Three 80-lvl Rangers. Why? ‘Cos they’re that cool.
There are hundreds of reasons why this game is such a disappointment, generally speaking – hence so many different responses here.
Let’s face it: the general consensus is that this game is… above all… boring.
Nothing more to add.A whole great deal to be changed and added, on the other hand, by Anet to actually prevent this game from its premature death.
Hence my post. On the other hand, I do not actually understand the idea of your post if you clearly state that it’s the very place ( thread ) where to say ‘why people stop playing GW2’, and that’s precisely what I stated in my post.
Where did you state this in your post?
Also, when you claim that something is a ‘general consensus’ it implies you are talking about the whole population, not just the sample. Hence why I pointed out your flaw of assuming the sample represents the whole population when its clearly a biased sample.
Where did I state ‘why do people stop playing this game’? I think you should re-read my post.
The fact that it is a biased sample does not mean that the general consensus ( majority of the population, not the whole population ) has to differ. The general consensus may be exactly the same as the one represented by the very biased sample you are talking about. Still, like I said beforehand, I do not understand the discussion you are trying to conduct.
I clearly did what the thread asked me to do: I pointed out to the reasons which make people stop playing this game.
I am not stating they have to do, but as Anet is failing at putting forward their LS idea into life, the expansions would seem like a better idea to introduce the things I mentioned ( e.g. thanks to a greater amount of time that would be spent on polishing the things, which cannot really be done atm, and we see this with the poor bi-weekly LS updates ).
Best regards
Three 80-lvl Rangers. Why? ‘Cos they’re that cool.
(edited by Corpus Christi.2057)
GW2 is masturbation without the pay-off at the end. Why log in to do the same thing day in and day out without anything new or exciting or any thing nice to work towards.
Because you choose to not work towards anything. I choose to work towards WvW wins, armor sets and new and unique looks, achievements, my ascended great sword (eventually), possibly a Legendary, etc. and with Living Story going on it’s really becoming quite rare to log in and only do the same thing over and over again.
You are making the conscious choice to not work towards the many things available in the game to work towards.
I will refer to one point made by you only, i.e. LS. With the rest of it, I do agree to some extent.
Shortly, you can hardly say the Living Story is “going on” if the fortnightly updates ( yes, they last for 14 days ) are accomplished by people within the first 2-3 hours of their existence. The LS is true “quality” ( irony ).The same thing with expansions where if I really wanted to, I can get through expansions for most games within a week if they didn’t time or gear-gate anything.
The problem isn’t that the LS lacks actual content, its just that its so bad both storywise and general content-wise theres no incentive to back and repeat it.
You’re forgetting one thing: expansions are not only the new stories. They include precisely what you are referring to, i.e. new maps, new dungeons/fractals, new races, new traits, new skills and so on and so on, not to mention huge fixes or extensive balances. Thus, no – they are not the same as the LS time-wise.
Three 80-lvl Rangers. Why? ‘Cos they’re that cool.
There are hundreds of reasons why this game is such a disappointment, generally speaking – hence so many different responses here.
Let’s face it: the general consensus is that this game is… above all… boring.
Nothing more to add.A whole great deal to be changed and added, on the other hand, by Anet to actually prevent this game from its premature death.
There’s also a hundred different reasons why the game’s also very good.
You’re putting a red filter over the rainbow and claiming red is the only colour in there. If the title if ‘why do people stop playing GW2’ then of course its going to be mostly reasons why people stop playing GW2.
Hence my post. On the other hand, I do not actually understand the idea of your post if you clearly state that it’s the very place ( thread ) where to say ‘why people stop playing GW2’, and that’s precisely what I stated in my post.
Three 80-lvl Rangers. Why? ‘Cos they’re that cool.
GW2 is masturbation without the pay-off at the end. Why log in to do the same thing day in and day out without anything new or exciting or any thing nice to work towards.
Because you choose to not work towards anything. I choose to work towards WvW wins, armor sets and new and unique looks, achievements, my ascended great sword (eventually), possibly a Legendary, etc. and with Living Story going on it’s really becoming quite rare to log in and only do the same thing over and over again.
You are making the conscious choice to not work towards the many things available in the game to work towards.
I will refer to one point made by you only, i.e. LS. With the rest of it, I do agree to some extent.
Shortly, you can hardly say the Living Story is “going on” if the fortnightly updates ( yes, they last for 14 days ) are accomplished by people within the first 2-3 hours of their existence. The LS is true “quality” ( irony ).
Three 80-lvl Rangers. Why? ‘Cos they’re that cool.
There are hundreds of reasons why this game is such a disappointment, generally speaking – hence so many different responses here.
Let’s face it: the general consensus is that this game is… above all… boring.
Nothing more to add.
A whole great deal to be changed and added, on the other hand, by Anet to actually prevent this game from its premature death.
Three 80-lvl Rangers. Why? ‘Cos they’re that cool.
Let’s be honest, if the game does not introduce anything good, quality-wise, not quantity-wise ( LS updates ), the game is going to die out pretty fast. There’s nothing to argue here with – it’s pure logic. And a new fractal is nothing but a mere 1 in a 1000 things they ought to have done almost 1.5 year since the premiere.
I hope that the Wintersday update will be followed by a couple of well-thought updates that introduce some decent content.
PS In spite of my high hopes for this new content in the nearest future, I am somehow worried. In the thead dedicated to Ranger class, a dev stated that pet’s mechanics cannot and will not be fixed ( the dev, in a discussion with some guy who sits in the IT industry, admitted that the pets are indeed bugged but that they will not dedicate time to fixing the issue – a bug which, importantly, has been there since the beginning of the game, i.e. pets not reacting to F2 skills immediately/at all )
Three 80-lvl Rangers. Why? ‘Cos they’re that cool.
An epic video. Although there are some viable builds, as people claim, organised high lvl fractals or sPvP’s players still prefer other classes over a ranger. You can’t deny it. If you think you could, then… well… You have a right to your own opinion, don’t you?
Three 80-lvl Rangers. Why? ‘Cos they’re that cool.
Spirit ( + power ) ranger will remain one of your best options for PvE ( organised dungeons/fractals ). Berserker’s armor/weapons + Knight’s trinkets to add survivability. Traits: a wide variety of spirit builds, mine works perfectly at 20/20/0/30/0 or 20/20/5/25/0, but I prefer the first option because of the 3 selected traits for spirits, while I maintain endurance from the sigil on the weapon + sword/torch evades. It is perfectly balanced for runs in organised dungeons/fractals. With guardian, warrior + 2 other classes ( different than ranger ), it works pitch perfect. The choice of weapons depends on your preference, tbh, but you want to have a sword/torch or warhorn for your team, and shortbow ( my preference due to the fact that I love shortbow and can sustain a very decent damage thanks to the traits/berserk armor and runes without having to take a longbow ).
There are a couple of spirit/condi builds, however, they’re not as viable, imo, for organised PvE runs.
Best regards
PS Rangers rock, even though they’ve been nerfed constantly since the game’s premiere.;)
Three 80-lvl Rangers. Why? ‘Cos they’re that cool.
(edited by Corpus Christi.2057)
The answer is simple: unless there is some serious threat to GW2 ( a new MMO game ), the paid expansion will not see the light of day. Until that time, we will be getting the living story that, although quality-wise rather poor, nonetheless is a rather efficient time-filler for most of us.
Three 80-lvl Rangers. Why? ‘Cos they’re that cool.
Love it when people claim that rangers are not a ranged class when anet clearly says they are. The fact that people are still repeating that tired nonsense is nothing short of amazing.
I tried to be polite to Vayne… but I do get your anger. It couldn’t be put more bluntly by Anet. But well, some people like to “bend reality”.;)
Best regards
Three 80-lvl Rangers. Why? ‘Cos they’re that cool.
When the ranged weapons are the least efficient/useful on an ideologically archer-based class – ranger – you know there is something wrong with this game. Enough said.
People keep saying the ranger is an archer based profession and it’s just not so. It has BECOME an archer based profession but rangers are based on D&D which in itself was based on Lord of the Rings. In Lord of the Rings Aragorn was a ranger. He prodominantly fought with a sword.
The misconception comes from the word range in ranger, but that has nothing to do with weapons. It was to do with the fact that rangers live in the wilds instead of cities. They have a range (as in home on the range or park ranger). They range. That’s what makes a ranger.
Not using a ranged weapon.
As far as I remember correctly, the book that I got with the collector’s edition clearly states that they were designed at the time primarily as a ranged-weapon class users.
The genesis of the word you are referring to is commonly known to anyone here. But still, thanks for explaining it to us. And no – it does not confuse me since I am addressing the ideology mentioned in the concept book.
Cheers
Three 80-lvl Rangers. Why? ‘Cos they’re that cool.
(edited by Corpus Christi.2057)
When the ranged weapons are the least efficient/useful on an ideologically archer-based class – ranger – you know there is something wrong with this game. Enough said.
Three 80-lvl Rangers. Why? ‘Cos they’re that cool.
Of course they’re going to say it’s amazing. They’re not going to say “Here’s our mediocre content for the month, go ahead and ‘enjoy’ it or whatever, we don’t care”
Haha, obviously.:P At least they started listening to our suggestions regarding different classes, which actually shows a step away from their ’we’re doing great" towards “we want to improve” attitude.
Three 80-lvl Rangers. Why? ‘Cos they’re that cool.
I’m appalled by the amount of people actually having the guts to say armor isn’t content. When armor is the central focus of most MMORPGs and is the central focus GW2.
I do understand the confusion some people are experiencing since literally no armor sets have been added within the actual game. The game currently is more about achievement grind than anything else, and that’s not cool.
Anyway, I agree with OP. At this point I’m wishing GW2 had a monthly subscription fee, maybe this way we’d end up with something more enjoyable.
It’s completely true they’ve gone the road of quantity over quality, it’s all about “look at all these new shallow updates we’re dishing out!”.
That’s precisely what I’m talking about. The living world content has become somewhat inferior to what the devs are saying, i.e. “it’s amazing” etc. etc.
Hope it’s going to change sometime soon. Possibly, they are working on something huge as noted in this topic: http://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/1pyy4q/february_2014_content_already_in_the_works/
Best regards
Three 80-lvl Rangers. Why? ‘Cos they’re that cool.
Gear is indeed part of the new content, strictly speaking.
It is one of the reasons why it has risen, the others being the ones I stated above.
Nevertheless, thanks for your thoughts.
Cheers
Content is something you play through. Armor skins, specifically statless armor skins are merely window dressing.
You don’t want to start the fight over the definition you do not understand… Just to help you get through: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/content, see 1.
Let’s focus on the topic now, thanks.
People who try to use dictionary definitions to back up their arguments about specific areas of interest are often going to be mistaken. If you look up mob in a dictionary it tends to talk about groups of people, but in MMOs you can have a single mob. Dictionaries don’t have context and so should be used in arguments sparingly.
You play content. You wear skins.
In the most general context if you want to consider skins content, you’re free to do so, but I certainly don’t and most of the people I’ve talked to over the years don’t either (this conversation comes up about every six months, so you know).
As others have said, the gem price is decided more by players than Anet. However, it’s part of their job to get people to buy stuff in the shop. If they weren’t doing that, they’re not doing their jobs.
Actually, considering most of the stuff in the shop, I’m not sure they are doing their jobs.
I’m not sure how many other MMOs you’ve played without a monthly sub, but most of them are absolutely godawful when it comes to their cash shop.
I can’t say with certainty that Guild Wars 2 has the best cash shop, but it’s very far from the worst. Some of us has played Lotro. lol
People whose life is surrouned with dictionary definitions usually use them as EVIDENCE to support their argument, and to teach the others how to use some words and expressions correctly. And, skins, are obviously ( a logical conclusion ) a part of the content you see in the game.
Three 80-lvl Rangers. Why? ‘Cos they’re that cool.
(edited by Corpus Christi.2057)
Honestly the topic was confusing anyhow, I have no idea about a.net office politics and I doubt you do either.
That’s why I’ve been using phrases like “seems to”, “appears to be”, “would seem to be” since, as you pointed out correctly, no one really knows what ideas they have in mind. Everything’s been formed with the highest caution and precision on my behalf. At least I tried to.
Three 80-lvl Rangers. Why? ‘Cos they’re that cool.
(edited by Corpus Christi.2057)
It’s interesting how the topic that I dubbed “New content and Anet politics” have been somehow “miraculously” changed ( not by me ) to “New content and politics”, which is confusing to be honest…
Three 80-lvl Rangers. Why? ‘Cos they’re that cool.
I’m actually very surprised they havn’t gone down the DLC/expansion route.
Players WILL pay for them, and also prefer them over the sub-par content we are getting.
Exactly.
I did like the idea of the living story at the very beginning, but when it all somehow derailed and took the route of quantity over quality, this game would do very well with a paid expansion now.
Three 80-lvl Rangers. Why? ‘Cos they’re that cool.
If Anet ever want more money, they can always release a expansion, that would get them a bucket load…
Also, if they ever do release a expansion, as part of that wouldn’t they after pump some gems into the market as part of that? Its what was done at the start GW2, they started it off with loads of free gems, since then players and only player have changed the exchange rate with there activities.
That’s the case, indeed, but they’re way too distanced ( so it seems ) towards releasing any kind of paid expansion. They seem very pleased with their living story. Too pleased, I would say…
Three 80-lvl Rangers. Why? ‘Cos they’re that cool.
Gear is indeed part of the new content, strictly speaking.
It is one of the reasons why it has risen, the others being the ones I stated above.
Nevertheless, thanks for your thoughts.
Cheers
Gems are worth more gold now because there is more gold in the economy, that’s the only reason. There are numerous reasons why there is more gold now, but Gems are fixed at $10USD/800.
That’s precisely the reason why people start choosing real cash to buy gems over gold to gem exchange. Logical.
Yep you’re right…though conversely I haven’t bought gems in months now that I’ve managed to amass a couple hundred gold…
Just like someone else stated above, it is indeed easier to get gold nowadays. I do not feel like spending real cash on the game, that’s why I’ve decided to postpone buying the Dreamer from TP just to have some gold to spare on unlimited sickle, axe etc. as I have missed those before.:/
I am aware that’s the business that is highly profitable to them, nevertheless, I am disappointed with the balance, which is the main point that I have made. Too little new content that randomly drops/can be achieved compared to that purchasable with gems.
Three 80-lvl Rangers. Why? ‘Cos they’re that cool.
(edited by Corpus Christi.2057)
you are aware players control gem prices on the exchange right ? You cant really blame that on ANet .
He’s hinting at that Anet us putting more and more attractive items on the gemshop to makes the exchange rate rise so people are more incentivised to buy gold with gems.
Although I’m not really surprised at the rate of stuff coming tithe gemshop, because GW1 and most other F2P/B2P MMOs do the same. I do feel that more effort should be spared to fix some if the gaping problems of the game, like the massive lack of character progression or most of the content being pointless to repeat due to the lack of rewards.
I do agree with you, yet another issue.
Thanks for your reply.
Cheers
Three 80-lvl Rangers. Why? ‘Cos they’re that cool.
Gear is indeed part of the new content, strictly speaking.
It is one of the reasons why it has risen, the others being the ones I stated above.
Nevertheless, thanks for your thoughts.
Cheers
Gems are worth more gold now because there is more gold in the economy, that’s the only reason. There are numerous reasons why there is more gold now, but Gems are fixed at $10USD/800.
That’s precisely the reason why people start choosing real cash to buy gems over gold to gem exchange. Logical.
Three 80-lvl Rangers. Why? ‘Cos they’re that cool.
Adine, you haven’t really read what I wrote, am I right? You can blame then on shaking the balance with regards to the new content, which in turn makes people buy stuff, spend real cash etc., which again, in turn, buggers the gem price. Simple economics: supply and demand.
Three 80-lvl Rangers. Why? ‘Cos they’re that cool.
Gear is indeed part of the new content, strictly speaking.
It is one of the reasons why it has risen, the others being the ones I stated above.
Nevertheless, thanks for your thoughts.
Cheers
Three 80-lvl Rangers. Why? ‘Cos they’re that cool.
It is supposed to be a short comment on my behalf describing the current politics of Anet with regards to the new content of the living world.
At the very beginning, I would like to say that I do realise that gems/real cash ( micropayments ) is the main source of income for the company. It has been seen in many games and, often nowadays, is preferable over monthly subscription. But, the system that loses balance ( as defined later on ) has been the reason why some games have failed because of this system ( most notably SWToR, which became a pay-to-win game ).
Nevertheless, the point that I am trying to make is that Anet has lost the balance between the new content that can be obtained via 1) gems/real cash, and 2) random drop in PvE. Let me explain why I keep saying “gems/real cash”, when, in fact, gems can be obtained via currency exchange. The reason for that is, with more and more content delivered by Anet ( purchasable with gems ) recently, gems are worth more gold than before, i.e. 1 gold = approx. 13/14 gems, which is, to be blunt, a joke. Therefore, it is more than obvious that it is less cost-effective to exchange gold to gems.
I do not want to offend anyone from Anet, but, looking at this occurence, it would appear that you have some kind of hidden agenda, which would somehow force people ( because of cost-effectiveness of gold to gem exchange ) to buy more and more gems with the use of real cash. Yes, I am aware of the fact that one’s answer to that may be: simply, don’t buy if it is too costly. No, that’s not the point. The point is what I have referred to above: the balance that has been disturbed.
The balance ought to be like that: the living world you are so proud of, should implement the equal amount of randomly obtainable objects ( such as new armour, weapon skins etc. ) and gem-only purchasable content. However, it cannot be denied that, for a couple of months now, this has not been the case and it has shifted towards the gem-only purchasable content. This, in turn, is the reason why it is unreasonable for anyone to use the unprofitable method of gems acquisition, i.e. gold to gem exchange, for the price of gems is extremely high with such a high amount of gem-only purchasable content.
To conclude, I would kindly ask Anet to reconsider your standing with regards to the new conent. To be honest with you, it is not my personal, secluded opinion. I have been meeting and talking to more and more people who feel this way, and it is the very reason why so many people feel somehow disappointed with the whole idea of the living world, and why I wanted to share it with you. I, however, do think that the living world is something original and that which makes your game special. Nonetheless, just like with everything in the world, the balance must be kept so that everyone is pleased, both the company and the customers. Please, do concentrate on choosing quality over quantity ( yes, the living world has been quite a disappointment recently as well, e.g. the Halloween event which is uncomparable to the last years event, quality-wise; or the instant trait reset worth 75 gems – please… although it’s a game and is supposed to be fun, let’s be serious about the prices you do set very high ).
I hope to hear from the rest of people out there and I would be thankful for sharing your views on the issue with us.
Best regards
Three 80-lvl Rangers. Why? ‘Cos they’re that cool.
I’m losing my hope with regards to the direction this game takes…
As you can see, hardly anyone thinks that your “works as intended” is a correct statememnt of the present state of affairs with regards to rangers, generally speaking. Either you ask us for feedback and do honestly consider our comments, or be blunt about it and say you do not really care.
Although rangers can be viable nowadays, as someone mentioned above, they are 8th/8 classes with regards to their usefulness in WvW, even PvE I would say.
I have played the ranger class from the very beginning of the game ( since its premiere ), and you haven’t yet figured out how to make all the weapons/traits useful, which saddens all of us. But when there is a chance for us to participate here, on the forums, and put forward some pieces of advice, you straightforwardly neglect them and go against the current.
And you are wrong in your choices. It definitely doesn’t “work as intended”.
Finally, although I personally think that the ranger is awesome with all its drawbacks ( I still wouldn’t choose another one ), the interesting point is made here by a rather well known ranger player, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Bjq1vcnhpQ:
“Short bow is used by me only as a mobility/evasion tool. Nothing else is good about it.” That’s quite a big ( and a correct ) statement about the class that is actually archer-based.
Best regards
Three 80-lvl Rangers. Why? ‘Cos they’re that cool.