Guild Wars 2

scanz.4536:

So what actually happens when you request a refund? Do they simply remove the skin off the armour you placed it on? Because I don’t want to lose the actual armour and runes I have on it.

Another poster mentioned that he just got the refund without having anything removed.

Paulytnz.7619:

cheshirefox.7026:

i’ve wanted a pink commander tag since day one.. just on the map though, i’d pay gems for it z_z and other colors obviously

I would like a green one and a shield looking icon one so people know that I like to actually HOLD objectives in WvW. If they gave us different looking tags for different uses it could really help things, a few examples:

Shield – lets players know you like to build up towers/keeps and defend them so others may come and help do that.

Question mark – could be a good one for PvE for players who like to “mentor” others or who don’t mind answering questions from new players etc.

I’m sure there’s many they could come up with, in fact this was all discussed last year and I’m sure they had promised it was coming “soon” in one of their replies way back then and never came. :s

Some very excellent ideas.

Kudos.

“…force…”

I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

Nightwind.8604:

Honestly the new skin really isn’t even in the same league and a refund of what we already bought is a poor way to reward players who support your game.

Eye of the beholder and all that. I find the new version to be much more attractive than the previous iteration.

The same argument being used against unlocks at 21k AP could be used to argue that all unlocks should be available at 1 AP.

If you want this purely cosmetic reward you can get it. Some people will get it more quickly than others by putting in more effort. This sort of cosmetic progression is how the game was advertised.

mtpelion.4562:

mesme.5028:

Oh so the pick doesn’t give a bonus now?
The booster packs no longer boost ?

EDIT: It makes no difference how the items are obtained via the store you pay.

It gives no bonus towards any form of competition, and thus no advantage.
Boosters increase the speed at which you do things, not the level which you can achieve.

The game’s economy is competitive not cooperative and so any purchasable that provides any form of economic advantage can be argued, with merit, to be a form of pay to win.

Personally I do not subscribe to that position, but it has some merit.

mtpelion.4562:

Didn’t pay to win. Paid to speed up acquisition of top gear. The player who didn’t pay can still get the top gear and will be equal.

Your example fails to illustrate your point.

Pay to Win requires you to be able to pay to win, not pay to jump to the front of the line.

In the example given one player won because he paid. The fact that the other player can eventually achieve similar levels of success does not change that fact. In addition, all other things being equal, the player who paid will always have a better win loss ratio. He will have won more, due to having paid.

mtpelion.4562:

Some words have actual meanings, and they apply regardless of what some players wish they meant. “Winning” is such a word.

Webster’s lists, “actual meanings,” (AKA definitions) that support those with whom you disagree. “Win,” is defined more broadly than you seem to claim.

Suddenflame.2601:

Ashen.2907:

Suddenflame.2601:

Ashen.2907:

Suddenflame.2601:

In PW, FW, and WoW to even get to the fun you need the rewards.

The same can be true in GW2.

Also keep inmind that PW and FW are true F2P games without an initial buy in through a box purchase. The games are designed around grind while the cash shop provides means of shortcutting to the desired goal. Not a very good choice for comparison IMO.

GW2 you can play any content as long as your max level, but you don’t need the rewarded gear to be successful to see more of the content (expect FOTM but it was designed and told to be that way). Nothing is prohibiting my lvl20 thief from entering WvW. There is nothing prohibiting a warrior lvl80 in masterwork armour from entering any of the games content. That is not the same as WoW, PW, and FW which requires you to have the rewarded gear to see more content.

The comparison is between MMORPGs and their design choice of gear gated content compared to nongated content so it is relevant.

You said, “to get to the fun.”

The fun, for me at least, is running round in the game world playing through various content, enjoying the combat mechanics, at max level…using BiS gear. In order to, “get to the fun,” the rewards are needed.

You can enjoy the content (if you enjoy the content), enjoy the combat mechanics (if you like the combat mechanics), and be at max level without having rewards. BiS gear you need rewards but if that’s what it takes for you to be happy I just have to say that is pretty shallow.

That did not take very long at all. You got to personal insults for those who enjoy things differently than yourself in very good time.

Suddenflame.2601:

So far they have kept with their advertisements. What is the problem other than you interpreting the meaning wrong?

They advertised that we would have BiS gear by level 80. Can you explain how that occurs with Ascended gear ?

Suddenflame.2601:

Ashen.2907:

Suddenflame.2601:

In PW, FW, and WoW to even get to the fun you need the rewards.

The same can be true in GW2.

Also keep inmind that PW and FW are true F2P games without an initial buy in through a box purchase. The games are designed around grind while the cash shop provides means of shortcutting to the desired goal. Not a very good choice for comparison IMO.

GW2 you can play any content as long as your max level, but you don’t need the rewarded gear to be successful to see more of the content (expect FOTM but it was designed and told to be that way). Nothing is prohibiting my lvl20 thief from entering WvW. There is nothing prohibiting a warrior lvl80 in masterwork armour from entering any of the games content. That is not the same as WoW, PW, and FW which requires you to have the rewarded gear to see more content.

The comparison is between MMORPGs and their design choice of gear gated content compared to nongated content so it is relevant.

You said, “to get to the fun.”

The fun, for me at least, is running round in the game world playing through various content, enjoying the combat mechanics, at max level…using BiS gear. In order to, “get to the fun,” the rewards are needed.

No.

Keep in mind that if the game had a sub fee it would most likely still have a cash shop.

Suddenflame.2601:

In PW, FW, and WoW to even get to the fun you need the rewards.

The same can be true in GW2.

Also keep inmind that PW and FW are true F2P games without an initial buy in through a box purchase. The games are designed around grind while the cash shop provides means of shortcutting to the desired goal. Not a very good choice for comparison IMO.

Not a fit for my characters but quite nice.

chemiclord.3978:

I think what Vayne is getting at here is that you’re NEVER going to see an MMO solely run off an expansion model again (and even by the end of GW1 it was running a cash shop as well). It’s going to be tied with something else that will provide you with a more stable and constant revenue stream. And I’d argue it has to… the cost of making a game has gone up nigh exponentially, and requires much larger staffs to accomplish what the player base demands.

So the question now becomes, “what constant stream do you prefer”, because each one has their strengths and weaknesses. It’s not “cash store or expansion” because pretty much EVERY MMO maker’s answer is going to be “Both.”

The question is “cash store or subscription?” And even THAT might not be accurate, because Activision/Blizzard answered THAT question with “Both” as well.

Exactly.

Game companies releasing big budget triple A titles are subject to the same pressures and circumstances as any other major corporate investment…maximize profits. The realistic goal here is not to eliminate a source of revenue, but rather to ensure that said revenue source does not negatively impact the quality of the product.

Personally I prefer a cosmetic focused cash shop over a pure sub and/or expansion model. Ideally I would like to see cash shop and expansion. I am not inherently opposed to the sub model, but I am suspicious of it due to past experiences with traditional sub model MMO game design.

I like the new version better.

Hope those who don’t can get a satisfactory refund.

chemiclord.3978:

<really good points>

(I apologize for the rant. I’m normally pretty good at not letting this stuff bother me. I’m just havin’ a bad day, I think.)

Nothing to apologize for. Some really good insight there.

Devata.6589:

You act like if GW1 was some cheap side project by some guy in a basement. That also was a big project for it’s time. The battlefield games or GTA (most expensive gamer ever and really a massive RPG game) have massive cost. And they also have to run servers for multiple years, keeping the game bug-free so they know people will also buy the next expansion or in those cases the next version of the game.

Are you referring to the GTA chapter which generated one billion dollars in sales in the first three days ?

GW2 has sold what ? Three million boxes at sixty bucks a pop ? $180 million sales in eighteen months ?

Not sure that you can compare the two. Companies that develop games like GTA5 look at GW2 money and think, “ahh, our corporate cafeteria budget.”

sirflamesword.3896:

That is the dumbest thing ever, MOST people don’t play video games to LEARN they play them to HAVE FUN.

I disagree.

Nearly everyone (should read as everyone) starts a game of this sort with the expectation that they will have to learn.

Learning how to play the game, or even how to play it well, is an inherent and unavoidable aspect of the genre.

Raine.1394:

Ashen, we actually pretty much agree with one another here. The only thing I would disagree with you on is the value of guides. For anyone but a raider on the bleeding edge, it is the responsibility of the player to be aware of the fight mechanics. In other words, if the fight is known and you are attempting it, you should know what you are doing. But, hey, I’ll take general agreement here as generally I have little to agree with others on the forums.

I usually do agree with you (even if I don’t post it).

As to guides, yeah if I am pugging through content I do not know I will either read up on the fight, or inform the team of my ignorance (and offer to bow out of the group if it is a problem) and pay VERY close attention to what others are doing. But I got into online gaming as a means for an old (been playing together for 20+ years or so now) pen and paper DnD group to continue playing together when jobs, getting married, having kids, moving to another state, etc made the regular Friday night group impossible. For me MMOs were initially about playing with friends who would consider a guide to be comparable to reading the DnD GM’s notes when he wasn’t looking. Developing the strategy was a huge part of what made gaming fun.

To clarify, I do not at all judge others for wanting to use guides and the like. It just doesn’t (usually) fit my circle’s play style.

Gaile Gray.6029:

Rising Dusk.2408:

Gaile Gray.6029:

If you sell items over a year, and then say “This is the latest and best” that’s not to suggest that previous items weren’t good, just that the most recent is the best. And if in the past, the item offered was the best of its class, that can change too as time passes.

It’s still a shoddy business tactic and scares users like myself into never buying upgrades or convenience items for fear that something down the road will come out that’s better. This new pick really disappointed me and shot a lot of my confidence in the gem store. Now I can’t even bring myself to get the Salvage-o-Matic because “what if something better comes out”.

RisingDusk — really? That makes me think of a good friend and former neighbor. He worked in the tech industry, but never bought himself a home computer. Why? Because he was afraid that “they” would offer something new — faster processor, better video card, improved RAM — and he’d then be “behind” in his tech. So he went without because somewhere, down the line, another something came along that outperformed what he could have been using, with great pleasure, for years!

I am using a… let’s call it “Generic SmartPhone 4,” and I know I should upgrade to the 5, but I worry that the minute I do it, the Generic SmartPhone 6 will come out. And about daily, I tell myself, “Just go get the upgrade” and I’m going to do it this weekend, but I should have done it months ago.

Sorry, long post. The point is, I wouldn’t let “what might be, by and by,” influence what you do in the here and now. Just my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary!

I don’t personally have much of a problem with the new pick, or at least not to the degree that others seem to, but I do see a pretty significant difference between technology that evolves and improves through innovation over time, and what we are seeing with the new pick. There is a large difference, IMO, between, “the technology has advanced to the point that the new phones are capable of so much more than was possible before,” and, “we could have included this feature in the mining picks previously released but chose not to, and are not selling an upgrade option other than completely buying the entire product, including the features for which players have already paid, again.”

When a new app is put out for my generic Smartphone 4 I do not have to buy an entire new phone, including all previously owned apps, to get it.

Some option to upgrade existing picks, even if for a nominal charge, might not be a bad idea.

angelpaladin.7921:

I think its pretty much obvious Anet being silent on this for the past 3 days shows they really don’t care about us or the community. Take from that what you will but I will personally take it as a massive slap in the face and a sign of things to come.

I am more inclined to think that it is an indication that they wish to determine the scope of the reaction in order to have the full picture to develop a response and resolution.

For what it is worth:

Carrying out a strategy devised by someone else does not mean that an encounter lacks strategy. Just because you did not originate the strategy does not mean it does not exist. Even in a group not using an online strategy guide there is a pretty good chance that the group has a leader and that it is his strategy/strategies that will be implemented. That does not mean that the other 4, or 6, or however many people are in the group, people are participating in strategic play.

That said, I am not particularly fond of guides. I prefer to brainstorm with the friends in my group to figure out for ourselves how to overcome a particular challenge. Its part of the fun for us.

There seems to be some confusion about terminology here. Some posters seem to confuse the terms, “script,” and, “strategy,” in the context applicable to this thread.

A scripted fight is one in which there is a specific strategy required for victory.

Another fight might have a guide written by players to demonstrate the strategy they used to win the fight. Following that guide would in fact be following a script. It would not indicate that the fight, in itself, is scripted, only that this particular group has chosen to follow a script in its approach to the fight. The fight might very well accommodate myriad approaches. Might be winnable by dozens of means. Might even be winnable through any reasonably non-foolish approach.

The key is that any fight can have a script. The first time you and your friends devise a plan of attack for your first time attempting a given instance in a game you are likely creating a script:

“I will go left to draw the group guarding the stairs away from the center, Joe you do the same on the right, Knight you attack the center and try to spike the healer down, Sherry you hold position and move in to reinforce whoever looks like they are struggling. Once the healer is down we push on through to the boss…”

That’s a script. Player created, on the spot, and even if it does work is not an indication that the dev created encounter is scripted, just that we created a script, as part of our strategy, to overcome a perceived challenge.

If there is only one specific way, or very few ways, to defeat an encounter then the encounter itself is scripted. If it is left open to the players to create (note “create” not “discover”) the strategy to defeat the encounter then the encounter is not, in itself, scripted even if the players create a script in the process of developing their strategy.

I don’t agree with every detail, but overall: /signed.

I think that the idea of both instanced and open world versions of the encounter has a lot of merit.

The closest thing to a reasonable argument against it has been comparable to saying, “if anet introduces new content that people like better than the old content that I like people might not want to play the old content with me any more.” I am sorry but, “I prefer the older content and don’t want people to stop playing it with me, so new content shouldn’t be added,” is a poor argument.

That said, rewards unique to each version of the encounter might be a way to make playing both desirable.

Perhaps I am not remembering accurately but I seem to recall buying character slots back before Factions came out. Is that not considered part of a cash shop ?

Personally I like the existence of story mode for dungeons. I detest soulbinding. I am relatively neutral about the rest of the OP

The game was advertised based on instances/instancing, such as the personal story and dungeons, as well as on the open world.

I don’t think that the proposed changes would be significantly, “more representative of of a player’s overall proficiency in GW2.”

I do think that the OP’s suggestion would make the AP leader board more interesting and an active piece of content for the game by increasing competition for a position on the board.

Godmoney.2048:

That website is a troll website. You realize that almost every person on that website doesnt play mmo’s or hasn’t in years?

Source please. I would love to see your information showing that almost every person (lets say 90% would qualify as almost) doesn’t play MMOs.

Godmoney.2048:

MMORPG didn’t like Gw2 from the very start. That websites sole purpose in life is to troll mmo’s that are running.

Hmm, oddly enough GW2 has a very high rating score on MMORPG.com. 9.3 or 8.6 out of 10 is far from, “didn’t like.”

Godmoney.2048:

Imagine the reviews on Amazon.com or Newegg.com of people who just post negative reviews because they have a grudge even though it’s obvious they never owned that product. That’s the entire user base of mmorpg.com.

And yet that user base gave GW2 an 8.6 out of 10 score.

Whoever runs the trading post. I mean 15% (?) of every financial transaction in the world is HUGE.

Vayne.8563:

The issue with having both content types should be self evident. You split the playerbase…

The current system splits the player base. That is part of the problem.

Vayne.8563:

and end up taking some of the people doing the open world event into the smaller raid event (because you’re not going to have an 80 man raid) and then if ten or twenty groups do this, there might not EVER be enough people to do it in the open world…and that’s a problem

If there were not EVER enough people willing to do the content, it would be an indication of something wrong with the content as designed.

Vayne.8563:

Anet wants this game to be about the open world. They’ve always said that.

I seem to recall mention of instanced dungeons from fairly early on in the game. Then there is WvW and sPvP.,,hmm, and even personal story. It seems as if they have always intended the game to be about more than just the open world.

Vayne.8563:

It’s all very nice to provide a percentage of the players with what they want. It’s not all right when it actually ruins either the vision of the game itself, or the experience of that vision for those who are enjoying it.

The vision of the game…from launch the most challenging content has been instanced.

Vayne.8563:

I bought this game so I wouldn’t be forced into doing instances if I didn’t want to.

And you wouldn’t be forced.

Personally I would rather see issues with overflow and optimization addressed so that the encounter could be more reliably approached by those wishing to play with friends/guildmates, etc. Fix what we have to address the concerns that have been raised rather than just scrapping the idea.

Raine.1394:

My favorite play in the game was back, say, in January of last year. It was moderate sized groups that played the various DE’s together in the cursed shore. The groups were small enough and regular enough that you got to know the people a bit. Partying together was also a natural occurrence. It had great social aspects and the gameplay was rewarding. Anet, for some reason, decided to end that as a way to play. I’ve done large zergs ala the champ trains and don’t find that as rewarding overall.

Pretty much this.

Raine.1394:

Ah, I see you didn’t read the definition of the “combat role” of the infantry I suggested as you are still denying the infantry has a combat role.

I did read it. Didn’t need to (I joined in ’87, you ?).

I don’t deny that infantry has a combat role. I denied that infantry is a role in any sense applicable to this discussion. The difference is pretty significant. Technically, for what it is worth, infantry has multiple combat roles.

By your logic WoW characters all have the same combat role…infantry. GW2 provides the same number of combat roles as does WoW then.

Again, the trend is away from specialization, has been for decades.

“But why would you expect people to be playing in 1-15 zones when there’s a whole world to explore.”

For the same reason I would expect people to be playing in 16-30 areas or 31-45…because they are part of the whole world to explore.

Personally I find the content, event trains, etc, and visuals in higher level zones to be more interesting.

Raine.1394:

Ashen.2907:

Raine.1394:

In the midst of so much confusion on gaming basics, it is always heartening to know there are others playing that understand the meaning of simple gaming terms.

Gaming Terms:

PvE = Player vs Environment.

PvP = Player vs Player.

I can go into WvW and Play vs the Environment. Sure the environment allows for PvP, but does not require it. Heck I have seen situations in WvW where one played vs the environment and vs other players at the same time.

You misunderstand what the terms mean and where the distinction arises. PvP and PvE, as game modes, have been around for a long time and are well understood. If you have, for instance, a game that has PvP and PvE servers. The PvP servers will have all the PvE content that the PvE servers have, but they won’t be a PvE server, they will be a PvP server. What this means in practice if you have PvE only it’s PvE. If you have PvP only, it’s PvP. If you have a mix of PvE and PvP, it’s PvP. Afterall, the PvP environments always have all the PvE content—this must be so.

Why is this so? Why does a mixture of PvE and PvP make it PvP. It’s because the only distinction that matters in terms of understanding which environment you are playing in is whether players can use their abilities to target other players. Regardless of the content in any given instance, if you can target other players with your abilities, you are in a PvP environment. If you can’t, you are in a PvE environment.

Actually I understand the terms, they are quite self explanatory.

“PvP server,” is a label. A descriptor. It means a server wherein you can freely, in general, engage in PvP. Note the use of, “can,” rather than, “must.” A label, used to inform people that PvP is present, does not mean that fighting NPCs is “vs player.”

I would like to point out that it is possible, in GW2, to be in a game mode that you describe as being only PvP, while your definition does not apply. It is possible to be in WvW in a situation where you cannot target other players. Interestingly enough it is possible be in the open world in a situation where you can target other players.

Loved my Stormbow
….Mursaat hornbow too though.

Difficult decision there.

Raine.1394:

Ashen.2907:

Raine.1394:

What role would you say an infantryman plays in combat. I’m going out on a limb and say he’s probably going to do similar things to what other infantryman are doing. I’m going to guess he won’t be flying any planes or firing artillery. What I’m describing is a combat role.

Combat roles played by an infantryman:

Support
Tank
DPS
Controller

One infantryman might carry a SAW for target suppression.
Another might be equipped for anti-armor combat.
Another might be carrying standard combat load.
All of them might carry an entrenching tool.
Any of them has the potential to carry grenades.
Some might carry anti-aircraft weaponry.

The load-out of an individual infantryman will determine his, and his unit’s, combat role for a given mission.

Your example of not flying a plane is accurate, but those planes are filling similar roles to what infantry units do, just in different ways. They are suppressing enemy targets, destroying enemy targets, directing heavy hits to single tough targets, directing AoE onto targets dispersed over an area (or targets whose exact location is not known).

Role is about what an individual unit is expected to be able to accomplish, not necessarily the specifics of how they do so. Flying, in the case of military aircraft, is not the role. It is a tool that allows them to accomplish their assigned job/role which, as described above, is very similar to that of an infantry unit appropriately equipped.

You may have missed or failed to read my reply on your assertion that Infantry is not a combat role, but you are wrong. Go to the wiki and look up “Infantry”. Scan down the page to the section on “Combat Role”. Read the section. This is the combat role of the Infantry. The wiki is not alone in having this understanding. Google Infantry Combat Role—everyone understands that Infantry describes a combat role distinct from other roles.

So, while members of the Infantry can play many roles, every single one of them will be fulfilling the Infantry combat role. This role would be distinct from the other combat roles I delineated. I don’t understand what you are missing here, but you are wrong in your assertion that infantry does not describe a combat role.

And, I want to be clear that my point here is not that infantry describes a combat role—it obviously does. My point is that modern armies approach achieving objectives in groups through role specialization. It’s the same thing as you would see in a ad hoc group doing a scavenger hunt. The first order of business will be determining who is doing what. It’s simply the way humans approach achieving objectives in groups.

Role is defined as a function performed. What function is “infantry ?”

You are mistaken about, “modern armies approach achieving objectives in groups through role specialization.” The trend in modern military is towards multi-purposing, cross training, multi-function, and multi-role.

To be honest I find it odd that you would speak of specialization while defining essentially every battlefield function as a single role.

Let me get this straight…

You cannot feel connected to your character, a sentient plant, because he is skinny…

Not because he is a walking cabbage. Because he is a skinny walking cabbage…
——————————————————————-

I am not sure what degree of real life we should attempt to instill in our characters. If my character is fair skinned should I have to worry about sunburns ? If overweight should his movement rate and general stamina be reduced ? Should the heavier character have to be concerned about an increased possibility of developing various health problems such as diabetes ?
——————————————————————————

Even so, I do hope that you can find some way to connect with your characters so that you can continue enjoying the game.

Raine.1394:

What role would you say an infantryman plays in combat. I’m going out on a limb and say he’s probably going to do similar things to what other infantryman are doing. I’m going to guess he won’t be flying any planes or firing artillery. What I’m describing is a combat role.

Combat roles played by an infantryman:

Support
Tank
DPS
Controller

One infantryman might carry a SAW for target suppression.
Another might be equipped for anti-armor combat.
Another might be carrying standard combat load.
All of them might carry an entrenching tool.
Any of them has the potential to carry grenades.
Some might carry anti-aircraft weaponry.

The load-out of an individual infantryman will determine his, and his unit’s, combat role for a given mission.

Your example of not flying a plane is accurate, but those planes are filling similar roles to what infantry units do, just in different ways. They are suppressing enemy targets, destroying enemy targets, directing heavy hits to single tough targets, directing AoE onto targets dispersed over an area (or targets whose exact location is not known).

Role is about what an individual unit is expected to be able to accomplish, not necessarily the specifics of how they do so. Flying, in the case of military aircraft, is not the role. It is a tool that allows them to accomplish their assigned job/role which, as described above, is very similar to that of an infantry unit appropriately equipped.

Raine.1394:

I am only interested in roles in the ‘roles’ sense, not any specific game sense.

“Infantry,” is not a role to be fulfilled. It is a general classification that can fulfill many different roles on and off of the battlefield. Infantry is not a role, but it can be assigned many different roles, multiple battlefield roles simultaneously in fact. In some ways the GW2 approach is much closer to real life combat than traditional trinity play.

Ultimately I tend to agree that people often like to have and know their role in a given circumstance. Specialization allows us to become experts more readily than if we tried to master everything equally. I know that I loved playing a Ranger interrupter/mid-liner in GW1. Knowing that the rest of the team knew that they could count on me to shut down important enemy team skills (while maintaining conditions on multiple targets) felt good. Getting a flawless victory because, in part, I did my job and did it well, felt good.

My issue with trinity is not a dislike of role specialization, its a real distaste for the abomination (IMO) that is the classic threat generation tanking mechanic.

Raine.1394:

What I’m saying is that in modern combat you have artillery, armored units, air power, medical units, etc. all fulfilling different roles on the battlefield.

Those are not examples of roles, in the MMO sense, they would be closer to classes that are capable of fulfilling multiple roles each based on, “equipped weapon.”

For example, using rough real world to MMO analogue:

Infantry can be DPS, Tank, Controller, or support. In some cases multiple of those roles simultaneously.

Air Power can be DPS, Controller, or support. In some cases multiple of those roles simultaneously.

Armored Units can be Tank, DPS, Controller, or support. In some cases multiple of those roles simultaneously.

Artillery can be DPS, Controller, or Support. In some cases multiple of those roles simultaneously.

Medical units are generally just support but there have been instances of them acting as DPS.

…and so on.

Raine.1394:

In the midst of so much confusion on gaming basics, it is always heartening to know there are others playing that understand the meaning of simple gaming terms.

Gaming Terms:

PvE = Player vs Environment.

PvP = Player vs Player.

I can go into WvW and Play vs the Environment. Sure the environment allows for PvP, but does not require it. Heck I have seen situations in WvW where one played vs the environment and vs other players at the same time.

Naevius.3185:

Meh.
http://taugrim.com/2013/10/27/threat-based-pve-is-lame-and-how-id-fix-it/

Tanking is the flawed mechanic that allows the traditional trinity, and it would require re-engineering every enemy in the game to implement, so not likely.

Interesting article. Thank you for linking it.

Raine.1394:

As I mentioned, a PvP server (in another MMO) can have all the elements of a PvE server, npc’s, quests, achievements, everything, and it is labeled PvP as being distinct from a PvE server. Why?

Why ? Because PvP is an option there whereas it is not in a PvE only server. I have played multi-hour sessions of WvW without engaging in anything but PvE. Is killing a dolyak, without another player anywhere in sight (perhaps not even on the map) somehow PvP ?

GW2 with Trinity would be not GW2 to such a degree as to make the question itself questionable.

The changes to gameplay, encounter design, class design, skill design, and so on would be so dramatic as to render the game all but unrecognizable beyond lore…kind of like the change from GW1 to GW2.

Disruptive.8039:

Probably people with bad twitch reflexes

Or perhaps people who prefer less Mario Brothers in their Medieval fantasy RPG.

Judge Banks.9018:

an actually good jumping puzzle.

I’m not sure that is what people were upset about. Perhaps it was because, “good jumping puzzle,” is an oxymoron to some people.

Lexandro.1456:

It happened with GW1 Wa/Mo classes, those got a “bad rep” for years in the game but where still kinda required as they fulfilled a role. Rangers in GW2 have no role, they don’t have enough utility, party support, DPS, or condition clearing. Worst class in the game atm, and Anet solution is to make matter worse for them.

“Wammo’s,” got a bad rep in GW1 because of how so many of them were played. There was nothing wrong with the class combo.

ShiningSquirrel.3751:

No one said you can’t have it

“It,” in this case is open world dueling. You sure that no one is saying that those desiring, “it,” shouldn’t have it ?

ShiningSquirrel.3751:

and “not being forced to participate” has absolutely nothing to do with it, so you can stop trying to hide behind that excuse, it’s getting old and only shows that you have not even bothered to read any of the replies here or in the many other discussions.

Have read them all. To a large extent they are full of people saying that they don’t like X so others can’t have X.

ShiningSquirrel.3751:

We have made suggestions on several different compromises which your lot have rejected. With the majority of the duelers, it’s their way or nothing. It’s time for them to make their own suggestions that would suit everyone instead of just themselves.

For a quick recap:
Duels in Guild Halls when added – rejected, they want open world.
Instances – rejected, they want open world.
Arenas – rejected, they want open world.
Separate areas set aside – rejected, they want open world.
WvW – rejected, they want open world.
sPvP – rejected, they want open world.

There are many other suggestions that have been made, all rejected. The players who do not want dueling in open world have tried to come up with a solution all could live with.

You complain that duelists are saying their way or nothing when your list is your way or nothing. By the way, compromise does not mean that the other side of the dispute does not get anything of what they want (open world dueling) while you get your desire (no open world dueling). Your list includes not a single suggestion that would suit everyone instead of yourself and yet the duelists are expected to do what you have not ?

ShiningSquirrel.3751:

Your lot have come up with nothing.

This is false.

ShiningSquirrel.3751:

Now who is being selfish?

Well, I would say that those attempting to tell others that they should not be allowed to play as they desire in the open world are the ones being selfish. You are the one arguing for exclusion, not the duelists. Mandated segregation is far from selfless.

ShiningSquirrel.3751:

The pure definition of selfish.

I’m pretty sure that, “I don’t like X so you can’t have it even if I would not be forced to participate in it if it were implemented,” fits that definition as well.

Subdue.5479:

The difference between the disenfranchisement that players who want some kind of vertical progression would have in comparison to the sort that you claim to experience is that there is no choice left for those who want the vertical progression. If there’s none in the game, all they can do is leave. And whether you like it or not, those people leaving hurts not only A.Net’s pockets, but your gaming experience as well. In contrast, those in your camp do have an option. You can simple not work towards the items. That’s right, don’t work towards them, don’t think about them, and continue playing the game exactly how you were playing it 6 months ago. If you don’t make it an issue, it won’t be one.

So its ok for those who don’t want vertical progression, who want BiS gear without having to grind for it, to have to pretend that it doesn’t exist in game, but not ok for those who do want vertical progression to pretend that it does?

Subdue.5479:

not a flaw in game design.

Game design includes, in this day and age, the application of psychological principles, to the point of hiring psychologists in some cases, specifically to bring about the effect that imsoenthused describes. I don’t know if it qualifies as a, “flay,” per se, but it is by design.

Mackdose.6504:

I enjoyed when roaming the field was a dangerous proposition.

As did I.