor skin who was among those arguing for its removal.
Ultimately mistakes happen. What seemed like a good idea without the benefit of hindsight turns out poorly. I don’t find fault witha company for making a mistake, it happens to everyone, so long as they make up for the mistake.
My point was that your comment…
You realize it would probably cost them more in transaction fees to try to refund 10$ to everyone that demanded cash? Additionally, they would need time to verify that the person actually did purchase the gems with cash, and not gold?
…about the expense or effort that would be required of Anet to make the situation right for those who have paid for something that is not being delivered is irrelevant to the customer. Anet’s mistake, Anet’s burden to correct.
(edited by Ashen.2907)
It has taken a lot of items out of the game.. You can’t go on the hunt for mini’s, dyes (specific colors) skins and so on.
Which specific dye colors, skins, and minis were in the game world but were removed to be put into the gem shop ?
Do you have anything at all to show that they would have existed at all if not tied directly to a source of funding such as the gem shop ?
I like design but not hearts cause it doesn’t suit well do male character.Even though dagger looks best in entire game,i wont buy it cause of that little “heart” detail
This is an example of why I support selling reskins of weapons and armor. A relatively minor alteration to an existing skin might take little developer resource, but result in significant additional sales.
As long as I, and others, who are not interested in participating have the ability to auto-decline duel requests, or be toggled to not be viable for challenge in the first place, I support the request for dueling in the open world.
I am rather fond of the Human HotW medium dungeon armor.
My issue with taunt is that it kills any illusion the enemy is intelligent at all.
I’ll keep banging way on this guy, even though he’s not taking damage, and even though I’m a super intelligent demon from the abyss, I have no idea healers exist or someone is keeping him alive.
It’s just too contrived for my taste.
I always have to laugh when people in a trinity game say they want a better Monster AI since i know that they don’t really want that because any AI would kill the trinity.
If a monster is intelligent it would ignore the low damage tank, and first kill maybe the healer or the squishy DDs.In GW 1 monsters often went for the healer or minion master first. I loved that.
oh?
i have bin playing a MM for about a year now and they don’t even want to attack me, it’s ether the healer or the mesmer. (not that they can get close, it’s called a meat shield for a reason)
What is your minion master’s health ?
Parties should have a mix of various gear combinations, and not 100% zerker. The current game design does not encourage such variety, because there is no trade off. Zerkers don’t risk anything, and don’t trade in any survivability for going max damage. Which is why there’s no reason not to bring a full zerker party. This is the dreadful result of the missing inter-class reliance. Exactly what I was talking about.
Ah, but zerkers do take a risk, when pugging, anyway. They risk getting a party that is not all zerker, because they need full party damage to burn down the target(s) before the party runs out of invulnerability frames. The zerker dungeon play style is dependent on everyone doing their part and acting together.
Good point.
A zerker in a party where everyone else is built for higher survivability but low DPS may face some significant challenges when the opposition is not burned down before he runs out of dodge/defensive skills.
“But its gems, not cash!” You realize it would probably cost them more in transaction fees to try to refund 10$ to everyone that demanded cash? Additionally, they would need time to verify that the person actually did purchase the gems with cash, and not gold?
Yes, but that burden should be shouldered by the merchant in a situation where the merchant caused, even if inadvertently, the problem.
If a merchant sells a product, gems in this case, advertised as having a specific function (being tradable for the first iteration of the armor skin), and then changes the product so that it can no longer fulfill that function, they should refund the money spent on that product.
ANet sold gems while advertising that they could be used to acquire the previous iteration of the armor skin. Those gems, purchased for that advertised purpose, cannot serve the purpose for which they were sold and bought. They should be returnable for a cash refund. Any additional resource burden (time or money) should be born by the merchant that made the mistake. At no point should the customer be made to suffer (defined here as having spent the money without receiving the desired end product) because the merchant made a mistake.
I completely understand, and agree with, the decision to withdraw the original iteration of the armor skin. I actually like the new version better, but ANet should be fully refunding money spent on gems to purchase the original version for those who dislike the new.
You really can’t compare the rare skins in GW1 to legendries in GW2. There was no grind for the skins in GW1, they where pure RNG. Either you had one drop, or you did not.
Killing the same mobs over and over and over and over (and over) in the hope that a given weapon might drop is grind. The inclusion of RNG does not inherently prevent something from being a grind.
Except the rare skins did not drop from the same mobs. They could drop from nearly any mob. There where some skins that had a higher chance from some mobs, and then the exclusive skins like the greens that only came off of specific bosses, but you did not have to grind for them. I had multiple storm bows, a frog scepter and several other “rare” skins and I did not farm or grind a single mob to get them. I got them from just playing the game as I normally would.
So the grind was less, or even non-existent, for some. That is an aspect of a RNG gated grind. Meanwhile someone else might have spent hundreds (or more) of hours killing mobs in as great of numbers as possible, as fast as possible, in the hope that the RNG would bless them with a specific drop.
I had at least one of every rare skin (that I found visually appealing) in the game, and I did grind for each and every one of them.
Point of clarification: My description of grind in GW1 is not a complaint. Grinding for cosmetics, or the gold with which to purchase your cosmetics, is reasonable to me.
Seriously why 21k… do u realize how much is that.. If i want a particular set, sor instance Hellfire, why would i want to pick Radiant gloves at 12k, and wait for 21k to get the boots, probably u will add leggings and chest armor for 31 and 50k AP.. i think thats a bit insane… Ok u want playes to be distinguish and everybody would be able to see what they have achieved, but still….
Why can’t You allow ppl to have 1 set, instead of bits and parts of 2 sets so different from eachother…
I must admit that it would be cool to see points or tokens given out with AP chests (instead of weapon/armor skins directly) and have individual armor/weapon pieces be purchasable with those tokens. That way if the only skin someone is interested in was the boots they could buy them without having to first accumulate other skins that they don’t necessarily like.
You really can’t compare the rare skins in GW1 to legendries in GW2. There was no grind for the skins in GW1, they where pure RNG. Either you had one drop, or you did not.
Killing the same mobs over and over and over and over (and over) in the hope that a given weapon might drop is grind. The inclusion of RNG does not inherently prevent something from being a grind.
O didn;t know Frog Sceptre, or Dryad Bow, or any number of the rare skins have attributes that can change on doble click or are the trade mark item for the game. And again, sick of every time anet mocks the players, a bunch of kitten kissings says it’s the best game in the world. Well, there really are other games out there.
I do not say its the best game in the world. I am rather disappointed in GW2, and have said so many times.
I am not certain that the legendaries are any more trademarked than any other weapon skin in the game. They are certainly, IMO, some of the ugliest and worst weapon designs I’ve ever seen. Perhaps that is their uniqueness, “ugliest weapon skins in a fantasy MMO.”
You spoke as if grind for rare weapon skins were a new thing in the GW franchise, something introduced with this patch. So how do you balance that implication against the FACT that the GW franchise has had rare weapons gated behind grind for many years ?
Any inclination, or ability, to answer the questions posed ?
Guild wars in my days was not about grinding.
Just out of curiosity, how would you have gone about getting a Frog Sceptre, or Dryad Bow, or any number of the rare skins that have always been offered up through grind by ANet ?